Possibly stupid newie question - What makes the idea of universalism bad?

TreeHouse · May 18, 2011

DailyBlessings said:
If I save five people I happen to be friends with from a burning building while letting ten others burn to death inside, I'm a hero, but if I save all fifteen, I'm a liar and my actions are pointless?

I refuse to accept any theology which makes me more merciful and compassionate than God.

Wow. I never considered it like that. Food for thought indeed.

Searching_for_Christ · May 18, 2011

DailyBlessings said:
If I save five people I happen to be friends with from a burning building while letting ten others burn to death inside, I'm a hero, but if I save all fifteen, I'm a liar and my actions are pointless?

I refuse to accept any theology which makes me more merciful and compassionate than God.

Throwing in some emotional garbage to try and prove a point is useless. You need to make arguments from scripture, I will simply ignore your emotional appeal.

Lismore, I will look into it.

TreeHouse · May 18, 2011

You make a very bold assumption that we all take scriptures literally. Much as I state to my politically conservative friends, you cannot subscribe the tenets of what you believe from a single source to be the foundation of an argument. As such, just because you take the scriptures entirely literally and without question do not assume we all do. The ability to question that which creates a backbone of faith is a major emotional portion of anyone's psyche and should not ever be dismissed by anyone.

Searching_for_Christ · May 18, 2011

TreeHouse said:
You make a very bold assumption that we all take scriptures literally. Much as I state to my politically conservative friends, you cannot subscribe the tenets of what you believe from a single source to be the foundation of an argument. As such, just because you take the scriptures entirely literally and without question do not assume we all do. The ability to question that which creates a backbone of faith is a major emotional portion of anyone's psyche and should not ever be dismissed by anyone.

If your going to make any assumptions on what is truth within the Christian tradition, you shouldn't be going anywhere outside of scripture for those answers. Scriptures aren't supposed to be interpreted in the lense of emotion, but scripture by scripture. Emotionally I would like to think that all my family would be saved, but its likely that not all will...but scripture says that not all men will be saved, so THATS what I must go by. I'm also fully aware that most liberals don't take the scriptures literally, which is part of the reason you all generally fall into heresies long since dealt with. You shouldn't be neglecting the testament of history, and the testament of history says that universalism, is heresy and Unorthodox, and thus by being unorthodox is un-christian.

TreeHouse · May 18, 2011

The testament of history was written by the Roman Catholic church which basically killed anyone who decided to speak out against them. As such, history, as always, is written by the winners and the record shows that. We are all aware that the truth is not what the historical tomes necessarily tell though. They are just a snapshot of the time and in the case of the bible, with tons of translations and various people putting their individual spins upon it, it is entirely plausible that the original intent may not be what we are expecting.

And yeah, having the idea that everyone might be saved is totally unchristian, because it's not like were commanded to love our neighbor right?

Let me ask this on a personal level - what is it for you (Searching for Christ) that upsets you so much about the concept of universalism? Does your whole idea of faith somehow fall apart because someone who doesn't believe like you do might be saved as well? What is the root of your issue with it?

Searching_for_Christ · May 18, 2011

TreeHouse said:
The testament of history was written by the Roman Catholic church which basically killed anyone who decided to speak out against them. As such, history, as always, is written by the winners and the record shows that. We are all aware that the truth is not what the historical tomes necessarily tell though. They are just a snapshot of the time

Catholics killing everyone..yeah...you are thinking of medevil Christianity. What I'm talking about is the first 200-300 years or so of Christianity where doctrines where determined, the biblical cannon was set in stone, the creeds where made ect.

and in the case of the bible, with tons of translations and various people putting their individual spins upon it, it is entirely plausible that the original intent may not be what we are expecting.

are you talking about the transciption of the books of the bible throughout history?

And yeah, having the idea that everyone might be saved is totally unchristian, because it's not like were commanded to love our neighbor right?

Loving your neighbor is Christian, because you can find that in Scriptures. Believing everyone will be saved is not Christian, because you CANNOT find it in the bible.

Let me ask this on a personal level - what is it for you (Searching for Christ) that upsets you so much about the concept of universalism? Does your whole idea of faith somehow fall apart because someone who doesn't believe like you do might be saved as well? What is the root of your issue with it?

I have declared the root of the problem several times. Its not scriptural, thus I have a problem with it.

Merlin Athrawes · May 18, 2011

Searching_for_Christ said:
I find going against the general Orthodox scheme of things to be in poor taste, I mean yeah this is the liberal CHRISTIAN section of the forum, but the throwing around of heretical ideas seems to go on far too often. The salvation of all mankind isn't bad, but it isn't scriptural either, thus entertaining such ideas is a waist of time, because clearly not all are saved in the end.

Then either get used to our "heretical" ideas or don't post or read here. Yes, this "our" section of CF, one dinky little section out of what, at least a hundred? Conservatives like you have the rest of this site to yourselves and most of us regulars here in this section either never go outside here, particularly to start stuff with you, or we quickly learn not to. CF already restricts us from discussing certain topics important to us as it is...thanks largely to the exertions of conservatives like you. So don't you dare lecture to us about what we do on our small section of this site...as I said you have the whole rest of this site to yourself to expound your ideas.

As for the scripturality of universalism, I think the previous posts in this thread more than adequately demonstrate that the idea is biblically legitimate (eta: and that it's not, as you said, "emotional garbage").

If you find our opinions in that "poor taste," even when they are in fact biblically based, then nobody is pointing a gun at your head and making you read this section much less comment on it.

Merlin Athrawes · May 18, 2011

Searching_for_Christ said:
Throwing in some emotional garbage to try and prove a point is useless. You need to make arguments from scripture, I will simply ignore your emotional appeal.

Lismore, I will look into it.

Yeah, well maybe making God more cruel than an average human being is blasphemous. Did you ever think of that?

QuakerOats · May 18, 2011

Searching_for_Christ said:
What part about not coming to the Father except through Jesus makes sense if in the end we all come to the father? Or about the folks that in the end will be saying "Lord, Lord" yet they will be dismissed as never being known? none of this can be possible if universalism is true.

The specifics of universal reconciliation may vary among believers, but the basic idea is that all will be reconciled to God, either in this life or the next. I don't see how said belief necessarily negates Jesus or his actions on the cross, nor do I see it in conflict with Matthew since evildoers could easily come to God during or after the initial judgement of mankind. It really depends on what you believe about the end of days, a topic that's highly debatable.

The idea that universal reconciliation is contrary to scripture and therefore not Christian is merely one opinion in a sea of opinions on how we are to interpret scripture. 1 Cor. 15:22-24, 1 Tim. 4:10 and Col. 1:19-20 are just a sample of the verses many point to in support of universal reconciliation.

Jase · May 19, 2011

DailyBlessings said:
People are bloodthirsty to the core, and desire to see "bad people" suffer rather than be redeemed to their Father, because that way they too are allowed to hate who God hates. It's a scarier world for some people if hatred of others is not allowed, because they know it is a standard they cannot meet. Sometimes for understandable reasons. A lot of the people I know who are passionate defenders of eternal hellfire, are so because they want redress for something done to them personally. No one wants to meet their rapist in heaven, you know? It's a violent life, so we created a violent afterlife to go with it.

I'm somewhat leaning towards this being the main reason the Christian eternal hell doctrine was invented and changed over Judaism's version. Easier to make converts with the fear of eternal suffering, and allows people to feel a sense of superiority over those who don't make it.

Jase · May 19, 2011

Searching_for_Christ said:
I find going against the general Orthodox scheme of things to be in poor taste, I mean yeah this is the liberal CHRISTIAN section of the forum, but the throwing around of heretical ideas seems to go on far too often. The salvation of all mankind isn't bad, but it isn't scriptural either, thus entertaining such ideas is a waist of time, because clearly not all are saved in the end.

You're assuming the Bible's discussion of Hell in the New Testament is an accurate translation of the original. Considering the Christian Hell so grossly diverged from the Jewish version Jesus and the Apostles would have been familiar with, it seems odd to claim such assuredness in its accuracy.

TreeHouse · May 19, 2011

In some ways (and I hate to use the term devils advocate here but I suppose it fits for my argument) I can see why the idea of universalim would be threatening to a fundamentalist view. If you are raised or taught or indoctrinated into a belief system that preaches exclusivity as its main tenet, then the idea that something might allow everyone in is pretty scary because you might feel as if you were somehow invalidating your own methods and works and beliefs prior to this point.

I liken it to, and this is not me insinuating racism; just using the example, the racial tension when school segregation came about. If you are accustomed to a certain exclusivity, a club of like members, and someone of a different nature is allowed *by their own volition or otherwise* then yeah, I can see why the fundamentalist and ultraconservative theological sectors get bent over this.

The reason I maintain an open faith is because I was not brought to faith through fear but through forgiveness. So in my world, I was not taught anything or with anyone's predisposed notions. I use about 6 different bibles from the KJV to the NIV to a NRSV and find the possbility of most anything is open for debate and research and study.

Jase · May 19, 2011

Searching_for_Christ said:
If your going to make any assumptions on what is truth within the Christian tradition, you shouldn't be going anywhere outside of scripture for those answers. Scriptures aren't supposed to be interpreted in the lense of emotion, but scripture by scripture. Emotionally I would like to think that all my family would be saved, but its likely that not all will...but scripture says that not all men will be saved, so THATS what I must go by. I'm also fully aware that most liberals don't take the scriptures literally, which is part of the reason you all generally fall into heresies long since dealt with. You shouldn't be neglecting the testament of history, and the testament of history says that universalism, is heresy and Unorthodox, and thus by being unorthodox is un-christian.

You do realize your views are relatively modern right? The whole sola scriptura, no interpretation necessary literal approach to Bible hermeneutics is a modern invention, and not one held through most of Christian history. Claiming a botched 20th Century English translation of an ancient text dictates all doctrine and belief with no analysis or interpretation necessary is dangerous.

Jase · May 19, 2011

TreeHouse said:
In some ways (and I hate to use the term devils advocate here but I suppose it fits for my argument) I can see why the idea of universalim would be threatening to a fundamentalist view. If you are raised or taught or indoctrinated into a belief system that preaches exclusivity as its main tenet, then the idea that something might allow everyone in is pretty scary because you might feel as if you were somehow invalidating your own methods and works and beliefs prior to this point.

I liken it to, and this is not me insinuating racism; just using the example, the racial tension when school segregation came about. If you are accustomed to a certain exclusivity, a club of like members, and someone of a different nature is allowed *by their own volition or otherwise* then yeah, I can see why the fundamentalist and ultraconservative theological sectors get bent over this.

The reason I maintain an open faith is because I was not brought to faith through fear but through forgiveness. So in my world, I was not taught anything or with anyone's predisposed notions. I use about 6 different bibles from the KJV to the NIV to a NRSV and find the possbility of most anything is open for debate and research and study.

I agree. I see nothing inherently wrong with discussing these issues. They have, afterall, been debated by Christian church fathers, theologians, scholars, philosophers for all of Christian history. I don't think God expects us to ignore our rational and logical desire to investigate things that we don't understand.

I don't have a set view on what happens after death. As a Jew, I find the Jewish view more merciful and logical. It seems to combine a purgatory universalism type idea with annihilationism. The Christian doctrine of the majority of humanity past, present, and future spending all eternity being ripped apart and set on fire by pitch wielding demons is not only absurd to me, but the most evil, sadistic doctrine ever invented. I think we can thank Dante and Milton for propagating that view of Hell.

meliagaunt · May 19, 2011

DailyBlessings said:
If I save five people I happen to be friends with from a burning building while letting ten others burn to death inside, I'm a hero, but if I save all fifteen, I'm a liar and my actions are pointless?

I refuse to accept any theology which makes me more merciful and compassionate than God.

Excellent! :clap:

Thank you.

DailyBlessings · May 19, 2011

I love the Bible, but that doesn't mean I feel compelled to turn off both mind and heart when I open it. I don't think the Bible itself would recommend such an action.

I don't understand how someone can disdain compassion while worshipping a book that names love the greatest virtue under heaven.

rayodeluz · May 20, 2011

I posted the following in another thread, but it seems approriate to put it here as well;

As a Christian I believe that all those who have faith in Christ are saved. That's a basic tenet of Christianity. I do have a problem though with the idea that anyone who follows a different faith or belief are automatically lost as some Christians believe. To those I point out Jesus' own words in Matthew:

25When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

We don't know everything about the mind of God, so to make a blanket statement that this group is saved, or that one isn't, or that all can't be saved seems a bit arrogant. Which has more authority: God or the Bible?Jesus did say that no one comes to the father except through Him, and that all authority has been given Him on earth and in heaven. This is telling me that Jesus is the boss, and He will save whom He wants, whether that person was a Christian on earth or not, a few people, or everyone. He doesn't need our permission or input to do that.

lismore · May 20, 2011

Searching_for_Christ said:
Lismore, I will look into it.

Thanks

That's the best thing anyone can do. He who seeks finds.

Zebra1552 · May 20, 2011

TreeHouse said:
I apologize if this is a dumb question, and maybe even getting really simle answers wil help me to understand better, but as a person who was always pretty much a rank and file agnostic, one of my main challenges I faceed when I became a follower of Christ was dealing with the exclusionary model of Christianity.

Christianity IS exclusive. Jesus Himself said 'I am the way, the truth, and the life...'

That said, I realize (perhaps naively so) that the idea of having such thoughts makes me either a heretic or a lunatic depening on who you ask. I also can see where many denominations and religious sects would essentially lose their main reasoning and arguments for why they are how they are. Perhaps it has too much of the idea of religious socialism and therefore negates any real scrutiny?

Thinking Christianity is exclusive isn't heretical. Universalism is.

I guess I am just trying to find out why the idea of universal salvation is considered a bad one.

It changes doctrine that has been established for a few hundred years, for one thing. For another, it essentially means that Jesus' comments on hell in Matthew 25, or the lake of fire if you prefer that term, are lies and a number of verses in Revelation are also lies. It would mean that the Bible does not contain completely reliable information.

QuakerOats · May 20, 2011

Jaws13 said:
For another, it essentially means that Jesus' comments on hell in Matthew 25, or the lake of fire if you prefer that term, are lies and a number of verses in Revelation are also lies. It would mean that the Bible does not contain completely reliable information.

The words everlasting punishment in verse 46 have long been the subject of debate. The word translated as 'everlasting' is aiōnios, from the root word aiōn which can be translated as 'an indeterminate period of time; pertaining to an eon or age,' with many believing that to be the correct translation.

Also, I don't believe the 'lake of fire' and 'hell' are one and the same. There's sheol, meaning simply 'grave,' which has been incorrectly translated and referred to as 'hades' or 'hell,' and then there's G/gehenna or the 'lake of fire,' also known as the Valley of Hinnom, a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem.

Possibly stupid newie question - What makes the idea of universalism bad?

Newbie

simul justus et peccator

Newbie

simul justus et peccator

Newbie

simul justus et peccator

Seijin

Seijin

— ♥ — Living in Love — ♥ —

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

O Christianos Cryptos; Amor Vincit Omnia!

Inadaptado

Maranatha

Urban Nomad. Literally.

— ♥ — Living in Love — ♥ —

Similar threads