(August 6, 2010 at 6:09 pm)youhadme_at_hellhole Wrote:(August 6, 2010 at 5:47 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: Why don't you begin by explaining what Christian Universalism is (for those of us too lazy to look it up)? Maybe fill us in on the things that you believe and how they differ from other Christian sects. What are your thoughts on the bible(s) and how literally they should be taken? Do you accept the Nicene Creed? Etc.
Oh... and what parts of Christianity do you enjoy making fun of? My personal favorite is Creationism.
Don't worry. Theists can get along just fine here. We (not most of us anyway) do not go on the attack just because someone mentions a word relating to religion. Heheh. In fact, most of us are quite nice as long as you are. If we think something you say is refutable, it will be refuted. If someone thinks it's stupid, that someone may tell you that. As long as you can remain civil and keep a good sense of humor, you'll find that the discussions can become quite fun.
Certainly! Christian Universalism, the belief that all are saved, is a belief that dates back to the original schools of thought in the early church. Infact, it was actually the dominant belief until the Roman Catholic Church emerged. At best, it is difficult to control the masses as the RCC wanted to do, without the use of fear and guilt... and the Protestant movement retained the view of eternal torment, as they too cannot fund their causes without capitalizing on these human attributes as well.
Proof for the conclusions that Christian Universalism hold are couched within original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic texts... many (including myself) reject most modern English translations as they are more Interpretations than actual Translations. Also, the infallibility of the Bible is rejected, as there are too many differing texts to pick one and go with it. However, the similarities between those texts are concrete enough to ascertain the meaning the author was trying to convey.
I know that scripture holds little to no merit here, so I won't spout it off like a loony, but I will say that the application of logic is another huge factor in most Universalists...
One simple example is Free Will. Logic would dictate that if a being exists that is omnipotent and omnipresent, Free Will cannot exist. If that being is all-loving, hell as we understand it cannot exist. Etc etc...
Let me know if that's a good start!
PS. Depending on which version of the Nicene Creed you are referring to, I reject most of them... some of the original versions I would semi-agree with, but even as early as the 300's, Eternal Torment and other guilt-ridden ideas had pervaded the church... funnily enough, many of them have pagan origins.
The above underlined is untrue period. Your description of christianity does not match up with the teachings of Christ. How is it that your rejection of a good translation like the New American Standard
means that you follow the original text. In all of Pauls writtings I've not seen anything about everyone will be redeemed.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
