But what if you are wrong about what you are owed? What if it turns out not that you are owed, but that you owe?
Owe who what? If God made me, He owes me. Parents owe their children.
Wow!
What? That comes as a surprise? As outrageous? I know we've taken hundreds of thousands of years to get to that unequivocally. We all owe each other unconditional positive regard according to privilege don't we? From those to whom much is given and all that. So He owes the most.
God is far more unlike our best selves than God is like our best selves, that is true.
But the problem comes if we are so keen to make out that God is unlike our best selves we make out than God is more like an impersonal force, or worse our worst selves.
God is more like our best selves than God is like anything else we can comprehend.
Quite. I get very nervous when people use "God isn't like us" for love to look rather more like hate, kindness cruelty, justice injustice, mercy vindictiveness by claiming that God's ideas of love, kindness, justice and mercy aren't like our mere human ones.
Yeah, and this is my reason for taking something similar to - but not exactly - @pablito1954's line above.
But things look more tenuous if we're using these kind of analogies as a basis for making further arguments. (Although that's something that human beings do all the time.) In the context of belief, I'm inclined to think they're less useful for arguing that something *is* the case than for arguing that something *isn't* the case.
In general I'd agree, though in this specific case one can make a variant of the same point using purely causal language, so I don't think it assumes much.
Utterly abandoned, meaningless existence especially.
Poetic hyperbole methinks. As you yourself said 'I love my church, and my church loves me'. -this illustrates my notion above that all are, ultimately, saved through the faith of Christ 'pistis Christou', and the 'gift-bearing' of believers. Even if God is largely invisible and silent.
Enjoy!
Utterly abandoned, meaningless existence especially.
Poetic hyperbole methinks. As you yourself said 'I love my church, and my church loves me'. -this illustrates my notion above that all are, ultimately, saved through the faith of Christ 'pistis Christou', and the 'gift-bearing' of believers. Even if God is largely invisible and silent.
Enjoy!
Not in the slightest. The vast majority of humanity for hundreds of thousands of years at least, a hundred billion at least, have made up their own meaning. Even if Love is the ground of being. With no input from Love whatsoever, apart from incarnation and the work of the Spirit, briefly, incoherently, for a very few, very late. A story was institutionalized and here we are. With a very few 'gift bearing' very mainly to each other. In between billions made up folk meaning from the story as it migrated to Europe and beyond. Love is blindingly invisible and deafeningly silent. If Jesus saves, i.e. was Love incarnate, we'll enjoy transcendence.
True, I had not considered the many millions who lived and died before the time for which we have any history. (how are you getting on with 'Dawn of Everything' by Graeber & Wengrow BTW?). But as far as 'meaningless existence' is concerned -if life having a meaning is a delusion is that such a bad thing?
I work in the NHS and I come across many unhappy people who feel that there's just no point to anything. And many end up taking anti-depressants -and often the side-effects result in little real improvement to their situation.
True, I had not considered the many millions who lived and died before the time for which we have any history. (how are you getting on with 'Dawn of Everything' by Graeber & Wengrow BTW?). But as far as 'meaningless existence' is concerned -if life having a meaning is a delusion is that such a bad thing?
I work in the NHS and I come across many unhappy people who feel that there's just no point to anything. And many end up taking anti-depressants -and often the side-effects result in little real improvement to their situation.
I'm all for making up meaning, finding meaning as per the remarkable Viktor Frankl. Religion is great for giving people meaning, despite all the appalling Loveless toxicity in its group binding. In the face of the Nietzschean pit of meaningless I get a lot of life affirming meaning out of all sorts of distraction. Just saw Dune II for the second time in a month, this time in Imax. So worth it!
TDoE keeps getting moved to the bottom of the pile. I'm in to Shermer's The Believing Brain at the moment but turned it down in disappointed disgust yesterday because of his appalling libertarianism. The shit we believe!
God is far more unlike our best selves than God is like our best selves, that is true.
But the problem comes if we are so keen to make out that God is unlike our best selves we make out than God is more like an impersonal force, or worse our worst selves.
God is more like our best selves than God is like anything else we can comprehend.
Quite. I get very nervous when people use "God isn't like us" for love to look rather more like hate, kindness cruelty, justice injustice, mercy vindictiveness by claiming that God's ideas of love, kindness, justice and mercy aren't like our mere human ones.
Yeah, and this is my reason for taking something similar to - but not exactly - @pablito1954's line above.
I'm intrigued. In particular, by the extrapolation from God being unlike our best selves being that He's an impersonal force or our worst selves. I'm not sure where in the psyche that comes from.
In the cosmos of the imagination, there is unlimited range of expressions of power and goodness (and evil). Maybe this is a vastly larger domain than we can comprehend, but why do need to comprehend? Why can't God be incomprehensibly good, or even incomprehensibly personal? (Seeing as this is about God not being like us.)
Or, if we do need to comprehend, why does God being extremely "unlike" us lead to God being an impersonal force or our worse selves? Why does it lead to love looking like hate? Are we not able to imagine God astonishingly exceeding our best selves?
Is it distrust and fear of the unknown? Poking around online, I also wonder if it arises from moral pessimism, and that I turn out to be a moral optimist (which would be an unexpected conclusion).
... So our omniscient Creator knows already who of His creatures will attain salvation and who will be eternally damned. This goes for everyone He ever made or will make. So in spite of being a God of eternal love, He creates sentient beings knowing that they will spend eternity in conscious torment. So we may as well say that He creates such beings for the purpose of seeing them tortured for eternity. Please forgive me if I should refuse to worship such an evil God should it exist.
... If all of God's realm is already known to Him, nothing I or you do can influence what already is. So for me unless God saves everything He creates, He isn't worthy of the name.
If God knows who will be saved and who will be eternally damned, I presume that He also knows who will suffer during their life on earth (and just how much, and for how long, we suffer). I find the idea that God has to demonstrate His eternal love by saving from eternal damnation everyone that He creates, but that He doesn't have to do anything about our earthly torment, just as abhorrent, and also incoherent.
God is far more unlike our best selves than God is like our best selves, that is true.
But the problem comes if we are so keen to make out that God is unlike our best selves we make out than God is more like an impersonal force, or worse our worst selves.
God is more like our best selves than God is like anything else we can comprehend.
Quite. I get very nervous when people use "God isn't like us" for love to look rather more like hate, kindness cruelty, justice injustice, mercy vindictiveness by claiming that God's ideas of love, kindness, justice and mercy aren't like our mere human ones.
Yeah, and this is my reason for taking something similar to - but not exactly - @pablito1954's line above.
I'm intrigued. In particular, by the extrapolation from God being unlike our best selves being that He's an impersonal force or our worst selves. I'm not sure where in the psyche that comes from.
In the cosmos of the imagination, there is unlimited range of expressions of power and goodness (and evil). Maybe this is a vastly larger domain than we can comprehend, but why do need to comprehend? Why can't God be incomprehensibly good, or even incomprehensibly personal? (Seeing as this is about God not being like us.)
Or, if we do need to comprehend, why does God being extremely "unlike" us lead to God being an impersonal force or our worse selves? Why does it lead to love looking like hate? Are we not able to imagine God astonishingly exceeding our best selves?
Is it distrust and fear of the unknown? Poking around online, I also wonder if it arises from moral pessimism, and that I turn out to be a moral optimist (which would be an unexpected conclusion).
... So our omniscient Creator knows already who of His creatures will attain salvation and who will be eternally damned. This goes for everyone He ever made or will make. So in spite of being a God of eternal love, He creates sentient beings knowing that they will spend eternity in conscious torment. So we may as well say that He creates such beings for the purpose of seeing them tortured for eternity. Please forgive me if I should refuse to worship such an evil God should it exist.
... If all of God's realm is already known to Him, nothing I or you do can influence what already is. So for me unless God saves everything He creates, He isn't worthy of the name.
If God knows who will be saved and who will be eternally damned, I presume that He also knows who will suffer during their life on earth (and just how much, and for how long, we suffer). I find the idea that God has to demonstrate His eternal love by saving from eternal damnation everyone that He creates, but that He doesn't have to do anything about our earthly torment, just as abhorrent, and also incoherent.
I don't think the idea that people suffering in life is OK because they'll also suffer after death as well is particularly helpful.
I can believe that God is loving and merciful, or I can believe some people are eternally damned. I cannot do both. I can worship a damning God out of fear and selfish desire to avoid damnation; I cannot worship him out of love, because he's not loveable. That's the real bottom line.
... So our omniscient Creator knows already who of His creatures will attain salvation and who will be eternally damned. This goes for everyone He ever made or will make. So in spite of being a God of eternal love, He creates sentient beings knowing that they will spend eternity in conscious torment. So we may as well say that He creates such beings for the purpose of seeing them tortured for eternity. Please forgive me if I should refuse to worship such an evil God should it exist.
... If all of God's realm is already known to Him, nothing I or you do can influence what already is. So for me unless God saves everything He creates, He isn't worthy of the name.
If God knows who will be saved and who will be eternally damned, I presume that He also knows who will suffer during their life on earth (and just how much, and for how long, we suffer). I find the idea that God has to demonstrate His eternal love by saving from eternal damnation everyone that He creates, but that He doesn't have to do anything about our earthly torment, just as abhorrent, and also incoherent.
I don't think the idea that people suffering in life is OK because they'll also suffer after death as well is particularly helpful.
Why is that any better or worse than the idea that people suffering in life is OK because they won't suffer after death?
I can believe that God is loving and merciful, or I can believe some people are eternally damned. I cannot do both. I can worship a damning God out of fear and selfish desire to avoid damnation; I cannot worship him out of love, because he's not loveable. That's the real bottom line.
I find it perplexing that you consider a loving and merciful God to be incompatible with people suffering eternal damnation, but not incompatible with people suffering in this life. The implication appears to be that there is no sufficient justification for a loving and merciful God to allow eternal damnation, but that there is a sufficient justification for Him allowing present suffering.
Do you believe that not suffering after death is sufficient justification for people suffering in life?
Do you believe that eternal life is sufficient justification for people suffering in life?
Are there any sufficient justifications for God not preventing people from suffering in life?
(All of which He knows about from before we were born).
I think there is a big and difficult difference between suffering which happens through human or natural causes - wars, famines, earthquakes, diseases - and suffering deliberately inflicted by God.
Not that the first problem is trivial - it isn't - but it is totally different in nature to the second problem.
If you're right and these problems are not distinct in nature, I think I'd be less inclined to believe that the Christian God does indeed inflict eternal suffering, and considerably more inclined to conclude that the universe we observe is indeed incompatible with the existence of a loving and merciful God and therefore such a God does not exist - adios Christianity. A judgemental God unmoved by human suffering may exist then, but not the Christian one.
Well it would do if we did it, from the top down, from the land down. Is that what He will actually do? How? When? Where? It's hard to see restoration anywhere but briefly in Jerusalem. I know Steve's trying, starting with education with Oasis. In transcendence there would be full, positive restitution of mind for all. Steve is the best I know, at only taking the positive extracted and extrapolated from the horrifically negative of the NT. Leaving the ghastly all but universal damnationist judgementalism behind, or diluting it as in the case of Paul's homophobia. Restoration has to be of the helplessly wicked, or it's just 'spiritual' Leninism.
Just to refresh my memory can we have a couple of NT verses (Not Revelation please!) that show that God is damnationist or that Jesus is an apologist for such a God?
Like all art, it's in the eye of the beholder. And hard to miss.
Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:13: “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”
Matthew 5:28-29: “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
Matthew 5:30: “And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
Matthew 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
Fear him who has power to cast into hell (Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4-5)
Matthew 10:34: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
Matthew 10:37: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”
Matthew 12:36: “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.”
Matthew 16:24-25: “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”
Matthew 18:3: “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 22:14: “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Mark 8:38: “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
Mark 9:43: “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:”
Mark 10:21: “Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.”
Mark 10:25: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Luke 6:24: “But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.”
Luke 14:26: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
Luke 14:33: “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.”
Luke 18:22: “Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”
John 6:53: “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”
John 14:6: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Matthew 18:21-35 The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
Suffering in this life is temporary. Purgatory is temporary. Hell is not.
In the view from nowhere, outside time, it may look like all suffering is suffering. For created beings in time, who are the ones suffering, it really does matter whether suffering is temporary.
80% of 'leaders' maybe. Ordinary pew fodder (like us on this thread?) less harshly literal I would guess.
Many long to be. I have had, seen horrific experiences of damnationism in big, so called Via Media Anglican churches. The new influx from Asia and Africa are headshakingly damnationist.
Ok. FWIW, if I understand it correctly, in the Orthodox Church, Universalism is fine as 'theologoumena' - individual personal opinion - provided it's not asserted dogmatically as something everyone has to agree with.
As far as the Anglicans go then sure, you'll find flat-out damnationists as well as universalists and all points in between, as well as those who'd say it's all metaphorical anyway.
It's up to you, Martin54 whether you retain your faith or allow it to dissipate - and I don't say that glibly or lightly.
I'm not a 6-Day Creationist. Some Christians are. Does that mean I should abandon the Christian faith?
I'm not a Calvinist. Some Christians are. Does that mean I should abandon the Christian faith?
I probably have beliefs that other Christians would find objectionable or even abhorrent. They might find it icky if they saw me venerating an icon. Does that mean they should abandon their own Christian faith because they see something objectionable in mine?
It strikes me as perfectly possible to hold to a Christian faith that doesn't require in a somewhat medieval concept of hellfire and damnation. At the same time, 'our God is a consuming fire.'
I'm not indifferent to these things but it's a bit like some of the discussions we have here on faith and works or sacraments as opposed to ordinances and so on and so forth. Or salvation itself. It's not something we can unpick and unravel or dismantle into neatly Scholastic component parts.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss these things of course.
But to dismiss whole swathes of Christian belief simply because those people over there believe differently to how I might understand things seems wide of the mark.
I'm not a 6-Day Creationist. Some Christians are. Does that mean I should abandon the Christian faith?
I'm not a Calvinist. Some Christians are. Does that mean I should abandon the Christian faith?
I probably have beliefs that other Christians would find objectionable or even abhorrent. They might find it icky if they saw me venerating an icon. Does that mean they should abandon their own Christian faith because they see something objectionable in mine?
It strikes me as perfectly possible to hold to a Christian faith that doesn't require in a somewhat medieval concept of hellfire and damnation. At the same time, 'our God is a consuming fire.'
I'm not indifferent to these things but it's a bit like some of the discussions we have here on faith and works or sacraments as opposed to ordinances and so on and so forth. Or salvation itself. It's not something we can unpick and unravel or dismantle into neatly Scholastic component parts.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss these things of course.
But to dismiss whole swathes of Christian belief simply because those people over there believe differently to how I might understand things seems wide of the mark.
Ok, I know it's not as simple as that...
Can all Christianities be valid, though? The universalist would almost have to say yes. I'm not sure that counts as a strength, theologically speaking.
I don't think Universalism necessarily implies that at all.
Besides, I thought a full-on Universalist would believe that everyone will be 'saved' irrespective of religious affiliation, belief or lack of it.
If it's God who 'saves' then it's his prerogative. I don't envisage him having a check-list based on the Nicene Creed to determine the limits of his boundless mercy.
The Orthodox Church doesn't dogmatise Universalism but apparently allows it as a pious possibility. It also has a highly 'realised' ecclesiology. That isn't necessarily incompatible with Universalism as a pious hope rather than a dogmatic certainty.
As for the theology of it, I can see arguments for and against.
But you know me. Both/and.
I don't see why the theology of all this has to be completely binary. That way lies fundamentalism.
I'm not a 6-Day Creationist. Some Christians are. Does that mean I should abandon the Christian faith?
I'm not a Calvinist. Some Christians are. Does that mean I should abandon the Christian faith?
I probably have beliefs that other Christians would find objectionable or even abhorrent. They might find it icky if they saw me venerating an icon. Does that mean they should abandon their own Christian faith because they see something objectionable in mine?
It strikes me as perfectly possible to hold to a Christian faith that doesn't require in a somewhat medieval concept of hellfire and damnation. At the same time, 'our God is a consuming fire.'
I'm not indifferent to these things but it's a bit like some of the discussions we have here on faith and works or sacraments as opposed to ordinances and so on and so forth. Or salvation itself. It's not something we can unpick and unravel or dismantle into neatly Scholastic component parts.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss these things of course.
But to dismiss whole swathes of Christian belief simply because those people over there believe differently to how I might understand things seems wide of the mark.
Ok, I know it's not as simple as that...
Can all Christianities be valid, though? The universalist would almost have to say yes. I'm not sure that counts as a strength, theologically speaking.
If a religion is going to be, surely it has boundaries outside of which it ceases to be.
Probably, but where those boundaries are is always going to be a matter for debate.
The same goes for Marxism, Fascism, secular humanism, and other ideologies.
(Actually as I understand it we mostly process concepts by paradigm examples, rather than by boundaries. We're generally much firmer on saying that whatever a Christian is, the Pope is a Christian than whether the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Church of Latter Day Saints are Christians. It's easier to give an example of a bird than to decide the boundary between birds and non-avian dinosaurs.)
Of course. But that doesn't mean that God's love and mercy are constrained by those boundaries.
So, for instance, I wouldn't regard Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as 'proper' Christians in the way that I'd regard Trinitarian Christians as fellow believers, irrespective of what church or denomination they belong to. But that doesn't mean they are beyond God's love and care.
Having creedal boundaries be it the formularies of the Seven Ecumenical Councils or the 21 RC Councils or however many it is, or The Augsberg Confession or The Westminster Confession or whatever else doesn't imply that those who don't formally assent to those are necessarily 'lost'.
I'm not advocating a no-holds barred approach. Rome no longer holds that only RCs will be 'saved'. Some Orthodox 'zealots' would insist that only Orthodox Christians are the real deal but Orthodoxy itself doesn't teach that only the Orthodox will be 'saved.'
Heck, plenty of Protestant evangelicals hold to some kind of 'wider hope' whilst still being prescriptive about boundaries and holding fast to their particular convictions and distinctives.
The only groups that insist that their particular brand or strand are the only ones to be 'saved' are very tightly drawn sectarian groups. I don't find it elsewhere.
Can all Christianities be valid, though? The universalist would almost have to say yes. I'm not sure that counts as a strength, theologically speaking.
I don’t think asking exactly what is meant by “valid” is approaching Clinton–“Is” territory.
Can all Christianities be valid, though? The universalist would almost have to say yes. I'm not sure that counts as a strength, theologically speaking.
In the last few years, here and in another forum, I've read some outstanding threads on universalism that included more theological depth than this go has. Martin54 contributed valuably to one or both.
As one who has spent her life in theologically conservative churches, I was very surprised at the real thought that had gone into these very Christian proposals for universalism. No one I know in person has been thinking about things like restoration. The more common concerns sound like: how could universalism not lead to complete antinomianism, if someone doesn't have to worry about eternal conscious torment.
I recommend, if you're interested, in digging around for them. It would be within the last two years. @Martin54 might know better than I do when the discussions here took place.
I don't feel a confident enough grasp of it to summarize here without reviewing the threads, and I don't have time to do it at the moment.
Randall Rauser's now silent Youtube channel has a few very good discussions of universalism as well.
Ok. FWIW, if I understand it correctly, in the Orthodox Church, Universalism is fine as 'theologoumena' - individual personal opinion - provided it's not asserted dogmatically as something everyone has to agree with.
As far as the Anglicans go then sure, you'll find flat-out damnationists as well as universalists and all points in between, as well as those who'd say it's all metaphorical anyway.
It's up to you, Martin54 whether you retain your faith or allow it to dissipate - and I don't say that glibly or lightly.
I'm not a 6-Day Creationist. Some Christians are. Does that mean I should abandon the Christian faith?
I'm not a Calvinist. Some Christians are. Does that mean I should abandon the Christian faith?
I probably have beliefs that other Christians would find objectionable or even abhorrent. They might find it icky if they saw me venerating an icon. Does that mean they should abandon their own Christian faith because they see something objectionable in mine?
It strikes me as perfectly possible to hold to a Christian faith that doesn't require in a somewhat medieval concept of hellfire and damnation. At the same time, 'our God is a consuming fire.'
I'm not indifferent to these things but it's a bit like some of the discussions we have here on faith and works or sacraments as opposed to ordinances and so on and so forth. Or salvation itself. It's not something we can unpick and unravel or dismantle into neatly Scholastic component parts.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss these things of course.
But to dismiss whole swathes of Christian belief simply because those people over there believe differently to how I might understand things seems wide of the mark.
Ok, I know it's not as simple as that...
It's up to Love, or even just God, @Gamma Gamaliel. It's nothing to do with me. And in fact there's nothing They could do to 'restore' my faith. I'm not interested in faith, mere belief, it's meaningless. If Love wants me to know Them then They need to have shown Themselves. The only way they can is after my last breath.
And aye @Kendel. I can make universalism work, on the posit of Love. But I have no warrant, because there is none, for going beyond that posit.
@Martin54 Sorry. I shouldn't have brought you into it. I think at the time those threads were going on, you still had some hope of Love. I learned a lot from your posts.
Can all Christianities be valid, though? The universalist would almost have to say yes. I'm not sure that counts as a strength, theologically speaking.
I don’t think asking exactly what is meant by “valid” is approaching Clinton–“Is” territory.
No, but you get the point, right? I'll apologize, b/c this is Purgatory after all, and words matter, and all of that. I was simply musing about the possibility that some things out there that claim to be a Christianity ultimately might fail a Christianity Test.
Can all Christianities be valid, though? The universalist would almost have to say yes. I'm not sure that counts as a strength, theologically speaking.
I don’t think asking exactly what is meant by “valid” is approaching Clinton–“Is” territory.
No, but you get the point, right? I'll apologize, b/c this is Purgatory after all, and words matter, and all of that. I was simply musing about the possibility that some things out there that claim to be a Christianity ultimately might fail a Christianity Test.
No argument, but what I was trying to figure out was how that fits with a universalist having to say that all Christianities are valid. I was trying to parse what you meant by “valid” means in that context. Does it mean that all things that call themselves Christianity (not to mention, I guess, things that aren’t Christianity) lead to salvation? Because most universalists I know would say it is Christ, or God, who saves, not Christianity, valid or invalid.
In other words, I wasn’t trying to pull a “what does is mean?” It wasn’t a trick question. I was just trying to understand exactly what you were musing about rather than assuming and risking assuming incorrectly.
Over the last couple of days, I've been reflecting on my more visceral / emotional reaction to the idea of Hell of eternal torment (in contrast to the theology / philosophy of it). And, even as an evangelical, I don't remember having one (an emotional / visceral reaction, that is). I don't remember the idea of eternal torment playing a significant role in my Christian faith and beliefs.
To illustrate: I remember being surprised meeting evangelistic evangelicals who were much more motivated by the idea of "saving people from hell" than they were by the idea of "saving people for heaven". I found something disturbing about this attitude. Wasn't Jesus' message about the kingdom of heaven all about the possibility of good life with God right now? Rather than avoiding the threat of spending eternity in the wrong place.
Maybe this is another legacy of liberal evangelicalism.
@Martin54 Sorry. I shouldn't have brought you into it. I think at the time those threads were going on, you still had some hope of Love. I learned a lot from your posts.
No apology necessary. I can still articulate Love, regardless of mere belief. Belief obviously gets in the way.
Over the last couple of days, I've been reflecting on my more visceral / emotional reaction to the idea of Hell of eternal torment (in contrast to the theology / philosophy of it). And, even as an evangelical, I don't remember having one (an emotional / visceral reaction, that is). I don't remember the idea of eternal torment playing a significant role in my Christian faith and beliefs.
To illustrate: I remember being surprised meeting evangelistic evangelicals who were much more motivated by the idea of "saving people from hell" than they were by the idea of "saving people for heaven". I found something disturbing about this attitude. Wasn't Jesus' message about the kingdom of heaven all about the possibility of good life with God right now? Rather than avoiding the threat of spending eternity in the wrong place.
Maybe this is another legacy of liberal evangelicalism.
All this resonates with me. But what do you mean by 'legacy of liberal evangelicalism '?
...
I don't know much about the 'liberal evangelical' tradition. I'm not sure it was a thing when I was an evangelical, although there was a sliding scale between ultra-conservative and more liberal forms - although they wouldn't have labelled themselves 'liberal' in my day.
I might be wrong but I'd associate liberal evangelicalism with some Baptist, Methodist and URC churches and a segment of Anglican evangelicalism and tend to think of it as evangelical in style and ethos but more liberal on Dead Horse issues and the handling of scripture.
And rather more ecumenical. As far as I can piece together, liberal evangelicalism was predominant until conservative evangelicalism started flexing its muscles in the 1960's. (Think John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones.) The Anglican Evangelical Group Movement was disbanded in 1967. I'm less clear how the developments affected other Protestant denominations.
I know the Keswick Convention was also relevant - that people I knew from church attended what is definitely, possibly definitively, a British conservative evangelical gathering, but suspect that the tradition I experienced was more rooted in liberal evangelical thinking.
I'm more-or-less working back from what I can remember of the theology, doctrine and (importantly) ecumenical and other attitudes of those years.
I remember being surprised meeting evangelistic evangelicals who were much more motivated by the idea of "saving people from hell" than they were by the idea of "saving people for heaven". I found something disturbing about this attitude. Wasn't Jesus' message about the kingdom of heaven all about the possibility of good life with God right now? Rather than avoiding the threat of spending eternity in the wrong place.
I think ultimately it comes down to which message will convince more people to join up. The “good life with God” is all about self sacrifice, abstinence, humility, taking up one’s cross and all that not-fun crap - not many people are going to be enthused by such a prospect, or to voluntarily sign up for it if they don’t have to. Being saved from Hell provides the “have to” part - a consequence of disobedience that’s severe enough that they’ll choose the crap-but-not-as-bad-as-that option.
This is the chief problem of universalism, I think. If everyone is saved regardless then why would they have to bother doing (or not doing) anything they don’t want to do (or not do)?
I think most Universalists would say that you will have to do the "not fun crap stuff" at some point - one side or the other of the grave. There has to be a process of regeneration that avoids, to put it bluntly, populating heaven with the same motley bunch who've made this world the pl7ace it is.
I think "starting now" as it were is worth it for three reasons:
1. The further down you go the further up there is to climb. Think of Marley's chain in terms of it getting longer as time goes on.
2. Hope.
3. People trying to improve here rather than screwing each other over should improve things in this life. Whether this has happened is hard to judge as we have no control group.
This post is fascinating to me. I’d never considered that issue for universalists. Thank you.
Of course, the huge problem with trying to compare results in any group of human beings is our inability to know who’s “for real” and who’s not—either going through the motions or outright hypocrite.
Yes, which is why I find the parable of the wheat and the tares helpful.
We never quite knew how to deal with that one back in my full-on restorationist days. We held up high-standards of behaviour for church membership etc and generally, funny this, higher for other people than for ourselves.
Then there's the parable of the Johnny-Come-Latelys getting paid as much as those who'd 'borne the heat and burden of the day.'
There's a story about one of the Desert Fathers - I forget which one - who was calling out to God for mercy on his deathbed. His brother monks were perplexed as they regarded him as an exceptionally holy man.
When they remonstrated with him he said, 'My brothers, I have not even begun to repent.'
If nothing else, we can none of us say, 'What about him/her/them over there ...'
Comments
What? That comes as a surprise? As outrageous? I know we've taken hundreds of thousands of years to get to that unequivocally. We all owe each other unconditional positive regard according to privilege don't we? From those to whom much is given and all that. So He owes the most.
Because existence exposes one to suffering?
Yeah, and this is my reason for taking something similar to - but not exactly - @pablito1954's line above.
Utterly abandoned, meaningless existence especially.
In general I'd agree, though in this specific case one can make a variant of the same point using purely causal language, so I don't think it assumes much.
Poetic hyperbole methinks. As you yourself said 'I love my church, and my church loves me'. -this illustrates my notion above that all are, ultimately, saved through the faith of Christ 'pistis Christou', and the 'gift-bearing' of believers. Even if God is largely invisible and silent.
Enjoy!
Not in the slightest. The vast majority of humanity for hundreds of thousands of years at least, a hundred billion at least, have made up their own meaning. Even if Love is the ground of being. With no input from Love whatsoever, apart from incarnation and the work of the Spirit, briefly, incoherently, for a very few, very late. A story was institutionalized and here we are. With a very few 'gift bearing' very mainly to each other. In between billions made up folk meaning from the story as it migrated to Europe and beyond. Love is blindingly invisible and deafeningly silent. If Jesus saves, i.e. was Love incarnate, we'll enjoy transcendence.
I work in the NHS and I come across many unhappy people who feel that there's just no point to anything. And many end up taking anti-depressants -and often the side-effects result in little real improvement to their situation.
I'm all for making up meaning, finding meaning as per the remarkable Viktor Frankl. Religion is great for giving people meaning, despite all the appalling Loveless toxicity in its group binding. In the face of the Nietzschean pit of meaningless I get a lot of life affirming meaning out of all sorts of distraction. Just saw Dune II for the second time in a month, this time in Imax. So worth it!
TDoE keeps getting moved to the bottom of the pile. I'm in to Shermer's The Believing Brain at the moment but turned it down in disappointed disgust yesterday because of his appalling libertarianism. The shit we believe!
In the cosmos of the imagination, there is unlimited range of expressions of power and goodness (and evil). Maybe this is a vastly larger domain than we can comprehend, but why do need to comprehend? Why can't God be incomprehensibly good, or even incomprehensibly personal? (Seeing as this is about God not being like us.)
Or, if we do need to comprehend, why does God being extremely "unlike" us lead to God being an impersonal force or our worse selves? Why does it lead to love looking like hate? Are we not able to imagine God astonishingly exceeding our best selves?
Is it distrust and fear of the unknown? Poking around online, I also wonder if it arises from moral pessimism, and that I turn out to be a moral optimist (which would be an unexpected conclusion).
In relation to pablito1954's argument: If God knows who will be saved and who will be eternally damned, I presume that He also knows who will suffer during their life on earth (and just how much, and for how long, we suffer). I find the idea that God has to demonstrate His eternal love by saving from eternal damnation everyone that He creates, but that He doesn't have to do anything about our earthly torment, just as abhorrent, and also incoherent.
I don't think the idea that people suffering in life is OK because they'll also suffer after death as well is particularly helpful.
I can believe that God is loving and merciful, or I can believe some people are eternally damned. I cannot do both. I can worship a damning God out of fear and selfish desire to avoid damnation; I cannot worship him out of love, because he's not loveable. That's the real bottom line.
I'm trying not to be in the business of creating gods, unless I'm writing a fantasy TTRPG.
All G/gods are created. Including untraceable Love in infinite nature.
I find it perplexing that you consider a loving and merciful God to be incompatible with people suffering eternal damnation, but not incompatible with people suffering in this life. The implication appears to be that there is no sufficient justification for a loving and merciful God to allow eternal damnation, but that there is a sufficient justification for Him allowing present suffering.
Do you believe that not suffering after death is sufficient justification for people suffering in life?
Do you believe that eternal life is sufficient justification for people suffering in life?
Are there any sufficient justifications for God not preventing people from suffering in life?
(All of which He knows about from before we were born).
Not that the first problem is trivial - it isn't - but it is totally different in nature to the second problem.
If you're right and these problems are not distinct in nature, I think I'd be less inclined to believe that the Christian God does indeed inflict eternal suffering, and considerably more inclined to conclude that the universe we observe is indeed incompatible with the existence of a loving and merciful God and therefore such a God does not exist - adios Christianity. A judgemental God unmoved by human suffering may exist then, but not the Christian one.
Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:13: “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”
Matthew 5:28-29: “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
Matthew 5:30: “And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
Matthew 7:13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
Fear him who has power to cast into hell (Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4-5)
Matthew 10:34: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
Matthew 10:37: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”
Matthew 12:36: “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.”
Matthew 16:24-25: “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”
Matthew 18:3: “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 22:14: “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Mark 8:38: “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
Mark 9:43: “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:”
Mark 10:21: “Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.”
Mark 10:25: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Luke 6:24: “But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.”
Luke 14:26: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
Luke 14:33: “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.”
Luke 18:22: “Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.”
John 6:53: “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.”
John 14:6: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Matthew 18:21-35 The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
Luke 16:19-31 The Rich Man and Lazarus
In the view from nowhere, outside time, it may look like all suffering is suffering. For created beings in time, who are the ones suffering, it really does matter whether suffering is temporary.
Many long to be. I have had, seen horrific experiences of damnationism in big, so called Via Media Anglican churches. The new influx from Asia and Africa are headshakingly damnationist.
As far as the Anglicans go then sure, you'll find flat-out damnationists as well as universalists and all points in between, as well as those who'd say it's all metaphorical anyway.
It's up to you, Martin54 whether you retain your faith or allow it to dissipate - and I don't say that glibly or lightly.
I'm not a 6-Day Creationist. Some Christians are. Does that mean I should abandon the Christian faith?
I'm not a Calvinist. Some Christians are. Does that mean I should abandon the Christian faith?
I probably have beliefs that other Christians would find objectionable or even abhorrent. They might find it icky if they saw me venerating an icon. Does that mean they should abandon their own Christian faith because they see something objectionable in mine?
It strikes me as perfectly possible to hold to a Christian faith that doesn't require in a somewhat medieval concept of hellfire and damnation. At the same time, 'our God is a consuming fire.'
I'm not indifferent to these things but it's a bit like some of the discussions we have here on faith and works or sacraments as opposed to ordinances and so on and so forth. Or salvation itself. It's not something we can unpick and unravel or dismantle into neatly Scholastic component parts.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss these things of course.
But to dismiss whole swathes of Christian belief simply because those people over there believe differently to how I might understand things seems wide of the mark.
Ok, I know it's not as simple as that...
Can all Christianities be valid, though? The universalist would almost have to say yes. I'm not sure that counts as a strength, theologically speaking.
Besides, I thought a full-on Universalist would believe that everyone will be 'saved' irrespective of religious affiliation, belief or lack of it.
If it's God who 'saves' then it's his prerogative. I don't envisage him having a check-list based on the Nicene Creed to determine the limits of his boundless mercy.
The Orthodox Church doesn't dogmatise Universalism but apparently allows it as a pious possibility. It also has a highly 'realised' ecclesiology. That isn't necessarily incompatible with Universalism as a pious hope rather than a dogmatic certainty.
As for the theology of it, I can see arguments for and against.
But you know me. Both/and.
I don't see why the theology of all this has to be completely binary. That way lies fundamentalism.
The same goes for Marxism, Fascism, secular humanism, and other ideologies.
(Actually as I understand it we mostly process concepts by paradigm examples, rather than by boundaries. We're generally much firmer on saying that whatever a Christian is, the Pope is a Christian than whether the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Church of Latter Day Saints are Christians. It's easier to give an example of a bird than to decide the boundary between birds and non-avian dinosaurs.)
So, for instance, I wouldn't regard Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as 'proper' Christians in the way that I'd regard Trinitarian Christians as fellow believers, irrespective of what church or denomination they belong to. But that doesn't mean they are beyond God's love and care.
Having creedal boundaries be it the formularies of the Seven Ecumenical Councils or the 21 RC Councils or however many it is, or The Augsberg Confession or The Westminster Confession or whatever else doesn't imply that those who don't formally assent to those are necessarily 'lost'.
I'm not advocating a no-holds barred approach. Rome no longer holds that only RCs will be 'saved'. Some Orthodox 'zealots' would insist that only Orthodox Christians are the real deal but Orthodoxy itself doesn't teach that only the Orthodox will be 'saved.'
Heck, plenty of Protestant evangelicals hold to some kind of 'wider hope' whilst still being prescriptive about boundaries and holding fast to their particular convictions and distinctives.
The only groups that insist that their particular brand or strand are the only ones to be 'saved' are very tightly drawn sectarian groups. I don't find it elsewhere.
This Brit doesn't understand!
With regard, however, to: I don’t think asking exactly what is meant by “valid” is approaching Clinton–“Is” territory.
In the last few years, here and in another forum, I've read some outstanding threads on universalism that included more theological depth than this go has. Martin54 contributed valuably to one or both.
As one who has spent her life in theologically conservative churches, I was very surprised at the real thought that had gone into these very Christian proposals for universalism. No one I know in person has been thinking about things like restoration. The more common concerns sound like: how could universalism not lead to complete antinomianism, if someone doesn't have to worry about eternal conscious torment.
I recommend, if you're interested, in digging around for them. It would be within the last two years. @Martin54 might know better than I do when the discussions here took place.
I don't feel a confident enough grasp of it to summarize here without reviewing the threads, and I don't have time to do it at the moment.
Randall Rauser's now silent Youtube channel has a few very good discussions of universalism as well.
It's up to Love, or even just God, @Gamma Gamaliel. It's nothing to do with me. And in fact there's nothing They could do to 'restore' my faith. I'm not interested in faith, mere belief, it's meaningless. If Love wants me to know Them then They need to have shown Themselves. The only way they can is after my last breath.
And aye @Kendel. I can make universalism work, on the posit of Love. But I have no warrant, because there is none, for going beyond that posit.
No, but you get the point, right? I'll apologize, b/c this is Purgatory after all, and words matter, and all of that. I was simply musing about the possibility that some things out there that claim to be a Christianity ultimately might fail a Christianity Test.
In other words, I wasn’t trying to pull a “what does is mean?” It wasn’t a trick question. I was just trying to understand exactly what you were musing about rather than assuming and risking assuming incorrectly.
To illustrate: I remember being surprised meeting evangelistic evangelicals who were much more motivated by the idea of "saving people from hell" than they were by the idea of "saving people for heaven". I found something disturbing about this attitude. Wasn't Jesus' message about the kingdom of heaven all about the possibility of good life with God right now? Rather than avoiding the threat of spending eternity in the wrong place.
Maybe this is another legacy of liberal evangelicalism.
No apology necessary. I can still articulate Love, regardless of mere belief. Belief obviously gets in the way.
Thank Love we have no evidence whatsoever of God.
All this resonates with me. But what do you mean by 'legacy of liberal evangelicalism '?
I'm more-or-less working back from what I can remember of the theology, doctrine and (importantly) ecumenical and other attitudes of those years.
I think ultimately it comes down to which message will convince more people to join up. The “good life with God” is all about self sacrifice, abstinence, humility, taking up one’s cross and all that not-fun crap - not many people are going to be enthused by such a prospect, or to voluntarily sign up for it if they don’t have to. Being saved from Hell provides the “have to” part - a consequence of disobedience that’s severe enough that they’ll choose the crap-but-not-as-bad-as-that option.
This is the chief problem of universalism, I think. If everyone is saved regardless then why would they have to bother doing (or not doing) anything they don’t want to do (or not do)?
I think "starting now" as it were is worth it for three reasons:
1. The further down you go the further up there is to climb. Think of Marley's chain in terms of it getting longer as time goes on.
2. Hope.
3. People trying to improve here rather than screwing each other over should improve things in this life. Whether this has happened is hard to judge as we have no control group.
Of course, the huge problem with trying to compare results in any group of human beings is our inability to know who’s “for real” and who’s not—either going through the motions or outright hypocrite.
We never quite knew how to deal with that one back in my full-on restorationist days. We held up high-standards of behaviour for church membership etc and generally, funny this, higher for other people than for ourselves.
Then there's the parable of the Johnny-Come-Latelys getting paid as much as those who'd 'borne the heat and burden of the day.'
There's a story about one of the Desert Fathers - I forget which one - who was calling out to God for mercy on his deathbed. His brother monks were perplexed as they regarded him as an exceptionally holy man.
When they remonstrated with him he said, 'My brothers, I have not even begun to repent.'
If nothing else, we can none of us say, 'What about him/her/them over there ...'