# Why aren't more Christians universalists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2018, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778 "2018-05-07T19:24:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/221 "2018-05-20T18:29:02Z")
I like and appreciate that list, **begbert2** , but I have some problems with it. For one thing, I’m not sure which, if any, of those options are compatible with a belief in some sort of Purgatory. But that’s kind of tangential, at best, to the thread topic. More relevantly, I’m not sure there’s an effective difference between #3, and #1 or 2. If all that is required to enter heaven is “to complete some sort of nominal task,” and it’s a task that anyone can complete, doesn’t that effectively mean that “Anyone with even the slightest interest in doing so can enter heaven”? Personally, I’d break down the possibilities like this: 1. Everyone will be saved (or “enter heaven” or “have eternal life” or whatever wording you want to use). 2. Salvation is freely available to everyone, but some will choose to reject it. 3. Salvation is not available to everyone, or at least the “price of admission” is higher than some people are ready or willing to pay. I’d only call #1 universalism, though I think some are including #2 under that label. Each of these could be broken down into subcategories. For example, my #1 includes both your #0 (“You WILL enter heaven. You have no choice”) and something like “Everyone will, ultimately, choose heaven.” ---
**Author:** ![truthseeker3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@truthseeker3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthseeker3)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/222 "2018-05-20T18:38:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Why? I’d think that knowing heathens are more moral than Christians in this sense would be an excellent reason to believe in Universalism. And I thought that good works don’t cut it. Well, I was thinking about the parable of the sheep and the goats. (See Mathew 25:31 and following. [Matthew 25 - NIV - “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like t...](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/25.html) It’s the third parable.) It seems to suggest that some nonbelievers are going to be welcomed in because they served Jesus in “the least of these”, but it also seems to suggest that some nominal Christians are going to be cast out. > [@Voyager](#): > > Then those missionaries were wasting a lot of time, weren’t they? I don’t think Jesus would consider building schools and feeding people and other humanitarian efforts to be a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![truthseeker3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@truthseeker3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthseeker3)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/223 "2018-05-20T18:54:02Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Whether heathens can stumble upon “choosing god” by accident or not relates to the question of whether people choose God. > > Universalism, as I understand it, is related to whether _God_ chooses _people_. It’s my understanding that in a truly universalist mythos whether or not you choose/find God would be an unimportant detail - something to chat about over afterlife-coffee, not something that significantly effects your future. Hmm… I’m not sure where you’re going with this, but I’m not a universalist. I would put myself at **Thudlo Boink** level 2: salvation is available to everyone, but some will reject it. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/224 "2018-05-20T23:54:05Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Personally, I’d break down the possibilities like this: > > 1. Everyone will be saved (or “enter heaven” or “have eternal life” or whatever wording you want to use). > > 2. Salvation is freely available to everyone, but some will choose to reject it. > > 3. Salvation is not available to everyone, or at least the “price of admission” is higher than some people are ready or willing to pay. > > I’d only call #1 universalism, though I think some are including #2 under that label. > > Each of these could be broken down into subcategories. For example, my #1 includes both your #0 (“You WILL enter heaven. You have no choice”) and something like “Everyone will, ultimately, choose heaven.” For #2, what does “freely” mean? Does it mean that a person knows what will happen to them if they reject salvation? In other words, does rejecting it mean knowingly accepting an eternity of suffering or does it mean knowingly suffering until you eventually tap out and accept salvation? Because I think the latter fits under the universalist schema. With regards the former, if Hell is a place of great suffering, I can’t imagine anyone turning down salvation unless personality disorders and mental illness carry over into afterlife. Most importantly, though, is the question of when the choice is made. Conventional dogma says we make the choice only while we’re alive and we’re essentially bound to it permanently, but universalists believe that the choice can be made in the afterlife as well. This matters because in our earthly existence, we have eleventy hundred different religions to choose from (as well as the atheist option) and no empirical way to know which one is the ticket to salvation. Supposedly in the afterlife, the truth will be made crystal clear, so our choices will be immensely simplified. I don’t think this should be overlooked in the different scenarios. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/225 "2018-05-21T03:52:04Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Pascal’s Wager should really be called Pascal’s Sophistry… > It just annoys me to see that thing even referenced as if it could _ever_ be useful. Oh it was highly useful: it was one of the earliest presentations of probability in a risk analysis context. Very influential. > [@begbert2](#): > > Pascal’s Wager should really be called Pascal’s Sophistry, because it’s so flimsy it can only be held to suggest things if a person deliberately sets up their examples to ignore everything that shreds whatever point they’re going for. And there’s always a possible afterlife that shreds the point, because there’s no limitation on the possible gods so there could always be one that punishes what you’re advocating and rewards what you’re criticizing. Taken without sophistry it’s literally impossible for the Wager to advocate for any specific belief or behavior. In the context of France in 1654 I think it was reasonable to put restrictive exogenous constraints on the range of plausible metaphysical frameworks. Not so much now. But **Skammer** has explicitly set aside a non-deistic, non-Christian universe, so I think it’s fair rule out for the purposes of argument the possibility that eg a hostile deity is running the show. So, yes, I _do_ think Pascal’s wager works in this context. We’re basically discussing 2 interpretations of scripture after all. Pascal’s Wager is destroyed when you consider broad and competing metaphysical systems, but that’s been ruled out here. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/226 "2018-05-21T06:39:47Z")
> [@truthseeker3](#): > > I don’t think Jesus would consider building schools and feeding people and other humanitarian efforts to be a waste of time. I’ve gotten Baptist and other missionaries at my door, and I’m pretty sure my house does not look like I need aid. Never a Mormon one, but Mormons owned the house before me, and I think there is lamb’s blood on the doorpost or something that keeps them away. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/227 "2018-05-21T18:02:24Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > I like and appreciate that list, **begbert2** , but I have some problems with it. > > For one thing, I’m not sure which, if any, of those options are compatible with a belief in some sort of Purgatory. But that’s kind of tangential, at best, to the thread topic. Purgatories that end eventually would fall under “some sort of nominal task”. It’s a hoop you have to jump through. The way I figure it the really important distinction is whether you can ever reach a point where you can _never_ get into heaven, no matter what you do thereafter - and whether that point comes before or after you get clear instructions about what the rules are (which is to say, before or after you die). > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > More relevantly, I’m not sure there’s an effective difference between #3, and #1 or 2. If all that is required to enter heaven is “to complete some sort of nominal task,” and it’s a task that anyone can complete, doesn’t that effectively mean that “Anyone with even the slightest interest in doing so can enter heaven”? I considered _anything_ you might be required to do to be a “nominal task”. Slaughter your entire family with your teeth. Burn in hell for a trillion years. Have your brain removed and replaced with a Furby. Concede you were wrong about something on the internet. No matter the task, no matter how grueling or nightmarish, if you were still always presented with an achievable path into heaven, then I categorized it as a ‘nominal task’. The difference between 1 and 2 was a dig at the idea that you have a free choice if only one option is even remotely tolerable. Technically 2 should have come before 1 because being offered a choice with a gun to your head is a lot like not being offered a choice at all, but having the options in the correct order would have weakened the joke, so yeah. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Personally, I’d break down the possibilities like this: > > 1. Everyone will be saved (or “enter heaven” or “have eternal life” or whatever wording you want to use). > > 2. Salvation is freely available to everyone, but some will choose to reject it. > > 3. Salvation is not available to everyone, or at least the “price of admission” is higher than some people are ready or willing to pay. > > I’d only call #1 universalism, though I think some are including #2 under that label. I think that whether or not you can ever do something that will permanently close the door in your face makes a _huge_ difference - and it’s something that you don’t seem to account for. In your list it would be an option #4 - prices of admission that people _cannot_ pay, whether they want to or not. Though I suppose that if you only consider your option #1 to be true universalism, it matters less: any system that _allows_ people not to get in would be disqualified equally, regardless of the reason for their absence. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Each of these could be broken down into subcategories. For example, my #1 includes both your #0 (“You WILL enter heaven. You have no choice”) and something like “Everyone will, ultimately, choose heaven.” Regarding the “Everyone will, ultimately, choose heaven” option, my immediate question is _why_ will they all ultimately choose heaven. If it’s because they don’t have actually have a choice, it’s my option #0. If it’s because there’s a gun to their heads, it’s my option #2. If it’s something else, well, then what is it? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/228 "2018-05-21T19:48:58Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Regarding the “Everyone will, ultimately, choose heaven” option, my immediate question is _why_ will they all ultimately choose heaven. If it’s because they don’t have actually have a choice, it’s my option #0. If it’s because there’s a gun to their heads, it’s my option #2. If it’s something else, well, then what is it? ## Boredom in limbo, self-interest insofar as heaven is more comfortable than limbo. It might take some time for a few stubborn folk though. Hey, we have _all the time in the world_, BWHAHAHAHA. While I’m here, there’s also a variant of begbert2 #2, where hell is eternal death (where the worm ever turns) but not eternal Hollywood horror show. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/229 "2018-05-21T20:46:55Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Boredom in limbo, self-interest insofar as heaven is more comfortable than limbo. It might take some time for a few stubborn folk though. Hey, we have _all the time in the world_, BWHAHAHAHA. Don’t have much faith in the human spirit, do you? Suppose you have the boring limbo/comfortable heaven scenario, except that it’s ruled by the devil instead of god? Or you have to do something morally unconscionable to get in? Note that we’re talking about people here - we make our own problems. Some people would consider it morally unconscionable to accept a heaven that also lets jews/blacks/women/cucks/liberals in. Christians admire the concept of a martyr - one who sacrifices themselves for the greater good. But that goes the other way as well: a person can sacrifice themselves for the greater _bad_. (Bad in _your_ opinion, anyway.) A person such as Hitler might choose to ‘make the sacrifice’ of not hobnobbing with jews forever - literally. Particularly if the punishment is mere mild boredom, I imagine it would be an easy decision to make, with the same outcome being reached day after day after day. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > While I’m here, there’s also a variant of begbert2 #2, where hell is eternal death (where the worm ever turns) but not eternal Hollywood horror show. The only difference between my #1 and #2 was that I was taking a potshot at the persistent argument that it’s not coercive to only offer one good option. Whether or not annihilation is a coercively bad option depends on the person faced with the decision. I can _easily_ picture myself happily choosing annihilation over condoning the horrors of the christian god. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/230 "2018-05-21T22:35:56Z")
“They always talk tough in the beginning. But after a couple of thousand years of watching _Leave it to Beaver_ they change their tune.” _::cracks knuckles::_ Option 2. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2018, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/231 "2018-05-21T22:40:03Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > “They always talk tough in the beginning. But after a couple of thousand years of watching _Leave it to Beaver_ they change their tune.” _::cracks knuckles::_ > Option 2. Good god, man, are there _no_ limits to what you will do?!?!? ---
**Author:** ![truthseeker3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@truthseeker3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthseeker3)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/232 "2018-05-22T17:46:42Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve gotten Baptist and other missionaries at my door, and I’m pretty sure my house does not look like I need aid. Then again, material wealth isn’t mutually exclusive with misery. > [@Mother\_Teresa](#): > > In the developed countries there is a poverty of intimacy, a poverty of spirit, of loneliness, of lack of love. There is no greater sickness in the world than that one. > **["In the developed countries there is a poverty of intimacy..." Mother Teresa.](http://www.boes.org/docs2/teresa07.html)** > > ".... a poverty of spirit, of loneliness, of lack of love. There is no greater sickness in the world today than that one." - BOES.ORG Children's Rights Across the World ---
**Author:** ![truthseeker3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@truthseeker3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthseeker3)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/233 "2018-05-22T17:53:55Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Hey, we have _all the time in the world_, BWHAHAHAHA. This is the usual assumption - that eternity is lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of time - but that might not be the case. I’ve heard people speculate that the afterlife is actually outside of time, which would mean that a person who isn’t ready for heaven can’t repent later because there \* is \* no later. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/234 "2018-05-22T17:56:21Z")
> [@truthseeker3](#): > > This is the usual assumption - that eternity is lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of time - but that might not be the case. I’ve heard people speculate that the afterlife is actually outside of time, which would mean that a person who isn’t ready for heaven can’t repent later because there \* is \* no later. But who would care? Without the passage of time there is no experience. You just become a photograph; a statue. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2018, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/235 "2018-05-22T18:07:45Z")
> [@truthseeker3](#): > > This is the usual assumption - that eternity is lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of time - but that might not be the case. I’ve heard people speculate that the afterlife is actually outside of time, which would mean that a person who isn’t ready for heaven can’t repent later because there \* is \* no later. “Outside of time”-What does that mean? Time isn’t a location you can step into and out of. It is the “effect” of “cause and effect”. Without time, everything doesn’t happen slower or faster, and I doubt that everything would happen at once because things happen because a sequence of other things happened to cause that thing to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2018, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/236 "2018-05-23T05:25:20Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > “Outside of time”-What does that mean? Time isn’t a location you can step into and out of. It is the “effect” of “cause and effect”. Without time, everything doesn’t happen slower or faster, and I doubt that everything would happen at once because things happen because a sequence of other things happened to cause that thing to happen. I’ve heard of the Creator existing outside of time; this is the first time I’ve heard of the afterlife existing outside of it. For the Deity, we can imagine the Creator viewing the formation of the Earth, its destruction when the sun turns into a red giant and everything in between all at once, as a panorama can be seen from a tall mountain or as a Lord of the Rings fan can consider the work after reading it a dozen times. In the afterlife context, I suppose those with sufficiently high library privileges could do the same, regardless of their date of death. Regarding the OP, rationalists with complete access to all relevant information might conceivably make identical choices, provided the choice set is discrete rather than continuous. Like robots. As for the irrational… ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2018, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/237 "2018-05-23T05:40:53Z")
> [@truthseeker3](#): > > Then again, material wealth isn’t mutually exclusive with misery. > > ["In the developed countries there is a poverty of intimacy..." Mother Teresa.](http://www.boes.org/docs2/teresa07.html) I’m probably happier than they are. When they came to the door, to get them out quickly and nicely, I told them I was Jewish, figuring out that if they thought I believed in God they’d leave me alone. No chance. They started to tell me about how I wouldn’t be saved until I became a Christian, which led me to launch into my 2,000 years of torture, oppression and forced conversion at the hands of Christianity. They scampered away - and after that I knew I was happier than they were. Actually, my happiness never came up. We all know why missionaries go. Mitt Romney didn’t go to Paris for the Mormons to improve their food and/or happiness. Missionary work is a gentler side of the forced conversions those nice Spanish priests forced on the Indians in the Americas. It was all done for the souls of the heathen. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2018, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/238 "2018-05-23T17:27:40Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I’ve heard of the Creator existing outside of time; this is the first time I’ve heard of the afterlife existing outside of it. Being raised mormon, we were always told that the afterlife involved hanging around with God (well, the _good_ afterlife anyway) and thus you’d be exactly as outside of time as God is. However I never interpreted the phrase “outside of time” as meaning that those outside of time don’t _experience_ time - that’s kind of an absurd idea because without time no actions can take place and God is clearly described as doing things, so there you go: God experiences time. It’s just not necessarily _our_ time, as we experience it on earth. Your description of a panorama and a reader’s perspective on a book they’re holding are good analogies. The idea that god is experiencing his own time independent of time in our universe don’t appear to be what **truthseeker3** was talking about, however - they proposed that outside of time there “is no later”. That’s a theological model that makes little sense to me, because then it would be impossible for God to have ever done anything - including creating the universe. If God doesn’t experience time then either the universe always seemed to exist for it, in which case it didn’t need creation, or it doesn’t exist and that’s just the way it is; nothing God can do about it because God can’t _do_ anything. Unless of course **truthseeker3** meant that God experiences time, but in the afterlife we _won’t_ - we’ll be frozen in amber for God’s viewing pleasure. (Not really benevolent, that.) Or perhaps the model is simpler, and more plausible - our universe is a book that God is reading, and we only have an “afterlife” in the sense that after we die in-story, God is free to flip back through the pages and review the parts when we were alive - which we’ll re-experience the same way we did the first time, because that’s all we are. (Also everything is predetermined and free will is a lie, but we already knew that.) That theological would be self-consistent, _and_ would solve the problem of evil (because we’re just fictional characters so god doesn’t need to be benevolent to us), but bears virtually no resemblance to any standard christian afterlife model. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/239 "2018-05-24T05:24:27Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It’s just not necessarily _our_ time, as we experience it on earth. Your description of a panorama and a reader’s perspective on a book they’re holding are good analogies. This interpretation is basically straight-up Calvinism. > [@](#): > > The idea that god is experiencing his own time independent of time in our universe don’t appear to be what **truthseeker3** was talking about, however - they proposed that outside of time there “is no later”. In Kurt Vonnegut’s _Slaughterhouse Five_, aliens known as Tralfamadorians feel sorry for Earthlings who can only see in 3 dimensions. Tralfamadorians view the world in 4D: humans appear as long centipeeds with a baby at one end and (perhaps) an elderly person at the other. By analogy of course. So they are not only outside of Earthling time, they are outside of their own time. I don’t pretend to know Vonnegut’s degree of seriousness. But I see that wiki has an article on [four dimensionalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensionalism) which captures the framework. > [@](#): > > That’s a theological model that makes little sense to me, because then it would be impossible for God to have ever done anything - including creating the universe. If God doesn’t experience time then either the universe always seemed to exist for it, in which case it didn’t need creation, or it doesn’t exist and that’s just the way it is; nothing God can do about it because God can’t _do_ anything. I don’t think the Tralfamadorians see things this way. They experience time, but they can also see it all at once. But does that really make any sense? [del]Beats me[/del] It’s a mystery! Anyway, under this scenario the Celestials place mixing bowls with coils attached to the heads of newly harvested souls and give them a good zap so they can view things correctly in 4D. Once they acquire this quickened understanding, all of them automatonically make the wise and correct choice eventually/immediately/pretty much the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2018, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778/240 "2018-05-24T05:34:01Z")
Joking aside, I do think the concept of Hopeful Universalism is theologically sound and consistent with mainline Christianity. No guarantees are made, but adherents believe that there is basis for hope that the Lord will work something out for all His children. Though I still like the theology of Mandated Universalism: “We can do things the hard way or the easy way…” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-more-christians-universalists/813778.md?page=13)