I know quite a number of people who go to church that don’t really take the whole thing all that seriously. They don’t really disbelieve, but they aren’t really all that sold on the idea either.
The reason that they go to church is because that is where their friends are. That’s where there is a community of people that are (theoretically) kind and friendly and on their best behavior.
Yes, you are correct, the issue is whether or not they go to their Heaven or everyone goes to the same Heaven- maybe different regions.
Well, if you have four Jews you have five opinions about this, or anything. But in the Yom Kippur services I went to, you did not atone to get into heaven, (and definitely not to escape hell) but to be written in the book of life for another year. “The wages of sin are death” could be taken quite literally.
There is a lot of belief in eventual reincarnation, which is why there is a big push for fast funerals and objections to tattoos and autopsies.
Elijah, if you remember, was taken up to heaven alive. This was a big deal because that was not the standard destination even for prophets after death.
But it is not surprising that even Jewish culture got contaminated by Hellenistic and then Christian culture.
The theological discussions I had in high school regarding hell were of the, “Some say this, some say that,” variety. There was a certain shade of agnosticism in these discussions regarding the particularities of the afterlife.
I say that applies to the OP. More Christians aren’t universalist because most Christians don’t have fixed metaphysical opinions on the matter. For better or worse.
They aren’t. Consider Limbo.
I’m guessing that you’ve had more encounters with Protestants than Catholics throughout your life, and more encounters with evangelicals/fundamentalists than mainline Protestants by a narrower margin. Because “Hell is separation from God”, Limbo and various circles of hell aren’t especially fringey religious ideas.
I need to come back here again on a daily basis like I used to, instead of maybe monthly.
Still politically, morally, theologically conservative, still a member of my local Assembly of God, which teaches the traditional doctrine of eternal damnation (tho ranging from literal fire & brinstone to the more common view of eternal exile from God & self-torment)- but fully aware of the moral & rational holes in traditional “accept Christ in the life or suffer forever” teaching & therefore I’m a Hopeful Universalist.
I need to come back here again on a daily basis like I used to, instead of maybe monthly.
Still politically, morally, theologically conservative, still a member of my local Assembly of God, which teaches the traditional doctrine of eternal damnation (tho ranging from literal fire & brinstone to the more common view of eternal exile from God & self-torment)- but fully aware of the moral & rational holes in traditional “accept Christ in the life or suffer forever” teaching & therefore I’m a Hopeful Universalist.
To Skammer’s OP- most conservative Christians have been raised believing in eternal damnation, the face value reading of most Bible translations KJV to RSV to NIV seems to teach eternal damnation, the dominant idea in Orthodox, Catholic, & Reformational Christianity has been eternal damnation, the “safest” or “least risky” view seems to be eternal damnation, and questioning eternal damnation- especially in opting for Universalism has been seen as the province of theological liberals who probably also deny the Virgin Birth & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. It takes a lot of study in Biblical Hebrew & Greek, in the Church Fathers, in Theology & Reasoning to even see the possibility of any other option.
“God is Love” means neither of these things. It means that all love we feel and experience has it’s source in God. In fact, to quote the bible directly, “Love comes from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. One who does not love, does not know God.” We don’t gain the ability to love by knowing God, we gain knowledge of God by loving. So, yes, without believing in God you can love your spouse and your fellow human beings - and you have that ability to love because you were created by a God who is Love. God doesn’t “rob” you of your ability to love and very few people can suppress it themselves. It’s a natural part of being human, and it reveals to us what God is like.
You assume that people will stop coming to church if they don’t have to. But, for example, I don’t believe I have to, and I still go. Not just Universalists, but all manner of Christians believe that they won’t be sent to hell for not attending church regularly yet they still regularly show up.
Besides, the church doesn’t need to “justify its existence.” It exists, even in places where it has no buildings and no clergy.
The consequences are suffering. Hunger, fear, injustice, oppression.
If you mean what are the consequences for me if I am evil? Well, sometimes none except the void that comes from a lack of love and charity toward others. And, eventually, regret.
In simplest terms, you’ll see more clearly what you are missing, and will want to be included in it.
So suppose I died, found myself at the gates of heaven, God said “Hi! You know me because you loved somebody. Wanna join this awesome party I’m throwing?” And then I said “Um, no thanks, strange person. I’ll just go be, uh, somewhere else. Away from you.” So in response he nods and locks me out.
Then what happens? Can I still love people? Or, having rejected God, the “source” of humans’ ability to feel love, am I transformed into a cold, loveless shell?
But what exactly am I missing? The ability to feel love myself, or the affection of that weirdo?
There’s actually a sect of Universalist Baptists, mostly in the Appalachians. I think bluegrass legend Ralph Stanley belonged to one of these churches. I think their belief is that God’s love will ultimately be too strong and all will be saved. I’m sort of agnostic when it comes to existence outside life as we know it. Maybe it’s all one place (I use the word place loosely here), but for those who carry hate for others it won’t be pleasant for them when all those “others” are there. My main concern is doing what I can to make this world a.better place.
Right, but consider the possibility you are not representative of all Christians. Those who subscribe to a more vengeful, punitive God are more likely to consider church attendance a duty, a “thou shall do” type of obligation that not only do they impose on themselves but they impose on their children, who then impose on their children and so on and so forth. Failure to comply results in guilt and the feeling that you are a backslider, and silent and not-so-silent judgement from others. In other words, church isn’t “a party” you might miss out on, it’s more like a required course that you have to take or else flunk out. Consider yourself lucky if this is a foreign experience for you!
I don’t think 100% of churchgoers would stop attending. But over time, you would see numbers start to fall off. Especially in small churches without the resources to compete against the more theatrical megachurches.
You may have heard about Carlton Pearson–an Evangelical bishop who had a spiritual epiphany of sorts and started teaching a message of inclusion and universal salvation. What happened next was that he was promptly ostracized by not only his congregation but other leaders of the church. Not only was he perceived as heretical, but his message was taken as an existential threat to those in power. NPR did a podcast on his story (linked to in the article) and he spells out for the audience what exactly he had to go up against. It’s an eye opener, if you want to learn more about this subject from the POV of a pastor.
But isn’t it interesting that it takes getting to the afterlife to “see more clearly”? It’s rather convenient that all of this awaits for us at some unverifiable point in time, rather than on Earth, when it could make a difference to those who are currently in mental anguish and flailing around hopelessly, hurting themselves and other people.
But this is not an argument for this thread.
He doesn’t lock you out. He says “That’s too bad, but the door is always open for you.”
You are still human, and still created in the image of God, so I imagine you still have the capacity (and need) to love, but it will be just a wisp of a shadow of the love you are turning your back on. I don’t believe it will take you long to embrace it.
I realize that, and it is a shame. I think it’s a perversion of the Gospel. I think if churches focused on the Gospel - that Jesus came to reconcile us to God and each other and live in common unity with each other - churches would be much more attractive places.
That episode of This American Life is exactly what prompted me to write this OP. Carlton was right and it’s a shame that so many in the church rejected him. I keep meaning to watch the movie about him that TAL produced - I think it’s on Netflix or Hulu or one of those streaming services.
But isn’t it interesting that it takes getting to the afterlife to “see more clearly”? It’s rather convenient that all of this awaits for us at some unverifiable point in time, rather than on Earth, when it could make a difference to those who are currently in mental anguish and flailing around hopelessly, hurting themselves and other people.
But this is not an argument for this thread.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, sure, whatever. Some theists would disagree.
What, is it addictive? Mind-altering? Enough to make me abandon my morals and principles? Enough to make me murder my friends and family for it? Enough for me to abandon all reason? Enough for me to stop caring about anyone and anything else?
If so, yeah, I’d probably cave - or actually I wouldn’t have even refused it, because one he gave me the taste I’d never ask him to close the door and cut me off from the brain-blasting drool-inducing radiation I’d crave basking in.
Which mean he apparently never subjected me to it, so I literally won’t know what I’m missing. So I won’t seek it, either.
I’m talking about perfect love. Is it addictive? I guess so, in a manner of speaking. Mind-altering? Again, a qualified yes. Enough to make you abandon your morals and principals? I suppose it depends what those were to begin with. That’s what happened to St. Paul after all. It is compared to becoming a new person, like a Pinnochio becoming a real boy.
Murder your friends and family? No, that is not love. Abandon all reason? No, again, not love. Stop caring about anyone or anything else? Just the opposite.
That sounds horrifying. You’re talking about something that will wipe out my identity. I’d rather cease existing - I mean, with this stuff rendering old-me into a cinder I would cease existing either way, but at least if I literally ceased existing nobody would be parading my reprogrammed corpse around as a follower or something.
Why would I care about anybody else? I’m busy being loved by God! It’s a drug that has literally blasted my mind out of my brain. Nothing else matters.
What would be the point of life, given an afterlife that offers so few choices? If there are only two diametrically opposed options–a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of slimy turds–then we really don’t have a choice. We wouldn’t have any more of a choice than if someone holds a gun to your head and asks for your wallet. Is God really the kind of entity who revels in holding a gun to someone’s head while praising them for voluntarily handing over their wallet?
And to me, that kind of coercion would render life pretty pointless. If the only purpose to this life is learning the value of love but we’re going to get that lesson anyway once we die, then what’s the point of the 80-odd years we spend here? Why shouldn’t we just commit suicide so we can fast-forward to the really good loving waiting for us?
Mind you, the traditional view of Christian life and afterlife don’t make much more sense to me. My religious mother tells me our life purpose is to serve God, which is not a very satisfying answer from a practical stand-point (why does an all-powerful entity need servants, especially easily corrupted and bamboolzed servants?) or from an emotional stand-point (is narcissicism really compatible with a loving God?). And earning an eternity in hell for 80-years worth of crimes (most of them misdemeanors) strikes me as extremely unfair. But at least there is some logic within this framework.
I think I’d find Christian universalism less eye-rolly if its proponents would admit to one of the biggest weak points of Christianity. I guess I hold universalists to a higher standard than other Christians because they’re already pushing the theological envelop, so why not just to take it one step farther by admitting that no one knows what’s waiting for us after we die? Why must folks still make afterlife predictions? Why can’t they say that’s the unknown part of the story but it’s okay since whatever happens to us, it will still be God’s will? If God decides to not give any of us an eternal afterlife and he tells us this right before he snuffs each of us out forever, does that mean God isn’t love, as we’ve been told? Would his unfairness even matter, since God is the one who defines what “fair” means? I think I’d have more respect for Christian universalism if it wasn’t pushing the “eternal heaven” message just as hard as hard-core traditional Christianity pushes the fire and brimstone stuff. I wish universalists would just say “God is in control and whatever he wants to do, he’s gonna do. But that doesn’t mean we should fling ourselves off a bridge in despair. Let’s embrace the Godly mysterious together and trust he has a plan for us.”
Letting go of the heaven business would require us to collectively let go of existential angst. That ain’t gonna happen any time soon. But once we successfully combat aging, I expect Christianity in all of its forms to lose its appeal to the masses.
Help me understand what you are saying, because I am honestly not understanding this reaction at all. In what way does this “wipe out your identity”? How does it make you a “reprogrammed corpse”? You are fully yourself. God’s not forcing you to do anything, just like he’s not forcing you now. I was making a “love is a drug” pop analogy but maybe you are taking me literally, is all I can think of. Can you be more specific about what you think you would be losing? Why wouldn’t you be able to care for other people? Even in this life I assume you are capable of loving and being loved by more than one person at a time. I’m not trying to argue with you on this, I’m trying to understand your objection.
I don’t know what hell is like, but I have the faintest glimmer of what the Kingdom of God is like and I would say the choice is not between ice cream and turds, it is between ice cream and not ice cream. If you really like ice cream, and I offer you some that you are free to decline, do you consider that coercion?
Who said that was the purpose of life? Or, who said you can’t experience that love in this life? Most of us, believers and non-believers, have experience with love. There is a lot to love in this life and no rush to get through it.
That’s absolutely fair – this is of course speculation and I’m not claiming to know for a fact what the afterlife is like. I think universalism is the most scripturally supportable theory of the afterlife and solves the problem of a monster-god who sends billions of people to hell, but I’m not saying it’s exactly like I imagine by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe when we die, we are annihilated. That’s not supported by scripture at all though, and it doesn’t fit will with the historical Jewish or Christian understanding of who God is, so personally I don’t think it’s likely.
I’m pretty sure that if you’re that messed up, you’re going to end up in the same fire. Or you’ll be standing at the edge giggling, then Jesus will walk up behind you and give you a little push.
The bible makes quite clear, over and over, that you can’t just speak the words without actually meaning them and be saved. That there’s more to it than that.
God knows your heart and your soul. He cannot be tricked by legalese.
I agree with all of this. In some ways it’s fascinating to hear people describe their vision of what the afterlife is like. But it also makes you wonder if dangling heaven in front of people is just another way of controlling them, just in a way that is more positive than Hell has been used. At a minimum, focusing on how great it’s going to be when we reunite with God gets people’s minds off their present circumstances—which can be fraught with stress about jobs, health, relationships, and basic survival.
Skammer, I am curious how universalists square their belief about universal salvation with humanity’s continued “exile” from God resulting from The Fall of Man.
In traditional Christianity, mankind became separated from God after falling to temptation in the Garden of Eden; it was at that point our existence as free-willed mortals began and we became subject to pain and suffering. When Jesus died, he made a way for people to be saved from original sin and returned to God’s kingdom. However, because this salvation needed to be earned in some way (either through belief in Jesus the savior and/or repentance for one’s sins), it kind of makes sense that this reunification would not occur until a person died. As long as backsliding is possible, the test is not over until it’s over.
But if universal salvation means we no longer need a lifetime to prove we’re worthy of entering the Kingdom, why is humanity still “exiled” from God? Once Jesus died, shouldn’t we have instantly returned to an Eden-like existence? As monstro pointed out, universalism solves one problem (how could a loving God send people to Hell where they will suffer?) but replaces it with another (how could a loving God send people to Earth where they will suffer?) I can’t come up with any satisfactory answer to this based on the Bible.
I didn’t read the thread you’re talking about, but this sounds like the darkening of the intellect: if God is love and a person rejects God, they lose the capacity to experience love. They grow numb to loneliness and suffering but also numb to beauty and joy. It’s a subtle hell (possibly too subtle to explain to the “why do I need love if I can have the internet?” crowd), hence the image of fire.
Maybe you’ve said it before, but I can’t seem to find it-From what Christian sect do you derive this particular interpretation?