Universal Salvation?

Elvendon

Believer
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
Something I have been thinking about for a long time is Apocatastasis - that is, universal salvation. Originally posited over a thousand years ago by Origen, a greek early church scholar, and later carried on by many thinkers from Saint Gregory of Nyssa to Julian of Norwich, it teaches that all moral agents will be ultimately saved - though evil individuals will be punished for an undefined length of time - even the sourest, most evil devil will return to God.

This teaching was declared anathema by the Synod of Constantinople in 543. My question is, what do other posters here think about this teaching? Do you think it should be more readily accepted by modern Christians or do you believe there is a better justification for eternal punishment?

Blessed be the Holy Three

Elvendon
 
Can Apocatastasis or universal salvation include the idea that salvation is a condition that occurs in this life, as some hold? Or that there is no hell but all people go to some place in heaven? Or that the wicked die but the righteous go to heaven? All of these ideas have one thing in common--the absense of hell.
 
lol, ain't that funny?... Hell doesn't exist, until we are in it...

v/r

Q
 
RubySera_Martin said:
Can Apocatastasis or universal salvation include the idea that salvation is a condition that occurs in this life, as some hold? Or that there is no hell but all people go to some place in heaven? Or that the wicked die but the righteous go to heaven? All of these ideas have one thing in common--the absense of hell.

Nope. Though these are all possibilities, Apocatastasis proper means that all souls will atone of their sins and enter into the kingdom - not that the wicked will die completely or that hell only exists on earth. Hell does exist according to Apocatastasis; but noone stays there forever.
 
I believe one is in hell as long as one chooses to be in it. Hell is the absence of God, the separation of the soul from God. I believe God's arms are always waiting to receive us. But we have to choose to turn to Him and return the embrace. Until we do so, we cause our separation from Him and our hell.

I do believe that one day every created soul/spirit will reunite with God. There are things that will cause us to take longer to get there, and suffer much more than we otherwise would. But I don't think God "sends" us to hell or anywhere. We send ourselves. I think this means many possibilities could occur- reincarnation, incarnation in another form elsewhere (including in a spiritual realm), etc. I just don't know. Perhaps it's different for everyone (my best current guess).

So I guess I'm with Origen on this one. I realize this is not the way many churches currently view what happens to the unrepentent, but my experience of God has been that S/He/It is supremely good and loving, and wills that all will come to salvation. Yet, given free will, it is we who must accept the gift. Due to various obstacles (not the least of which is fear and pride), people might take much more than a lifetime to accept it and allow this acceptance to transform their soul such that they transcend sin and death. But I do believe God's will cannot be thwarted and so all will be saved eventually. And, of course, what may seem like a long time- lifetimes- to us, is nothing at all to God, to whom time is meaningless.
 
imo

We've spoke predestination before and I think that is the ultimate...our destiny is to return to source.

We are not punished for our sins but by them....we create our own hells, our thoughts, actions and decisions put us there.

Conversely we create heaven on earth if we so choose (and by choose I mean think, act, and judge righteously)

And I believe in a forgiving G-d...do we think we can really get this done in one lifetime? I think we are on the merry go round till we get it right...we are offered plenty of opportunity and as many chances as need to grasp the golden ring.


So I think my thinking is in alignment with your universal salvation, yes?
 
But why is there such an emphasis in scripture about the eternal fiery place where the worm dieth not and the fire quenches not over and over again. Jesus spoke adamantly about hell. And there is all indications that those who end up there are there for good.

"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell._ - Matthew 5:29-30

"Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire." - Matthew 18:8

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels...
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.' - Matthew 25:41,46


"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." - Mark 9:43-48


For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God....
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." - John 3:16-18, 36

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" - 2 Thessolonians 1:8-9

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." - Revelation 20:13-15

"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." - Revelation 21:8


In light of these scriptures, we cannot afford to just lightly gloss over them. If true, then it is very serious business to those on the receiving end. However unfair one would think this prospect is, the scriptures do not mince words about the wrath of God. How do we deal with such graphic and explicit descriptions of such a horrific place of punishment and the seeming permanence of it?
 
I don't believe that a loving merciful God could send anyone to Hell. I personally believe that Souls are pure and when a person dies, they return Home. It's the mind that clouds judgement because humans are essentially ego-driven and fearful. The soul however always remains pure and it's our duty here to return to that egoless, loving state or as close to it as possible. I do so by following Jesus and thanking Him for what he's done for me. He's my shining light, an exemplar.
 
~Jonathan~ said:
I don't believe that a loving merciful God could send anyone to Hell. I personally believe that Souls are pure and when a person dies, they return Home. It's the mind that clouds judgement because humans are essentially ego-driven and fearful. The soul however always remains pure and it's our duty here to return to that egoless, loving state or as close to it as possible. I do so by following Jesus and thanking Him for what he's done for me. He's my shining light, an exemplar.

So Jesus didn't really mean all that stuff about hell? What did He mean by it?
 
I did make a long and detailed post, addressing each quote in turn, but because this forum logs you out after a time (which I forgot ><) it got gobbled up.

Basically, I believe that the eternal punishment referred to so viscerally in the Bible is entirely our responsibility. God loves everyone the same. He sends rain and sun on the righteous and unrighteous alike. When the Kingdom is finally realised physically, God's presence (and so his love) will be everywhere, inescapable. Our attitude to God and all he stands for regulates how we will respond to this. For the righteous, this will be the final fulfillment of all they have hoped and prayed for - and end to suffering, death and loneliness, forever. For the unrighteous, God's love will burn, their own guilt and embarassment bringing them unending pain when faced by God's supreme love and simple kindness. There is no reason why they cannot repent, even at this point however - by letting go of all the hate and resentment, by accepting God's love and the salvation that comes with it, we can achieve peace and eternal bliss. There will be some, perhaps, who will never submit, never accept God's love, and so they will dwell, lost and tormented, for all of eternity.

The Lake of Fire, the Furnace... all these things are how the afterlife will seem to the unrighteous. But this will just be an allergic reaction to a good they are unable to deal with, rather than the legal retribution of an angry deity.
 
Dondi said:
But why is there such an emphasis in scripture about the eternal fiery place where the worm dieth not and the fire quenches not over and over again. Jesus spoke adamantly about hell. And there is all indications that those who end up there are there for good.

I'll take these verses one by one. Actually, Jesus never talked about "hell" in the sense that we know it today. Jesus talked about Gehenna, which was an actual, physical place. Gehenna was the dump in the Valley of Hinnom and was not at all a nice place- it was full of the carcasses of animals, people who weren't buried properly (criminals, etc.), and burning trash. It stunk and was frightening. Pagan peoples had sacrificed children there. But it was not hell, nor did Jewish people think it was hell (at least in our modern meaning of the word). Jewish people knew it was a real geographic location.

That means that Jesus was using Gehenna to mean something, to make a point. Being God or at least divine according to most Christian theology, if He wished to tell people they were going to hell if they did this or that (or believed this or that), why wouldn't He have said so in plain language? Why the talk about an actual place- Gehenna- rather than a plain description of Hell (i.e., you should not do X or Y, or you could wind up being punished by God forever through the method of burning)?

I believe that, just as Jesus uses countless other metaphors in His teachings which were appropriate for the people of that day, He uses Gehenna as a metaphor for the torment the soul undergoes when it is separated from God, when it sins and does not repent.

Now for the verses...

"And if thy right eye offend thee..." - Matthew 5:29-30

Actually, this makes a lot of sense, but unfortunately we misread it in all kinds of ways today due to problems with translating common Aramaic expressions (idioms) into modern English with all our current connotations. The expression, "If your eye offends you, pluck it out" was a common Aramaic idiom that meant "do not envy/covet." "If your hand offends thee, cut it off" was a common idiom that meant "do not steal." These phrases still mean this in some areas with Aramaic linguistic heritage today. So Jesus was saying, "don't envy and don't steal, because it is better to avoid this at all costs than to have your entire being cast into Gehenna (the place where executed criminals are dumped)."

"Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee"- Matthew 18:8

See above.

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand' - Matthew 25:41,46

Now this one is much more interesting, and one I am still working on interpreting. I haven't been able to track down the original language and a good, scholarly commentary yet. First, I think that it is interesting that Jesus says "everlasting fire" and not Gehenna; furthermore, that the fire is everlasting does not mean everlasting punishment, or He wouldn't need to detail that further on. Fire is a refining symbol in Christianity, so I generally view it in this light- a way to purify that which is not holy. For example, in Jewish ritual worship, fire purified objects used in worship and transformed the offering into a form that reached God. Fire is also often associated with appearances of God- the burning bush, as the pillar of fire over the tabernacle in the wilderness, the consumption of Elijah's sacrifice offered on Mount Carmel. Additionally, fire is a symbol of God's holiness: "Let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:28-29). It is likely that when John the Baptist is talking about the capacity of Jesus to baptize with fire, rather than water, he is referring to this holiness and divinity of God.

I do not think Jesus was talking about literal fire- the place in our imaginations we refer to as Hell. I think, given the textual evidence (there's a ton more throughout the OT and NT on fire and God), that Jesus was talking about a state of being in relation to God's holiness. That is, God refines us and purifies us as metal-workers refine metals by melting them (the refiner's fire that Peter talks about). Peter informs us that eventually the universe will be destroyed by fire (a great prediction, since eventually our Sun will explode and we'll be burned up), but that a new heavens and earth will result, a refined and purified universe (2 Peter 3: 10-12). Additionally, in
1 Cor 3:13, we are told that fire will reveal each of our works as Christians, and "will test and critically appraise the character and worth of the work each person has done."

Given all this, it seems likely that everlasting fire refers to God's judgment, not the punishment itself. We are all subject to God's fire (His holy judgment). But those who do not repent are subject to punishment according to this verse. What that punishment is, is not discussed.

Another interesting thing about this verse, though perhaps a subject for another thread, is that Jesus is not saying that those who do not believe in Him are subject to everlasting punishment, but rather that those who do not serve Him are. How does He determine if we have served Him? By reviewing our actions for instances we have served our fellow human beings. Arguably, if there is an eternal punishment, we are not subject to it by basis of our beliefs, but rather our wanton disregard for our fellow humanity, at least according to this passage.

"And if thy hand offend thee." - Mark 9:43-48

See above.


For God so loved the world...He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." - John 3:16-18, 36

I don't see how this contradicts my view on salvation. Whoever truly believes in Christ (undoubtedly I have more liberal views on what this means, but it isn't directly relevant) has a transformation of the soul such that he will not perish (come to destruction, be lost- Amplified) but have eternal/everlasting life. "He who does not believe (cleave to, rely on, trust in Him) is judged already [he has already been convicted and has already received his sentence] because he has not believed in and trusted in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (Amplified). I don't know how this contradicts my view- we are in hell as long as we choose to be.

As for the wrath of God, that is not a direct discussion of physical hell or even punishment: "But whoever disobeys the Son will never see (experience) life, but [instead] the wrath of God abides on him. [God's displeasure remains on him; His indignation hangs over him continually.]" (John 3:36 Amplified). We need to be careful about the connotations we attribute to scripture. The wrath of God- His displeasure toward us and our resulting separation from Him- are hell in and of itself. Whether or not the mind realizes it, the soul is tormented. How many Christians have not realized how lost and tormented their soul was when they were unrepentant until they came to know Christ? So it is for the soul after death until it comes to know Him.

Additionally, this verse has come to mean orthodoxy yields heaven. That is, right belief about Jesus leads to everlasting life. However, Jesus' own words say, as discussed above, that it is in service to our fellow human beings that we know and serve Him. Perhaps knowing Christ is not equivalent to being Christian (in the sense of being baptized, professing belief in Jesus, and belonging to a Christian church). Even the demons know who Jesus is, and believe in Him. Believing in Him in this verse must mean something more than mere thought, given the rest of Jesus' teachings.

"In flaming fire..." - 2 Thessolonians 1:8-9

"To deal out retribution (chastisement and vengeance) upon those who do not know or perceive or become acquainted with God, and [upon those] who ignore and refuse to obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Such people will pay the penalty and suffer the punishment of everlasting ruin (destruction and perdition) and eternal exclusion and banishment from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," (Amplified)

Again, no physical hell. But it does bring up the everlasting separation from God. All I can say is this doesn't jive with what I've experienced of God and that I'm still working on this matter. The fire metaphor, again, is explained above.

Interestingly, it again does not condemn non-Christians, though many would interpret it to mean this. Who it condemns are those who do not bother to seek out God (for we are, in other passages, told that those who seek, find) and those who refuse to obey the Gospel. Jesus Himself tells us what obedience to God and His teachings mean... how our attitudes and actions should be. Perhaps some are not Christian, but know Christ and God, whether or not they call Him by the name we do.

"And the sea gave up the dead..." - Revelation 20:13-15

Now this is another issue with translation and interpretation.

First, "death and hell" are inappropriate translations. The actual Greek word used here is Hades. Hades was not equivalent to Gehenna or our modern conceptions of hell. Hades was the state of disembodied existence and death, the place of all the dead according to Greek mythology.

So here the verse should read: "And the sea delivered up the dead who were in it, death and Hades surrendered the dead in them, and all were tried and their cases determined by what they had done [according to their motives, aims, and works]. Then death and Hades (the state of death or disembodied existence) were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's [name] was not found recorded in the Book of Life, he was hurled into the lake of fire." (Amplified)

First, it only garuntees that death and Hades (states of being) are hurled into the lake of fire, which could be (given the textual evidence) a reference to God's refining glory. It doesn't make much sense that you would throw the state of being dead and disembodied into a literal lake of fire. How would that happen? Then it says that if anyone's name is not recorded in the Book of Life, then they will also be hurled into the lake of fire. Arguably, this means that if there are such people, they would also be put into the refining fire of God's judgment and glory. Secondly, there may not be anyone that doesn't make the list. This passage (and others that talk about the refining fire of judgment) work well as a cautionary warning and encouragement to critically analyze one's motives and actions and to repent.

"But the fearful..." - Revelation 21:8

See above. Given the context, it is likely this lake of fire refers to God's refining glory and judgment.

In light of these scriptures, we cannot afford to just lightly gloss over them. If true, then it is very serious business to those on the receiving end. However unfair one would think this prospect is, the scriptures do not mince words about the wrath of God. How do we deal with such graphic and explicit descriptions of such a horrific place of punishment and the seeming permanence of it?

Agreed. I do not lightly gloss over hell, but rather carefully study the scriptures about it. Certain translations, such as the KJV, mask very important distinctions in the original language. The KJV translates Gehenna, Hades, and sheol (the grave) all as hell. But none of these concepts in their original cultural and linguistic context meant hell as we've come to think about it. I prefer reading the Bible in its original languages as much as possible; I believe this protects its integrity. Thus, I think translations should be careful to leave the original language intact in this case rather than translating them all to mean something that is quite different and a concept that was arguably peppered with Pagan ideologies about the afterlife.

Additionally, I think that it is unfortunate that many people need to think about hell as a place of physical torment to feel that it is punishment enough- or bad enough to scare people into repenting. As good as God is, as amazing as communion with Him is, is not a separation of our soul from God punishment enough? Is it not the ultimate torment, when as Christians we look back over our life when we were not saved? Christians typically view the best thing in their lives as their relationship with God, and the worst thing that they ever went through as the life they had before knowing Him. Not physical pain or suffering, but the anguish of the lost soul. I don't see why the afterlife would be any different.
 
Path, I like your post. I know you have the education and insight to research it from a solid textual basis. I noticed you used the word "liberal" in there with reference to your own view. Thus the age-old argument can well be maintained that liberal Christians just explain away the reality of hell. I think the counter-argument can also be made that conservative Christians just explain away the simple reality of peasant language and imagery of Jesus' time. It looks to me that what you did was search out the everyday meanings of the language Jesus would have used, complete with idioms of speech, etc.

Here's a simple example from everyday contemporary society: My mom will kill me if she finds out.

I come from a background where this kind of speech is forbidden. Absolutely NO ONE is allowed to kill anybody. It's against the law of the land and it's against Jesus commandments in the NT. Years ago I tried explaining to a member of my community that people don't mean to literally kill anybody when they say this. She replied, "It's very colourful language all the same." She meant it is inappropriate.

I find myself cringing whenever I hear the word "kill" used that way, even if I know it is not meant literally. I understood that it is not meant literally when I heard a young girl say, "My mom killed me for it." Obviously, she was very much alive and well, so whatever her mom did to her, it did not physically kill her.

I think Jesus used imagery of hell the same way. It meant something totally different to his hearers than it does to us. I understand the concept of hell as a lake of fire like we think of it did not exist in Jesus' day. It was developed in later times and came to its present meaning around the time of the Reformation in the early 1500s.

To take our excursion re the meaning of the word hell back to the original question.....I think it all hangs together because whether or not salvation is universal seems (in our way of thinking) to depend on the reality of a physical lake of fire in which our souls can burn forever. I think we forget that souls are spirit and fire is literal. The two don't mix. Spirit cannot feel pain from fire.
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see, the graphic picture of hell we all know and love was built up during the Middle Ages and Victorian times when the Church was being used as an instrument of social and political control. It was used to great effect to frighten people nto submission.

I cannot think that such a notion has any place in Christianity today. It is surely impossible to scare people into a love of God, and if you don't love God you're wasting your time in church.

I think it's time to recognise that this fiery hell is largely a myth of our own creation (along with fallen angels etc) and concentrated on embodying the love of God instead.
 
Virtual_Cliff said:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can see, the graphic picture of hell we all know and love was built up during the Middle Ages and Victorian times when the Church was being used as an instrument of social and political control. It was used to great effect to frighten people nto submission.
Makes sense. I don't know my history well enough to say if the historical facts are correct. Nor do I know of an objective way to prove the motivation behind the church's use of hell in this way. A lot of people I know honestly believe that hell is a literal place of fire and that there is great danger that we will end up there. They arrange their lives around this belief.

Part of this "arrangement" includes
  1. knowing correct beliefs regarding God's will,
  2. acceptance of divine ordinance which includes confession of personal sinfulness and appreciation for God's gracious love in providing a way out of hell, and
  3. warning others of the danger of hell unless they convert.
I cannot think that such a notion has any place in Christianity today. It is surely impossible to scare people into a love of God, and if you don't love God you're wasting your time in church.
For these people, love for God is based on the belief that God has the power to condemn human souls to eternal damnation in hell fire, but chooses not to. Parallels in contemporary life can be taken from the kidnapper who holds his victim hostage. The kidnapper had the power to kill the hostage but chooses not to. I've read accounts where hostages feel genuine love for their kidnapper precisely because of the kidnapper's choice not to exercise his power to kill the hostage. It's a complicated psychological condition but it seems to actually work. People do feel a genuine love and gratitude toward God for the very reason that God is gracious enough not to condemn when he has the power--and right (as they believe)--to do so.
I think it's time to recognise that this fiery hell is largely a myth of our own creation (along with fallen angels etc) and concentrated on embodying the love of God instead.
I agree with you. I'm just describing what some Christians believe today. This includes my own family--parents, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins. Their way of relating to me reflects this belief in every single interaction. They believe that by choosing to acquire higher education I have forsaken godly teachings to follow my own lusts and desires, to quote a former friend's letter to me.

Here is where I may be wrong. I think the whole idea of universal salvation depends on getting rid of hell. In other words, if we don't have a hell to which to condemn unbelievers, we have universal salvation. Right? This is where I'm not sure that I'm right and I'm asking.
 
RubySera_Martin said:
Here is where I may be wrong. I think the whole idea of universal salvation depends on getting rid of hell. In other words, if we don't have a hell to which to condemn unbelievers, we have universal salvation. Right? This is where I'm not sure that I'm right and I'm asking.
Seems to me this is where we run into trouble in our dualistic nature....the need for the dualistic nature itself. Heaven/Hell, black/white, right/wrong...

Who needs to be right? our ego. Who needs others to be wrong? our ego. Who needs the wrong to be punished and makes justifications for same if we are wrong?

Perspectives and societal norms force this need upon us, when there are two or more sides to every story we need to make them divisive...

Seems there was a time for hell, seems some people need and desire hell, is that right? is it wrong? why? can't it just be?

Your hell ends when my heaven begins, and vice versa...Lots of people don't want your heaven to get in the way of their hell...and don't wanta lose it either.

And their are times when we are perfectly happy in our own little hell's, a time for every season....is that right, is it wrong, does it need to be either?
 
Wil, you've got a valid point. However, my question regards factual reality. Is it true that the idea of universal salvation depends on getting rid of the idea of hell as a literal place of punishment for unbelievers?

The facts in this case are ideas. I understand from the original post that there is a fully formed idea we are working with--the idea of universal salvation. And I am not quite sure what all belongs to that idea.

Am I too abstract? I tend to err on that side. After all, ideas are not things you can hold in your hand like some facts are. I just don't know how to make it more concrete.
 
RubySera_Martin said:
Wil, you've got a valid point. However, my question regards factual reality. Is it true that the idea of universal salvation depends on getting rid of the idea of hell as a literal place of punishment for unbelievers?
Ruby,

I think that you, and others, have clearly outlined the challenge! There are many, among them our own friends and family, who still maintain a belief in something called `hell.' But instead of even considering that perhaps hell is more so a state of mind, or a temporary condition of our existence - universal in that we have all been there ... people do, indeed, insist on concretizing the notion, and making it a place. :(

Perhaps part of the very challenge is that the Church's scare tactics, which Virtual_Cliff mentions, have worked too well!!! :eek: I mean, many people are afraid to even question their beliefs, and would rather nod & bow to tradition ("if it was good enough for my forefathers, it's good enough for me!") than try and apply Reason to their faith. And this is the distinction between Tradition as something legitimate and worthy of preserving ... and tradition as just another name for superstition.

If there is one phrase that I would most like to see forever stricken from the whole of Christianity, it is "fear of God." What an absolutely HORRID notion, and disgusting thing to introduce to the pure & innocent hearts of young children. :eek:

Here I would emphasize how sorely we need to re-evaluate many conventional interpretations and mistranslations. Consider how different would be the understanding conveyed (to people of ALL ages) if we substituted any of the following phrases for "fear of God":
  • Respect for God :)
  • Veneration of God :)
  • Recognition of God (or God's Presence) :)
  • Glorification (or Praise) of God :)
  • LOVE of God :)
(And here I recall a line from the liturgy that goes something like, "Is is indeed right and salutary, that we should at all times and in all places give Him thanks and praise.")

... sighhh ... but instead of this, we inherit the notion of fearing God, and I mean, come on - HOW are we supposed to feel free to really contemplate ANYTHING spiritual (eg, QUESTION the Bible!), let alone the confused, outdated, ridiculous notion of an eternal hell ... if we are too busy cowering and cringing, FEARING our all-Powerful God!?! :confused::p

And dammit, do NOT push it TOO far, or BANG-ZAP!!! ... you'll get Zeus' mighty Lightning-bolt upside yo head. (Do people realize that the Zeus imagery is probably still just about THE prevailing archetypal image still back of the Judeo-Christian `God?' Not to say for everyone here, or everyone, just the prevailing imagery. Wouldn't most folks agree?)

Bah, I feel like I'm soap-boxing it. sorry ... The fear thing just turns my stomach! And the hell-damnation-sin complex is right in there with it. These all kind of swirl together and - at least for me, imho - form the dark, ugly side of Christianity. And this is, and has always been for me personally (being raised in a loving, Christian family), very sad - and a travesty of the Founder's Intent. :(

All that said, as an esotericist, I actually do believe hell - but only as a condition of our consciousness ... inhabited by all of us on occasion, by most of us often enough, and also passed through (darn-near universally) after death. The key word there, however, is `through,' as in IMpermanent. Exceptions are EXCEEDINGLY rare ... happily enough! :)

Love and Light,

taijasi
 
RubySera_Martin said:
... my question regards factual reality. Is it true that the idea of universal salvation depends on getting rid of the idea of hell as a literal place of punishment for unbelievers?

That's a really interesting question Ruby! I think the answer is no. It seems to me that the idea of salvation has evolved into a question of whether or not a person, in a Christian sense, can consider themselves an honorary citizen (in good standing) of the "new Israel" (whatever that is). Such standing seems to be conferred on one by virtue of his belief in the ability of Jesus death to atone for inherent "sin" (whatever that is). Hell, for the most part, seems to be a medievel construction having little to do with strictly scriptural exegesis.

My only criticism of those Christians liberal enough to have relieved themselves of the notion of a divinely ordained everlasting torment is that they haven't applied the same logic to the notion of heaven. I mean, read Revelation's description of the heavenly city and tell me you don't think it's entirely symbolic and allegorical. Then tell me what else you base a literal concept of heaven on. (not you, I mean anyone)

Chris
 
Ok, I guess my current thinking is maybe no. I mean I feel I can be saved with the abyss around the corner....if others need to create hell, if the collective consciousness continues to have a need for it it doesn't affect me...accept that you and I are one...so if you head to hell so does a portion of me, yikes.

And as long as others believe in it, they are out there enjoying their condemning nature and tossin some folks in, some that get tossed willingly and others that don't believe hence can't be tossed...

So if we get rid of hell it makes this concept of Universal Salvation easier to swallow, but if we leave it there and allow people to grow through there beliefs...and allow these fears to be exposed, fears which in the light of day disappear...than maybe our souls will have grown more by the idea of hell being around for a number or incarnations allowing us to spend time with the idea...and yet eventually return to source.
 
Back
Top