Christian Universalism

I'm a Christian who visited a UU church regularly for their classes and seminars. I can't be sure (no one knows the true heart of another), but I THINK I was the only Christian in the room. They were very nice people though.🙂

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I'm a Christian who visited a UU church regularly for their classes and seminars. I can't be sure (no one knows the true heart of another), but I THINK I was the only Christian in the room. They were very nice people though.🙂

I am told that on the west coast most Unitarians are agnostic or atheist, but that the Universalism tendency, which is distinctly Christian, is located in the midwest and east coast.

Originally posted by RJHinds
For all to repent is God's will, but humans have their own will,
which is usually opposed to God's. Most of us want our own will
to be done. An atheist is not going to pray, "let God's will be done"
because he does not believe there is a God to pray to. All he wants
is his own will to be done. Who does an atheist repent to? How
could this idea possibly work? I just can't envision it happening.

But that's not what the Bible quote offered says.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Nothing is impossible with God. However, I am of the opinion
that is not going to happen. I must admit I am not infallible.

So you agree that Christian Universalism is possible for God. Your posts suggest that you believe salvation of every person -- universal salvation -- is the best outcome, and I guess you believe you are in agreement with God on this. If it is possible and is the best outcome according to God, I'd say it is a slam dunk, although some of us may suffer (and cause suffering) more than others, along the way, while separated from the Truth. It defines a Christianity based on God's love, doesn't it? Think about it, anyway, will you?

The “great divide” in religious philosophy (and maybe metaphysics generally) is between dualism and non-dualism. Some other divides seem to follow this one generally. One is that between exclusivists and non-exclusivists (my preferred terms).* One might be a non-exclusivist who—for aesthetic or cultural reasons, perhaps—expresses herself generally in Christian terms. The same can be said for others. Some of us express ourselves, now in terms of this, now in terms of that.

One can come to a non-exclusivist position from different religious views. It does, as I said, seem to follow the stream of non-dualism—a stream which can be found in virtually every religious expression.

I grew up Christian, and remained Christian (even as, eventually, a non-exclusivist, non-dualist) until the age of about 40 or so. That was my inherited and preferred expression within non-dualism (think, perhaps, Meister Eckhart or Gregory of Nyssa). I discovered, however, that most “orthodox” Christians (from, however, a whole range of putative “orthodoxies”, that mutually condemned one another) did not think that I was Christian at all (not a “True Christian™”, as we say on here); and I frankly do not need the labels anymore. I might express myself in Zen terms, or Vedantic terms, or neo-Hasidic Jewish terms, or Christian terms, or Sufi terms . . . And I am unlikely to be “orthodox” in any of them.** But that all means that I can’t simply dismiss Christian expressions of the non-dualist/non-exclusivist stream either. I still read Gregory of Nyssa—as well as Fakhrudin Iraqi, as well as . . .

__________________________________________________

*Other terms that people use might be particularist/universalist, exclusivist/inclusivist, exoteric/esoteric (Fritjoff Schuon), or discontinuous/continous (Antonio T. de Nicolas). They all might have somewhat different shades of meaning.

** At least when "orthodoxy" implies exclusivism.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
I am told that on the west coast most Unitarians are agnostic or atheist, but that the Universalism tendency, which is distinctly Christian, is located in the midwest and east coast.

That may be the predominant characteristics. I was surprised to find so many non-Christians at a supposedly mainline "church" here in the deep south.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
How does it negate the need for a savior? Seems like just the opposite.

If all things are to be reconciled anyway, why need a Saviour?

Originally posted by divegeester
If all things are to be reconciled anyway, why need a Saviour?

All sorts of things could still be necessary. Universalism would just say, whatever might be necessary will come to pass.

Originally posted by JS357
So you agree that Christian Universalism is possible for God. Your posts suggest that you believe salvation of every person -- universal salvation -- is the best outcome, and I guess you believe you are in agreement with God on this. If it is possible and is the best outcome according to God, I'd say it is a slam dunk, although some of us may suffer (and cause ...[text shortened]... It defines a Christianity based on God's love, doesn't it? Think about it, anyway, will you?

You really think the likes of twhitehead, Proper Knob, sunhouse,
Penguin, ThinkOfOne, rwingett, and dear ole putty cat will change
their minds about religion being fairy tales. That there would be
a real miracle.

Originally posted by divegeester
If all things are to be reconciled anyway, why need a Saviour?

Well, presumably, the reconciliation IS the salvation.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Well, presumably, the reconciliation IS the salvation.

It seems logical that a Christian Universalist would agree that this is the simple truth of it. Add faith that God loves us and will provide a way, and you've got it. That realization might even cause some people to stop rejecting the other depiction of God, thus bringing them closer to reconciliation and salvation.