They can do that now, if they accept the divinity of Christ.
Depends on the diagnosis. If one tells me that it is fine, and the other tells me that it is because I am a sinner that will make my engine fail, and therefore, I need to donate money to his church…
Living in a paradise while others are eternally tortured isn’t my idea of a paradise. There are some out there that look forward to the idea of sitting up in heaven and laughing at the sinners burning, but I hope that that is not a a majority of self professed christians.
Depends, does he hold the keys to his own cell, and can leave at any time? Or is it a “parole” type of deal, where he has to follow someone else’s rules of what rehabilitation looks like?
Unless your claim is that hitler was a sinner, and that you are not, then I’m not sure where you are going with this.
Ultimately, the society that voted for people who made laws and passed bond issues to build the prisons to house those who did not follow them.
Most people do not wake up one day, and make a rational decision to commit a heinous crime. The are either affected by severe mental illness, desperation, or passion. Our justice system is rather imperfect, and it treats all of these the same. If someone commits a heinous sin that damns them for eternity because their genetics caused them to have imbalanced chemicals in their brain, who’s fault is that?
Okay, but why limit it to jews (and I think you missed a “0”)? He also killed people with mental problems, people with criminal histories, and other undesirables that he judged did not belong. You know, casting people out because they didn’t fit his image of what perfection was.
In any case, you may think that 6 million (or 6 hundred k) years is a long time, but you will find that it is actually significantly shorter than eternity.
No need to find them, those are the churches that make sure you know all about their opinions on who they want to see burning in hell.
Would that be mankind’s fault, for being made as an imperfect creature, and then receiving god’s wisdom through imperfect channels? Would not the fault fall at least upon the one who chose to create the imperfect system in the first place?
If one is confronted with, and maybe even finds himself on the receiving end of the harms that he has caused others in his life, that would actually be an appropriate punishment that would help one to see the errors of their ways.
Wow, I thought this thread is dead and now I see 30+ responses in the last day and a half so I have some catching up to do. Here’s my start.
Doesn’t prove your point; it says nothing about those who don’t confess or believe. Besides, Romans 14:11 says “As I live, says the Lord, *every *knee shall bow to me and *every *tongue shall give praise to God.” Won’t they be saved?
We can look at those verses one at a time if you’d like, but they are all consistent with Universalism.
IIRC he says “sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow me.” Is your view that divesting of all your worldly goods is necessary for salvation?
That’s only true if you think that “getting to heaven” is the one and only reason to love and obey God, and to love your neighbor. We should die to sin. We should love God, and love our neighbor as ourselves. It doesn’t mean that those who don’t in this life will never be reconciled to God.
Again, no. Universalism does not mean that evil is justified. It does mean, however, that sin is forgiven. “Does that mean we should keep on sinning, so that grace may increase? By no means!”[/Paul]
Those in the kingdom of God have no desire to sin. I’m saying eventually everyone will be in that condition.
Why do you insist on punishment? If sins are forgiven, they’re forgiven. No punishment necessary.
I didn’t invent it, the belief goes all the way back to the beginning of the church. You haven’t at all shown that there will be people excluded from heaven for all eternity.
There are essentially two Christian points of view on how to be saved:
You must do good things in order to be saved, and if you want to be saved but you won’t do the good things, then you get un-saved.
There is not one thing you could do to be saved even if you wanted to, Jesus did it; and merely recognizing that fact, without taking any overt action at all, means you are saved. Not that you can’t do good, of course you can and must do good, but that nothing you ever do can contribute to your own salvation.
The reason universalism is hard for your average Christian to accept is that it goes against the authoritarian-like God that is commonly envisioned. That kind of God makes the rules and humanity is expected to follow them or else. Take out the “or else” and it’s like you might as well not even have rules. We don’t run civilization that way, we don’t raise kids that way, so why would salvation be any different? So people are going to interpret the Bible through the filter of what they see as the natural order of things.
Just as you are going to interpret the Bible through the filter of what you think is natural. Doesn’t matter how many verses you throw out to support your view because there are just as many that counter it. It’s a mistake to assume Biblical interpretation follows from what is written; it follows from an individual’s preconceived notion of what they think it means.
Salvation for all is great, it’s wonderful, and it’s much more loving than a vengeful, punitive God. But universal salvation makes the church, the Bible, and belief in Christian tenets purely optional. Why should I, a heathen who much rather sleep in on Sunday that haul myself to a sermon, feel compelled to fight my natural impulses and go to church if I know it doesn’t matter in the end? Belief in a punitive God at least makes people concerned about judgement.
I’m fairly sure that most #1 folks would also state you need to believe (in general - the Catholic Church has some loopholes regarding that). It’s the concept of Synergism, a cooperation between divine grace and human freedom.
(granted there are also a lot of us mainline Prot universalists who believe in #2 but without the ‘recognition’ requirement)
The problem people seem to be having is “if there’s no punishment for my sin, why should I bother doing the right thing?.” Why be good if God is not coercing us to be good?
Yes, I believe that at some point Hitler will come around – not because he’s being tortured, but because he’s missing out on the kingdom of God. The only torture, the only “weeping and gnashing of teeth” is from being left out of the joyous celebration of new life in God which will ultimately be irresistible to even the hardest of hearts. God doesn’t keep people out of heaven, but they can keep themselves out – for a while. It’s like a sulky teenager locking themselves in their bedroom while the rest of the family has a wonderful, amazing, loving celebration downstairs: the teen is welcome to join at any time.
The motivation for getting out of bed on a Sunday morning and going to church is not to avoid punishment - it’s because that’s where the family of God is on Sunday morning. Sleep in if you want to; you won’t get punished for it - but you’re missing the party.
Personally, I’m agnostic with respect to universalism. I would like it to be true; I have some hope that it is true; there are some reasonable arguments in its favor. And yet I cannot go so far as to say that I believe that it is true.
One reason for this is the substantial number of Bible verses whose most obvious interpretation seems to be that not everyone will be saved.
Another is the “What about psychopaths?” objection. It seems that there may be people (psychopaths?) who are fundamentally missing something (a soul? the part of the soul that enables a person to love God and other people?) that is necessary for a person to be salvageable, or for there to be something worth saving.
I was raised in church so I know what I’m missing by not going. Wouldn’t call it a party. More like a theatrical performance put on by the minister and his crew. There is no part of me that needs that experience, or any version of church.
The “family of God” can be found right in one’s own home, once you subscribe to the notion that God doesn’t require worship and tithes etc. By removing the specter of eternal punishment from the Christian equation, people will require that church provides more value to their lives to keep them in the pews. If that value doesn’t adequately compensate for the fear of judgement day, then you will have fewer active members. For your average minister who wants to keep food on the table, that’s a tough order. He doesn’t want people to think the “family of God” exists outside the church, because he needs them there.
It’s no different than if there a college course that started at 8a every morning and lasted 2 hours. If the teacher announced that everyone who signed up was guaranteed an A at the end (even if they missed all the classes, even if they failed all the tests and assignments) do you think students would attend and work as hard as they would if there was true accountability at the end? I don’t. Could be the most fantastic class in the world, but even the most talented professor knows there has to be a carrot and a stick if he expect students to learn the material.
Just to be clear, I abandoned Christianity soon after I started entertaining universalist ideas. If you’re someone like me who has a hard time seeing Biblical stories as anything except a collection of imaginative writings, once you start thinking salvation is unconditional there is zero incentive to continue to strain your brain trying to believe this stuff. The cognitive dissonance caused by trying to reconcile Hell with a loving God is bad enough. But the self-imposed labor of trying to grok the ungrokable, while believing I could still be good without the groking, was enough to make me say to hell with it all.
I don’t like parties much. Particularly if there are lots of people I don’t know there.
I certainly agree that the “no cake for you!” approach to hell is among the kindest versions of hell - but it can’t be that kind, or nobody would bother to repent. If Hell is a perfectly fine place where I get internet access and can order things off Amazon, then I don’t think I’ll much care that I’m not rubbing elbows with Yahweh, Jeshua, and a redeemed Pol Pot.
Unless I’m not given the choice about caring, that is. If ‘you are missing out - suffer!’ beams are being blasted into my head, then of course I’d feel I was missing out. And also that would be torturing me, obviously.
But if that’s not happening, and the situation really is just that the crazy neighbor is insisting that everybody really really really really would enjoy coming to his harp-and-wing-adore-God-24-7 party, well, that’s great! More power to him. I hope he keeps the noise down, though. Some of us are trying to stream porn here.
Jewish Hell, which is also often Universalist hell, seems to be a cold grey place. Nothing to do, where you realize you are there due to YOUR deeds and you know God’s love is withheld.
There does seem to be also a fiery place of punishment for evil Kings and ect, those that are not only evil but force or lead others to also do evil.
That makes sense to me.
If you commit sins, the only torture is boredom, loneliness and the realization that it is, indeed,* your* fault.
If you lead a nation into evil, you get the fires.
I don’t think people can only do “right” things if there is godly punishment. I’m agnostic and I do good things all the time, with no fear of Hell compelling me. There are plenty of secular, humanitarian reasons for acts of charity and kindness, and people who see the value in these reasons will build a conscience based on these values. Plain ole human empathy also keeps us in check.
But it all depends on how you define “right”, right? If Christians consider fornication a sin, then obviously premarital sex is wrong in their eyes. But the temptation to do it is exceedingly strong. Not even the fear of Hell is enough to stop it, but without that fear, it’s a given more people will do it.
Many people consider solitary confinement a form of torture. It drives people insane. Just saying.
And it’s not my fault. I didn’t do anything wrong. That freak with the beard is the one who’s wrong, not me.
I mean, yes, I recognize that I chose not to adhere to his freaky freakish rules or whatever, and in that sense it’s ‘my fault’. But I’m not the one who decided that saying ‘fuck’ twice earned me an R rating - that lunatic did. If justice were prevailing I wouldn’t be denied internet access just because he says so.
I’ve never really like that line of reasoning either. If the only reason that you are good is to avoid punishment, are you really good? When I find myself in this part of theology, I actually find myself in the Calvinist camp. There are people that are going to g to heaven that have been preselected before they were even born. These people, due to their selected status, are good people, and even thought hey are guaranteed a spot in heaven, they don’t sin, because that is not the sort of people that they are. Others, who were maybe not so divinely rewarded, can only pretend to follow god’s laws.
And if the teen is up in his room, playing video games with his online friends, while his family is downstairs alternating between making boring speeches and bickering over the meaning of transubstantiation, he may be welcome to join, but why would he?
[quote]
The motivation for getting out of bed on a Sunday morning and going to church is not to avoid punishment - it’s because that’s where the family of God is on Sunday morning. Sleep in if you want to; you won’t get punished for it - but you’re missing the party.
It is a social event. People like to socialize. I know people whose only friends are church friends. If the only place you can go to meet your friends is at church, then you are motivated to get up and go to church. If your friends are at the bowling alley, that’s where you go.
As previously mentioned, there is the socialization aspect of it. And, one of the nice things about church is that most people try to be on their best behavior when they think that god is watching. So, they are less likely to be (though certainly not a 0% chance) assholes. In fact, if you ever are feeling down, just show up at most protestant churches, and there will be someone from the welcoming committee to give you all the validation you were ever wanting.
Of course, in this case, there are over 4000 classes like this, and you have to pick the one and only right one in order to graduate.
[quote]
In the “Invention of Lying” there is the part where he accidentally invents religion. He says that when they die, there will be a mansion, and people ask what type and he tries to answer as best he can. I would have gone with “It is the mansion that you believe that you deserve, and populated by the people who want to be there.”
If not being “saved” is just being apart from god, then fine. From what I’ve heard of him, I don’t want to have much to do with him. I’d rather hang out with my friends who also probably didn’t make the cut.
One gets the impression that people in the “the only punishment with be being apart from god” camp also mean to make “being apart from god” deeply unpleasant for the non-godders - via enforced isolation, deprivation of anything entertaining or pleasant, and possibly a direct magically enforced desire for what you’re ‘missing’. So torture, but they don’t call it torture so they don’t have to deal with the “loving god tortures people” problem despite the fact that the plan to get everyone to repent involves breaking their wills and spirits so hard that they sobbingly beg for forgiveness and reprieve.
Then don’t go. Or, find a church that’s not like that. I believe there’s probably a church out there that you would really like, but it’s up to you.
Life is not a college class and God is not a professor. You are saying that nobody would be good without fear of the consequences. I’m saying:
there ARE consequences for being evil, but eternal torture is not one of them
most people are inclined to be good because it’s good, even if they don’t believe in God.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not saying there is no sin or we cannot displease God. There is and we can, and we do. But the Bible is clear that in Jesus we have been reconciled to God so that our sins no longer keep us dead to him.
And I think people are taking my party analogy too literally. God is love. Who, when choosing between love and the absence of love, will go on choosing the absence of love? And when that person chooses Love, they are welcomed in. The doctrine that you have to decide in this life and then once you die it’s too late really has no logic to it. It doesn’t jibe with the God that Jesus describes.
Heh, there’s another current thread wrestling with the phrase “God is love” (okay it’s mostly “God is Life” but the love angle came up to) and it hasn’t gone too well on the “what are you talking about” front.
The unclarity of that thread side, I see there as being two rather different ways to interpret the “Gos is love”/“choosing between love and the absence of love” thing.
Option 1: God loves you. That’s nifty and all, but I currently don’t believe God loves me (or that he/she even exists) and I’m trucking along just fine - so I should be able to manage without his love in some afterlife too.
Option 2: Without God’s active aid humans are unable to love. You will become unable to care about your spouse even if you’re right next to them. You will become unable to care about anything. (How this meshes with you remaining capable of knowing or caring about what you’re missing is unclear.) In this scenario God actively chooses to rob you of your ability to love, either as a form of torture to correct your behavior or simply out of spite. In either case, here’s hoping that my sham of a brain and its remnants of remaining false personality (what other emotions are false?) will be locked in the “unable to care” state and thus I’ll be able to resist the monster’s lure.
I’m talking about church attendance and all the activities associated with devoutness. Not goodness outside of that. Obviously as an agnostic, it would be stupid for me think the threat of Hell is necessary to expect good behavior.
My point is that universalism undermines the necessity as the church as an institution, because there will be fewer people who see it as important if they no longer think proving and maintaining their faithfulness is a requirement to enter the Kingdom. That you and other universalists might not see this as problem is irrelevant; the risk of fewer congregants is that ministers will have to work harder to justify their existence. Why would they do that?
What are the consequences for being evil, if Hell is off the table? I mean, other than the consequences created by humans (prison, shunning, etc).
I take it you’re not saying atheists and agnostics are living a loveless existence in the here and now because they are non-believers. What changes in the afterlife? And why? If I’m required to die to not only believe in God but recognize he is love (or life or whatever affirmational-sounding noun we say), then okay, but ultimately I’m going to want to be with whomever I have been loving all my life. (Actually, knowing me I’ll probably be content to just die…eternal existence seems like it would be pretty hellish after the novelty wears off.)
I went to shul for a lot of years, and never once heard of Jewish hell. From the Jewish perspective, that is. Perhaps you mean the hell Jews to to for loving God, just not Jesus?
My understanding of universalism is that it is a lot more about not condemning Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists and the like to hell just because they never found Christ. Even if they were by any standards more virtuous than Christians who get to repent and go to heaven.
Exactly. How are you going to get the asses in the seats and the money in the collection plate unless the consequences of not doing so is hell. And forget about being good, we’re all sinners and so no one is truly good.
I’m not any kind of Christian, but when I have visited UU churches it seems that they are more pushing positive moral messages, fellowship, and stuff like that.
Even if threatening damnation sells the goods, is that really the way for a religion to go?
