The Unfundamental Conversion

Why Some Christians Are Wrong About What Universalists Believe

July 18th, 2013 | Posted by Lana Hope in World Religions

As a child my family was very harsh on other faiths or religious philosophies, but we scoffed hardest at the universalists for teaching that “all religions lead to heaven.” Even after friending Buddhists, I still believed that universalists taught that all religious lead to heaven. Recently that changed for me when I began to see that there are many reasons someone might be attracted to universalism. Please note that I am a Christian, and I have fundamental disagreements with other religions. This post is on why I now understand that universalism is not necessarily about “all roads leading to heaven.”

First of all, heaven may not be the ultimate goal of religion. I don’t think we came to earth, so that we can go to heaven. That does not make sense. If the goal of our existence is to reach heaven, we could have just been born directly in heaven. Many religions, including a few Christians, teach that our souls had a pre-existence (see Galatians 2:20), so if that’s the case, we are actually from heaven and are just passing through earth like one big vacation (or is it one long holiday in hell?). Put simply, whether or not we had a pre-existence, we may have come to earth to learn lessons that can only be learned in the physical realm.

Secondly, for some universalists, religion may be  more of a mystical guide in our lives that can be true in many religions. Universalism – at least the universalism in my mind – is not saying that all religions teach the same means to heaven or even have the same goals (clearly, western religion has much more of an obsession with heaven than the east does), but that all religions are a guide in our lives. This is true whether or not we even agree with the religion where we were born. For example, I was born in a fundamental Christian household. Today I have rejected this, but my childhood, pains and all, have served as part of my religious journey. As I said, universalism simply teaches that we are passing through this earth, and acknowledges that this world, and the energy and fruits of it, is shaping and forming all of us on that journey.

Thirdly, for some universalists, religion helps people deal with the battle within. We all came to earth for some reason, or perhaps there was no reason. Either way, we were seemingly thrown into space and time. Religion simply helps people deal with this. It helps people deal with their ego, and helps gives their souls and spirits a sense that we are just passing through earth. Different religions have different answers. Some of our ideas are wrong, and some of them are right (even atheists can agree that loving your neighbor is important). Some of our stories are literally true, and some are only metaphorically true. A univeralist would argue that some of us were born Buddhists, and Buddhism will guide us on our journey. Some of us were born Christian, and Christianity will guide us in our journey. Some people have changed faiths, or even concluded that it’s all a fake. For atheists their own spirits will fight through for the good of humanity.

Christian universalists believe that ultimately it’s the Christian God who will fight through, heal, and draw all people to himself. They believe that other religions have some ideas right, but not all, and that other religions have left out the most important part: the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is what I believe; nevertheless, despite my firm stance that Jesus is greater than other gods, I deeply appreciate the lessons that universalism provides because it helps me understand that my enemy is not religion.

At the end of the day all roads do not lead to heaven. All roads lead us deeper into the depth of what it means to be a spiritual person hanging in space and time.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 You can leave a response, or trackback.

  • nicolas

    Hi Lana,

    God bless you for keeping the faith while discovering more about God’s world and his Word, the Bible, beyond what our traditions have handed us.

    re Universalism, one of the most wonderful surprises is in Revelations:

    all through the book, “the kings of the earth” and “the nations” are the enemies of Christ and his church (eg 17:2 & 18:23). These two categories are even mentioned together in Rev 18:3. BUT after the judgement they are both found coming into the New Jerusalem, Rev 21:24.

    There is indeed the offer of grace beyond the grave, and there is indeed
    hope beyond hell !!

    May God bless us all — we all need it.


    • Lana Hope

      Yes thank you!

  • First & Second, I was never given the impression that universalists see the same goal in every religion. That is just silly.

    Third, Kant would be right about our senses if we did not have revelation from someone who does know everything and who can assure us that our bodies were designed to measure reality. If not for a specific revelation then it is impossible to know anything and all of your arguments amount to nothing. You know how true this is as well as I do.

    In other words: turning to all religions for facets of truth is the epitome of foolishness. You trust your brain to decipher meaning from everything and to make it mesh into… what? Experience is not the ultimate measure of life.

    What is there to stop me from becoming the next Benny Hinn? Multi-night stays in the Presidential and Royal suites of the world on a regular basis. Surely that is an experience worth having…

    • Lana Hope

      No, Kant is right. All religions are not true. That is a separate issue. All Kant has said is that we can’t prove the existence of the physical world without either using reason or the senses. Therefore, we don’t know that the physical world exists.

    • Cassie

      My best friend that i stayed with after visiting singapore that he loved to bragg about his big belief. He scared me when i was three. He now seems more stupid than my cat looking for answers why she took my food and i told her that u deserve to be put in timeout. Just a joke. But i believe that all beliefs have truth somewhere. My mom worships buddah and my dad is into church of scientology. I believe that God loves all and majority of those argue over nothing. Good blog. I agree

      • Lana Hope

        Chris, your friend Andrew B wrote that

      • /me pokes Cassie.

  • Exactly. Except that special revelation gives us the opportunity to trust our reason and senses.

    So if you reject that special revelation then you can argue up a storm and it doesn’t mean a thing.

    • Lana Hope

      I dunno. The teological argument for God’s existence – what i would consider to be general revelation – impresses me more than special revelation. Maybe that’s just me.

      • That’s because general revelation appeals to your mind. You get to decide what is true and false. As you pointed out on another blog post, this does not lead you to any specific God. Enter Mars Hill and God’s call for all men everywhere to repent.

        • Lana Hope

          Specific revelation may help you pinpoint what God, but it still relies on the tools we have available from our minds, such as language. That’s why I am saying. Faith is still insane no matter how you look at it. Special revelation doesn’t help me out anymore than general revelation.

          • You are approaching this as though circular reasoning is bad or wrong. How did you get there?

            Circular reasoning is the only logical fallacy that is not always a fallacy. 😛

          • Lana Hope

            slippery slope is not always a fallacy either. I simply cannot agree. There are thousands of possibilities that could explain my spiritual sensations, prayers, conversations with God, etc. I’m not saying I don’t believe they are God. I am simply saying there is no way to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are God. I have actually seen Buddhists heal people. Christians say Jesus did. Funny how the stories conflict. So as I said, there’s thousands of possibilities for this stuff. It’s also scary to reject general revelation. I have more confidence that this earth wasn’t made by nothing than I do that my spiritual sensations or something. I know for a fact that I’ve thought God was speaking to me and been wrong. But I’ve yet to see any reason that this earth was created out of nothing.

          • I’m not throwing out general revelation by arguing for specific. And specific is not to “help” narrow down which God. It allows us to pinpoint which.

            Make a logical world from Buddhism.

          • Lana Hope

            In my life the only special revelation worth it’s salt is Christ because Christ walked in flesh.

          • What about the special revelation that Jesus quoted? Or that prophesied about his coming?

          • Lana Hope

            It’s special revelation. BTW, I’m not denying that prayer isn’t special revelation, nor any other form of special revelation. I’m just saying I don’t put my trust in it. If Jesus had not come in flesh, even the prophesies would be meaningless. QUIT COMMENTING ON MY BLOG> I GOTTA SLEEP. Heck why are you up?

          • Okay, so you may remember that I grew up in pentecostal circles. If someone mis-prophesies one time then I write off everything else that they say. If they are not sure of what they think they are hearing, or if it does not match up with what else God has revealed, then God ain’t saying it.

          • Lana Hope

            I dunno about that one. Sometimes history is on the wrong side

          • God’s words concerning false prophets are every bit as harsh as Jesus’ words for the false piety of the religious.

    • Lana Hope

      I would say it impresses me, but is not alone to convince me. There is a reason we say “I believe” when reciting the apostles creed instead of “I know.” I don’t know. I just believe.

      • And there is a reason that it also says Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate.” There is a verifiable history that can be checked.

        • Lana Hope

          No one is disupting the life of Jesus. It’s only the resurrection that is contraversial. I believe in the resurrection, but then again, it’s all insane anyway. Also since the existence of time is an illusion, it’s all a pretty funny question.But I’m still trying to flesh that one out.

          • No one here or in universalist circles? And why is the resurrection the most controversial part of this? If he raised others from the dead and several hundred people witnessed him alive after being crucified (and he took a good, hearty walk to Emmaus 3 days after being beaten to a bloody pulp), what is there to question?

          • Lana Hope

            Actually I was talking about secularists and atheists. Jesus existed. That’s a pretty well believed fact. Honestly that’s kind of funny that you asked. Pretty much any scenerio you could come up with to explain the empty tomb would make more sense than Jesus having raised from the dead. I totally get why people don’t believe in that part of the story, and the book of John is the most disputed book of the gospels among secularists. You won’t find Lazurus outside John.

          • Oh, and the soldiers weren’t killed when Jesus’ body turned up missing. That’s not a ‘dead’ give-away that something was up.

            As for the arguments about John, I’m familiar with several and they do not make any logical sense. Why would the apostles postpone writing down their accounts when faced with persecution? I did not list the other resurrections like Mark’s recount of the girl.

          • Lana Hope

            I don’t really have time to argue about this one as I believe Jesus did rise from the dead, and it’s getting late. But here’s a summary of Bart Erhman’s points. If you disagree with the conclusion, that’s fine. I still happen to believe in the resurrection, too, mostly because I think heck, why not rise from the dead. sounds like a good plan to me. Other than that, I get the atheists. I’d probably be an atheists, too, except then I’d have to explain human consciousness, and I’m much too tired for that one.

          • Yeah, I’m familiar with Ehrman. His argument is weak. An apparition to Pilate would only prove that the pressures of his job were getting to him. Left out details do not a contradiction make.

          • Lana Hope

            well I can agree about pilate, but yes, there are tons of contradictions in the New Testament. Cannot agree with you on that one. To me, that’s no big deal, nor does it disprove the Bible. It a ctually makes more sense to me. When I used to study Greek and had to believe that the Bible had no errors, yet we didn’t hold a copy of any of the original manuscripts in full, and that there were more differences in our manuscripts in than words in the NT, I could never understand why God had gone to all the work to inspire every word. Now I finally get it – he didn’t, and that just makes the book all the more special to me.

          • You should know better than to say something like that. The vast majority of those “differences” are spelling errors made by scribes. In several of the manuscripts, you can watch the progression of the work as the scribe grows ever more tired.

            A large number of the “differences” that are not spelling errors are localizations of names. Just because there are 20 variants of a name’s spelling does not mean that the entire sentence has been compromised.

          • Lana Hope

            Chris, please leave personal insults out of debate. If you were anyone else, I wouldn’t even respond to such a comment. In short, I have a Greek Bible where it highlights the disputes. Many are major, some even doctrinal questions, mostly just minor. Whatever it may be, it’s enough to ask questions about why we don’t have the orignal manuscripts. If it’s one question mark, it’s still one question mark.

          • As do I. Some of the differences do touch on major doctrines, but there are other clear passages that deal with the same topic. There are not more question marks “than words in the NT.” I take offence at that lame insinuation of liberal biblical critics who are out to influence those who do not understand anything about this topic.

            I acknowledge the areas where the meaning is uncertain, but statements like that are only designed to raise eyebrows.

          • Lana Hope

            No liberal critic I know has not acknowledged that most are minor differences…..good grief. At the end of the day, it still doesn’t help me with all the problem passages. They exist.

          • The ones who have studied, yes. Anyway, I’d be curious what your list of “problem passages” is. I know a few from before you moved off.

          • Lana Hope

            I have a paper guide that accompanied my Greek Bible. This is the standard Greek Bible even the Bible translators in Tland use. Anyway the guide will tell the level of dispute of a passage. That’s what I mean by problem passages. There are passages where scholars do not agree on what the original text says, some one word, some several words are a verse. I really don’t remember where they are- only that we used to read them in class and discuss how which word is there changes the meaning of the text. It’s simply true. We don’t have any original copies of the Bible.. I’m not going to go look all the passages up for you. Go to the public library in my hometown. They have books. You need to study the entire perspective of this, not some isolated Bible passage with just a Greek text in front of you.

            For an example of something mostly settled except by the KJV only crowd, the word submit (to your husband) is not in any original texts in Ephesians 5- wow, what a error for women. A more recent -as in last 100years- discovered that one. So God let that word stay in our Bibles for how long. He inspired every word but didn’t bother to keep the word submit out of there? There is some dispute today over where the be quiet in church is in the original text, but then again, we don’t have the original text. There are several verses in the Bible that I studied in Greek class where we don’t even have two single manuscripts with the same wording, and the meaning actually matters. My teacher said we just don’t tell our congregations about them. I get why people believe the original text is inspired-although that’s funny to me considering why bother – but I don’t at all get how someone can say our texts has no copying issues. It does. Dallas Theological Seminary raised a million dollar grant to study the original texts. It’s a big deal even to conservatives, and even conservatives know the dispute isn’t over, or they certainly wouldn’t be spending money to restudy manuscripts and repatch our Greek text. Even grammatically it’s a big deal. Its a deal whether a verb is past or perfect – because that’s a different meaning. Actually it matters. (My classmates and i used to discuss the difference, and we got to choose which verb tense to use in passages where we do not know.) And that’s the point, it matters enough that we are still studying these differences.

          • I understand the issue. Metzger’s “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” is on the shelf next to me.

            Remind me what the implied verb of Ephesians 5 is supposed to be?

          • Lana Hope

            nothing there but the particle “be as.” I don’t know the tense of it on the top of my head.

          • Something like “The wife, her husband, be as the lord”?

          • Lana Hope

            Something like Be as to your husband as you would to the Lord, I think. That’s a little shady of a translation but the meaning more or less.

          • Why are you upset about the word “submit” being added in for clarity? You could take that rendering a dozen different ways, and several of them are stronger.

            I should demand three burnt sacrifices a day from my wife… 😛

          • Lana Hope

            Ephesians 5 says we must all submit to each other, so it’s actually not a debated point. Submission is mutural.

    • Lana Hope

      Chris, fyi, I am an anti-realists. I just live as if realism is true. See more here:

      • That only works for the atheist. Anyone who acknowledges a god has to acknowledge that the mind of God can accurately describe the world without the words generated by a human mind.

        • Lana Hope

          I disagree. There is no reason for the physical world to exist on a physical level. It could not be physical at all, and it wouldn’t change things because if our minds construct things as we see it, thten it is our reality, and that’s all that matters.

          • So, are you going panentheistic or do my actions not matter?

          • Lana Hope

            I did not say the spiritual world does not exist, nor have I said this world did not exist. I am asking what level it exists on. Does it exist purely on a spiritual level, or also on a physical level, or what other levels? To say it’s all an illusion would be a serious philosophical error.

          • Thanks for clarifying. There is a physical plane — it’s not imagined. That is fun as a sci-fi theory — that everything is imagined, or held in a Matrix, or our minds are re-written every night, or whatever — but if our minds built everything then what keeps me from becoming Darth Vader and cutting off someone’s oxygen supply?

          • Lana Hope

            We are not as individualistic as we care to think. I think it’s all in front of us, bu not sure it has the same physical component that we think. I do think it is to be distinguished from what we will have in heaven. there physical reality will be imagined, and likely I htink, will vary from person to person. (some of us may prefer to see mountains, and other beaches. or maybe will just move to wherever we want. who knows.)

          • Maybe I’ll imagine my heaven without God like some atheistic univeralists like Alice Sebold. Or maybe I’ll imagine an endless number of virgins for myself like the Muslims…

          • Lana Hope

            if your in God’s presence, that is simply not possible.

          • Lana Hope

            sadly we will always have limits, but the physical realm does have greater limits than the physical. And I highly doubt we make up with bodies in heaven. That’s just a weird thought. A bunch of people in heaven are chilling and they see a new body just lying still, and then they watch as the body becomes alive. ‘HEY, someone just came from earth. and the soul attached itself.” hm, probably not. But who knows. Okay, I’m going to bed.

          • Would God force someone who wants nothing to do with him to bear his presence for eternity? And you say you don’t believe in hell…


          • Lana Hope

            if hell is being in god’s presence, then I believe in hell. I dont’ believe in a separate place where people are locked out from God’s presence. God loves us too much for that one.

          • Jesus certainly spoke of such a situation quite often.

        • Lana Hope

          And I definitely don’t belive the new heaven and earth will be a physical place. Being physical is too limiting. We will surely be spirits.

          • Yeah, yeah, and there will be internet in this non-physical space. You think we should be unlimited? Heh.

            Limits work both ways. They limit bad as well as good.

          • Lana Hope

            We won’t need the internet if we are spiritual beings. I hate the internet anyway.

          • Lol.

  • val

    A gift for you….truth.
    The true Gospel is now delivered to you from the wilderness Rev 12:6 as a witness Matt 24:14.
    Our heavenly Father will NOT put any child of his into a hell fire no matter what their sins. Sin doesn’t scare God! He created it Isa 45:7 to teach us all the knowledge of good and evil Gen 3:22 for our eternal placement in his coming kingdom. Throwing a child of his into a hell fire has never entered the heart or mind of God to ever do such a thing Jer7:31, Jer 19:5. Anyone preaching a hell fire for any child of God has been deceived into teaching lies. The whole world has been believing in a god of hate murder and revenge (The devil Rev 12:9). The true word of God John 1:1 is now delivered Rev 12:5 here

    God chose a woman Rev 12 to be the prophet like unto Moses Num 12:3 and Elijah Matt 17:3, Acts 3:21-23, Luke 1:17 proven by the word John 1:1 delivered Rev 12:5. Refusing to hear all Acts 3:23 is refusing the word of God, I have written what I was commanded to write.

    A righteous judge gathers ALL evidence BEFORE making any judgment.
    Prove ALL things 1 Thes 5:21. Satan has deceived the whole world Rev 12:9 until now. Turn your heart to ALL the children of God for a better placement Ezek 37:26 in God’s coming kingdom in the New World Rev 21.

    • Val, Truth is indeed important, isn’t it? In John 18:37 Jesus said he was born to bear witness to the truth.

      Your reading of Isaiah 45:7 is the typical Calvinist understanding and requires some form of double-predestination (to commit good and evil acts). This contradicts 1 John where the apostle says that God is light and that there is no darkness in him. Instead, evil is a distortion of what is good and right.

      (Incidentally, eating from that tree was not the only rule Adam and Eve were given. It was just the rule that they broke and so it is remembered.)

      Your reading of Genesis 3 would also require God to have created us to live forever on this earth, and then to have taken that away in the name of teaching us what evil is. Wouldn’t that be evil of him? “Like taking candy from a baby…”

      Your reading of Jeremiah… that was speaking of human sacrifices, and is not a punishment for wrongdoing. It was murder. Can I remind you of passages like Ezekiel 18:14? 33:11?

      And can you define “child of god”? There are a lot of definitions for that.

      Do you really think that there is no such thing as a bad person? Why was the world destroyed by a flood? Why was Sodom destroyed? And God does not take revenge? What religion are you getting that from? Proverbs 20:22, Romans 12:19, &c. Yes, old and new testaments.

      Concerning Acts 3:23, do not forget passages like Deuteronomy 18:22. I don’t jump at random “prophesies” (which it appears you are claiming to give here?). They get tested (1st John 4:1), and tossed out if the individual is wrong even one time.

      Also, where are you getting “better placement” out of Ezekiel 37:26? I are teh confuzzled.

  • sgl

    this was just posted today, and thought you might find it interesting:

    Doubt and Universalism: Being Hopeful and Dogmatic

    You’re a hopeful universalist if you desire, wish or hope that universal reconciliation in Christ be true but just can’t bring yourself to believe it to be true, likely because of how you read the bible. You’re a dogmatic universalist if you are convinced that universal reconciliation in Christ is true, likely because you have come to believe that the bible does, in fact, support universal reconciliation in Christ. [….]

    … I argue–strongly–that universal reconciliation in Christ is the only view that makes Christianity morally, biblically and theologically coherent and that all the other options–e.g., eternal conscious torment, conditionalism, and annihilationism–make Christianity morally, biblically and theologically incoherent (if not monstrous).


    • Lana Hope

      Omg thank you super much for directing me there. Brilliant.

      • sgl

        in case you didn’t wade thru the comments, a clever one:
        Andrew • 17 hours ago

        I like the reported quote of Moltmann who, when asked after addressing an international conference if he was a universalist, replied: “Am I a universalist, hmm, no…there’s plenty of people I don’t want to see in heaven. But God, now – is He a universalist? That’s a different question…”


  • One of the misconceptions I run into when discussing Universalism is the notion that universalists don’t believe there are consequences for moral evil. To the contrary, most universalists I’ve talked to believe just the opposite.

    Take the most worn-out objection to Universalism of all, the “Hitler question.” Will God just open the doors to heaven and let Hitler in? Not until after the dictator has felt every bit of the pain, misery, and despair he inflicted on others.

    Whatever is left of him after that experience will, IMO, begin a very long period of reconstruction that will eventually result in him being united with God. But to equate that concept with God simply overlooking sin is a complete misrepresentation of the Universalist position.

    • I just heard that if you had followed the Pope on Twitter last month that your time in Purgatory would have been lessened:

      Looks like I’ll be going for the full duration. :-/

      • Lana Hope

        What?! Is that a joke?!

      • Lana Hope

        Follow him, Chris! With all your sins, you have a lot to worry about.

    • Lana Hope

      the part that irrks me about that question is that the evangelical Christians who often bring up that point actually do give free passes to mass murderers. For example, Combrade Duch, well known in Cambodia as a mass murder became a Christian in the 90s.

      I have no issue with the love of God overcoming the hardest of hearts, but I don’t wish to be selective about it, nor assume that God is.

      • Eh, not all evangelicals. You know that I am not a Calvinist, but here is how one open-air preacher deals with the topic of hell:

        There is very little assumption in this…

        • Lana Hope

          My gosh, that’s extreme. How can he say he’s not responsible for pushing people away from God? Wow.

          • Yeah, I don’t see eye to eye with him on that point.

          • Lana Hope

            Did Mark ever tell you about the time he got on youtube for arguing with an IFB pastor at KC? He was telling the students walking by that he was going to hell. Then mark argued with the man. It ended up on youtube.

          • I have heard part of the story but not all of it. I am not surprised that it ended up on YouTube; I have argued with a couple of the local IFB pastors on and off the street. :-/

          • Lana Hope

            The guy there was insane, and mark can get angry.

  • I love the idea that all roads ultimately lead to God, Nirvana, Ultimate Truth, or whatever one may call it.

    What are your thoughts on reincarnation? When I first started looking into Universalism myself, I wondered how God would save someone after death.

    • Lana Hope

      I am not entirely opposed to second lives. But I do know that if I have 35,000 times to learn to get it right, I still won’t have it right. It will never be enough, no how much merit I make or how much I try or how many times I’m born in the world below.

      But that said, there have been kids born who came into this world talking about a past life, referring to themselves by a different name and accurately giving directions to real places where they’ve never been. I’m not verifying these stories. But it’s possible that they are true.

      If we die has a baby, and we needed earth for so development, what happens? Or what happens when your life on earth was living hell (say severe abuse), and you want to come back to make a positive memory?

      I do necessarily believe in reincarnation. I’m just saying it’s possible that there are exceptions, but not convinced that there are exceptions. I don’t believe in the wrathful creation who says we still got in wrong, so go live again. 35,000 lives later I will still be here if that’s the case.

      That said, if God let me be reborn as an eagle, if take him up on it. I don’t think it’s possible for human spirits to have animal spirits, but one can dream.

      • I’ve read those stories about kids remembering past lives, too.

        There is one story I saw where a young boy had so many details of his past life right, but just a couple were wrong, like his name (if I remember it happened to be the name of the family dog). Weird.

        I have always kind of though reincarnation made a lot of sense somehow. I’ve wondered at times at some of the things some of my kids have said.

  • Omkara

    When you refer to “universalists” in the title, do you mean Unitarian Universalists?

    My understanding of univervsalism is a Western concept. That the entire globe should become westernized and adopt Christianity as the default global culture-religion. Isn’t that what “Western universalism” is all about? Mono-theism and mono-culture. Same, same, same everywhere?

    I don’t agree with it at all. I’m not a universalist. I believe in diversity of thought, religion and culture.

  • Omkara

    By Universalist do you mean Unitarian Universalists? I was not aware they they espouse any form of Western Universalism (which I oppose) now. Did they ever espouse that?

    • No, I’ve never been apart of a unitarian universalists group, so I dont’ want to speak for them. You may know more there. By universalists, I just mean the believe that everyone will go to heaven. Christians can be universalists too. But I was speaking more broadly.

      • Omkara

        “By universalists, I just mean the believe that everyone will go to heaven. ”

        What if I don’t want to go to this “heaven”?

        • Lana Hope

          well that is the biggest concern for universalism. Then again, no body asked me if I wanted to go to earth either. We also have to define heaven. That’s a loaded term. Some people mean a church service by that. OThers a place with gold streets. Others a place of spirits without bodies. Loaded term for sure.

          • Omkara

            I find universalism highly offensive because it assumes that not only should everyone be subsumed under one particular concept, but it assumes that everyone should want to.

          • We spend our lives consumed under single concepts. For example, eat toadstool mushrooms and you’ll die – period.

          • Omkara

            “We spend our lives consumed under single concepts. For example, eat toadstool mushrooms and you’ll die – period.”

            That’s completely different than dealing with metaphysical truth claims.

          • Not if a metaphysical entity reveals which of the claims is true. The n the subject goes from speculation to established fact, just like the fact that toadstool mushrooms are deadly.

          • Omkara

            ” The n the subject goes from speculation to established fact,”

            What established fact?

          • Kindly reread my post above; it contains the answer to your question.

          • Omkara

            “Not if a metaphysical entity reveals which of the claims is true. ”

            What metaphysical entity revealed what to be true?

          • Anonymous

            You’re confusing past and future tense.

          • Lana Hope

            You are saying its offensive that everyone has to go to heaven without us knowing what heaven is. Is it offensive that everyone has to live on earth? Maybe there are multiple heavens that people get to choose from. When we are talking about a world that is not earth, it’s hard to imagine what it is. Maybe some people choose to live on the beach, others in the mountains, others live on the streets. I don’t know. I don’t have a clue what heaven is like. I just dont’ believe God is going to dump his wrath out on people for all eternity. That’s what I don’t believe.

          • Omkara

            Who me? Not only that – I’m totally confused about the points Wordsmith and Bill are trying to make.

          • You’re overlooking a key point of Universalism: that God will one day reveal his truth to all, ending the endless debates over who is right. Therefore, your objections are based on a misunderstanding – a sincere one, I’m sure – as to what universalism teaches.

          • Omkara

            If and when she does that, it should be interesting.


Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers:

%d bloggers like this: