Is Universalism Harmful To Interfaith Dialog?

[Ancey]

I'm going to go to the next forum at a UU gathering locally (they don't even have a church because they consider it more economic and useful to use another building).

 

I'm only going to it to see who is there, really, and meet people of similar ideas (atheists, agnostics, really.), not really for the religious/spiritual side of it.

 

I certainly don't find religious doctrines likely to be true. But UU people sort of go against their original faith just by thinking that everyone is somehow saved, so who gives a crap. These UU people are still doing more for conversation than a church, because a church won't ever invite someone of a different faith to talk.

 

This is the wrong way to go about Interfaith Dialogue, btw:

 

 

The worst part is it in the SENATE. The freakin' Senate. And there was nothing exclusively Hindu in the prayer, if you listen to it all.

[Shyone]

 

The worst part is it in the SENATE. The freakin' Senate. And there was nothing exclusively Hindu in the prayer, if you listen to it all.

I would rather they didn't offer prayers at all, but if they insist, then let's at least be as diverse as the country is. I applaud them for choosing a Hindu priest, but the disruptions were offensive and uncalled-for.

 

Maybe they could have an atheist call for a moment of silence. That would be symbolic.

 

Have they had an American Indian dance and sing a prayer?

[Phanta]

I was in the Episcopal Church at the time and my priest embarrassed himself by saying that Jews and Christians have the same Messiah, it is just that Christians believe he already came and Jews are still waiting for him. I am thinking "what did I just hear?"

 

What a way to twist things. I wonder what the back-story to that rationalization is. Jewish brother? Best friend? Child?

 

Phanta

[dagnarus]

I was in the Episcopal Church at the time and my priest embarrassed himself by saying that Jews and Christians have the same Messiah, it is just that Christians believe he already came and Jews are still waiting for him. I am thinking "what did I just hear?"

 

What a way to twist things. I wonder what the back-story to that rationalization is. Jewish brother? Best friend? Child?

 

Phanta

 

My guess is that he meant that Jesus was their Messiah too. They just hadn't realised it yet.

[dagnarus]

Personally I think that universalism is a different faith in it's own right. I don't mean that in terms of Fundamentalism is the true Christianity, whereas Christian universalism is somekind of pretender, Unless the Christian God comes down from on high and gives his endorsement to one of them I don't think any particular group is deserving of that title. What I mean to say is that at the end of the day Christian universalism is a different religion to Christian fundamentalism, and while they might share many beliefs, practices, religious texts in common at the end of the day they approach these things in a different ways and while technically they have the same God in name, I would say that the Universalist God is distinctly different to the fundamentalist God, especially in terms of how he deals with humanity, I think the same pretty much goes for all the other variant of Christianity. Given this I would say that it is an utter nonsense to state that universalism is harmful to interfaith dialogue, it is harmful interfaith dialogue only insofar as people having different faiths is. That said all the world religions are quite definitely distinct, for example, I don't think Christian fundamentalism is compatible with anything other than Christian fundamentalism and to my mind changing it so it was would require, that it well, be changed into universalism, which as I said before, I think is a completely different religion.

[zandurian]

Personally I think that universalism is a different faith in it's own right. I don't mean that in terms of Fundamentalism is the true Christianity, whereas Christian universalism is somekind of pretender, Unless the Christian God comes down from on high and gives his endorsement to one of them I don't think any particular group is deserving of that title. What I mean to say is that at the end of the day Christian universalism is a different religion to Christian fundamentalism, and while they might share many beliefs, practices, religious texts in common at the end of the day they approach these things in a different ways and while technically they have the same God in name, I would say that the Universalist God is distinctly different to the fundamentalist God, especially in terms of how he deals with humanity, I think the same pretty much goes for all the other variant of Christianity. Given this I would say that it is an utter nonsense to state that universalism is harmful to interfaith dialogue, it is harmful interfaith dialogue only insofar as people having different faiths is. That said all the world religions are quite definitely distinct, for example, I don't think Christian fundamentalism is compatible with anything other than Christian fundamentalism and to my mind changing it so it was would require, that it well, be changed into universalism, which as I said before, I think is a completely different religion.

This clicked when you said that universalism is it's own religion - not a melding of a bunch of religions.

 

I think universalism DOES take away from any exclusive religion to suggest that all are gonna' make it into whatever heaven or nirvana or paradise they believe in. That's the beauty: it begins to take away the bigotry and intolerance and the resulting oppression.

 

The fact that people who belong to any religion known for it's exclusivity are calling for universal understanding and good will to all is very encouraging AISI. They are effectively tearing their own system down from the inside.

 

Just like when Gandhi decried the Hindu cast system - he was actually tearing down the religion itself and although not completely successful - I think it was a big leap forward for humanity. Now he is the most quoted pagan in Christianity "Hate the sin, love the sinner" - Gandhi

 

I am a sort of Christian universalist but admit it has made me an outsider to Christianity proper - not to mention from Christian Universalism "proper"! (I had to quit being a mod a http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php because I kept questioning the inerrancy of scripture).

 

So really - those proposing real unity ("real" being the operative word) CANNOT really be Christians or Muslims or Hindus - because they would be denying the tenants their own faith. What they are REALLY doing is trying to bring some sense of peace into the conflict and to see some progress for humanity (remember - I prefaced this statement with "REAL" unity).

 

The intention was good, but it seemed kind of dishonest in a way.

I know what you mean.

 

I'm actually kind of worried about the opposite problem - that religions will join together. If it weren't for the existence of Hinduism, three varieties of Abrahamic religion, Buddhism and others, we would hardly have anything to point to and say, "if you're right, then why does the majority of the world disagree with you?" Or anyone but atheists for that matter.

 

Given that they're all man made anyway, I can't see them trashing their cherished doctrines for a little unity however.

 

So here's the bad news and an example of the dishonesty Deva spoke of: On the one hand protestant evangelicals will say the RCC is false Christianity and even the anti-Christ. BUT - seeing an ally in their anti-abortion stance they will set aside little details like that and join forces because - more votes.

 

So I guess when judging the honesty, try to find the motive for the call to unity. Is it for "REAL" unity pr just some political advantage?

 

Maybe ecumenticalism is a stepping stone to the abolishing of religion because by admitting that another may have something to offer they cast doubt on the absolute authority of their own?

[Shyone]

So I guess when judging the honesty, try to find the motive for the call to unity. Is it for "REAL" unity pr just some political advantage?

 

Maybe ecumenticalism is a stepping stone to the abolishing of religion because by admitting that another may have something to offer they cast doubt on the absolute authority of their own?

Good points.

 

In a sense, though, they are setting aside their differences in order to further the cause of "religion." George H. W. Bush didn't say Jews, Muslims and Hindus aren't citizens, he said that he didn't consider atheists citizens.

 

When they can keep their mouths shut and pretend to honor a prayer about some vague "god", they can all pretend it's their god (most of the time). "In God We Trust" and "Under God" are examples of this vague supernatural concept that they each still claim to own.

 

Maybe they've got it right. The difference is that we don't accept any "higher power". They will keep their specific doctrines to themselves until no one is watching, but they each want the option to spew their dogma with the understanding that "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe something and not nothing."

 

I'd like to think that exposure to other ideas would dissolve their differences into a bowl of mush that is unpalatable to anyone, but that's not what I see happening.

[dagnarus]

I am a sort of Christian universalist but admit it has made me an outsider to Christianity proper - not to mention from Christian Universalism "proper"! (I had to quit being a mod a http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php because I kept questioning the inerrancy of scripture).

 

I always assumed that all, or at least most, Christian universalists questioned the inerrancy of scripture.

[zandurian]

I am a sort of Christian universalist but admit it has made me an outsider to Christianity proper - not to mention from Christian Universalism "proper"! (I had to quit being a mod a http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php because I kept questioning the inerrancy of scripture).

 

I always assumed that all, or at least most, Christian universalists questioned the inerrancy of scripture.

 

There is a large chunk of very staunch bible inerrantist CUs. Basically they show (from scripture) that even though God is really pissed, He won't stay that way forever. Methinks it's an effort to win over eternal hell fundies who FREAK if you question the absolute perfection of their bible, which is in their eyes, for all intents and purposes - God Himself.

 

Those who break out of that mold are basically considered loose cannons (pardon the pun!!!) and you are correct - there are a LOT of those, possibly a majority. Most of the staunch ones are holdovers from a more brutal past.

 

CUs are considered more dangerous than atheists or satanists by many fundies because they can make a very good scriptural and logical case for universalism and there are always a few in the crowd ready to let go of the eternal torment thing.

[zandurian]

 

In a sense, though, they are setting aside their differences in order to further the cause of "religion." George H. W. Bush didn't say Jews, Muslims and Hindus aren't citizens, he said that he didn't consider atheists citizens.

He said that? Wow - that's scapegoating and political maneuvering at it's worst. George in one of the big reasons I got out of Church altogether.

 

examples of this vague supernatural concept that they each still claim to own.

And (of course) the founders put all the vagueness in there to prevent any religious takeover of the government. Hopefully that will hold up under the present religious right bombardment. Thank Ted Haggart for the movement to Christianize the government losing steam.

Maybe they've got it right. The difference is that we don't accept any "higher power". They will keep their specific doctrines to themselves until no one is watching, but they each want the option to spew their dogma with the understanding that "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe something and not nothing."

 

I'd like to think that exposure to other ideas would dissolve their differences into a bowl of mush that is unpalatable to anyone, but that's not what I see happening.

 

Once universalism is accepted though the bomb is greatly diffused. At least it is accepted that EVERYONE is part of the same family, no fundy concept of "children of the devil" vs. "children of God".

 

Most universalists I know (and I know a lot of them) have absolutely NO problem with atheists and are quick to point out that the religious leaders are the ones who drew the ire of Jesus - not atheists, not gays, not the rank and file 'sinners'.

[dagnarus]

There is a large chunk of very staunch bible inerrantist CUs. Basically they show (from scripture) that even though God is really pissed, He won't stay that way forever. Methinks it's an effort to win over eternal hell fundies who FREAK if you question the absolute perfection of their bible, which is in their eyes, for all intents and purposes - God Himself.

 

I think it's like faith vs works, trinitarianism vs arianism, infant baptism vs baptism. In the end the bible can be interpreted in such a way as to support any number of contradictory doctrines, it's just that when your used to interpreting it a certain way it becomes difficult for you to comprehend that it could mean anything else, and actually admitting it might have a contradiction could be scary.

[Shyone]

There is a large chunk of very staunch bible inerrantist CUs. Basically they show (from scripture) that even though God is really pissed, He won't stay that way forever. Methinks it's an effort to win over eternal hell fundies who FREAK if you question the absolute perfection of their bible, which is in their eyes, for all intents and purposes - God Himself.

 

I think it's like faith vs works, trinitarianism vs arianism, infant baptism vs baptism. In the end the bible can be interpreted in such a way as to support any number of contradictory doctrines, it's just that when your used to interpreting it a certain way it becomes difficult for you to comprehend that it could mean anything else, and actually admitting it might have a contradiction could be scary.

Admitting it might indicate a contradiction of your precious doctrine is bad enough, but to admit that it indicates that there are multiple "true" interpretations of the bible is downright scary. If more than one interpretation is correct, then quite possibly neither is correct.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I always assumed that all, or at least most, Christian universalists questioned the inerrancy of scripture.

Aren't the Moonies also universalists?

[dagnarus]

I always assumed that all, or at least most, Christian universalists questioned the inerrancy of scripture.

Aren't the Moonies also universalists?

 

I always assumed they weren't

 

That said, I've never assumed the Moonies were innerantists either.