whats a universalist?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalist
"In Christianity, Universalism refers to the belief that all humans will be saved from eternal damnation or annihilation in hell. "
In my experience, Universalist churches are places where people can believe absolutely anything they choose to about the bible, Jesus, and God. Christian relativism, where every truth about God is concurrently true and not true. I personally wouldn’t consider them to be Christians, but maybe that’s just me! 
I’m with you Ned. I don’t want a bunch of relativists going to my heaven. If people don’t believe the same way that I do, and they still think they’re in good favor with God, they’re just confused. I feel bad for them because they’re all going to hell. Buncha false Christians.
Glad to hear that we’re on the same page on this one Scott! I’ll send you my articles of faith so that you can check your own doctrine for any hint of confusion…
Ned is pretty much spot on. Far as I can tell, there’s nothing Christian about them. There’s need to get all huffy about eternal resting places- they simply don’t meet the minimum standards for what it would take to be called “Christian”- they aren’t followers of Christ.
K, Gandhi sounds nice and everything… but…
I’m going to give my own shit here, too:
“After a short and bitter study, mixed with nausiating experience, I have come to the conclusion that [1] all religions are culturally reaffirming mob-moral-dogmas; [2] all human thoughts are full of error; [3] all human beings should be as far away from me as they are, if not farther, because their stupidity and their self-toxification is so dangerous. Therefor, conversion is deadly.” (Dan, All Men Are Shitters: Death and Unconsciousness of a near extinction. 2007, p1.)
But, if they existed in groups of millions, and constantly reaffirmed their own christianness, they would be “true christians”, while a minority of “false christians” called the others “false”, and then called themselves “true”.
I say:
“If you don’t love your enemies and give all of your non-necessities, luxury-money or resources to poor and homeless people, you’re not a true christian.”
And what’d you say to me, if I said that?
If you're going to go that way with it, then there's no point in discussing if anything is anything- dogs are cats, you're a firefighter, I'm the Queen of England. If you allow for any standardized definitions of words, though, then the Universalists aren't Christians. I'm not trying to insult them, any more than I'm insulting Jews by saying they aren't Christians, either. Even if you take a very liberal understanding of what a Christian is, they still don't fit.
Let me put it this way- if the Universalists are Christians, then YOU are a Christian. Dawkins is a Christian. The word has no application anymore.
I'd say it's apples and oranges. I'm not making any particular behavioral demands of people and saying you have to meet them to be a "true" Christian. I'd also say you have no backing for your statement, since historically, nobody has supported that view.
This is not about me being all snooty and trying to say who ‘makes the cut’. Here, take a look:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_ … ssociation
Assuming we’re talking about these guys, can you in good conscience call them Christian? Do you see any indication that even they want to be called Christian?
I was mostly questioning.
So, christianity is more about a belief in christ and his teachings or ways, in general?
That’s it in a nutshell, though that by itself doesn’t mean anything- a person can think they are following Christ while doing and believing any darned thing. I think the Nicene Creed is preferable.
According to my observation, many of the unitarian-universalists don’t think of themselves as Christians any more although probably some do. Historically the denomination is a combination of two Christian groups. The unitarians were strict monotheists. They rejected the trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. The universalists believed that all people would ultimately be saved. There are other universalist christians outside of the UUC. In fact, I lean that way myself. I think allowing souls to suffer eternally is incompatible with a God who is love.
A universalist is the opposite of a particularist. Right?
Right Scott. You’re probably thinking of the Diversitarian-Particularist Church.
I’m no good with small talk or proper introductions. Therefore, I offer you all a simple hello, and then I’m going to get right to it.
First off, anyone attempting to determine who among man is a “true christian” has engaged in a very difficult task. Such a task may actually be impossible to accomplish through human device.
To address the earliest dated subtopic contained in this posting, I direct the asker and the answerer alike to refer to the Nag Hammadi Library, Oxford History of Christianity, the writings of Irenaeus, and the Bible for a more accurate listing of the facts. While the involved parties may or may not believe in that the Nag Hammadi and/or the Bible are sacred texts, the historical contents of both are tied directly to the topic at hand. Many self-proclaimed “christians” have dismissed the validity of the Nag Hammadi Library (and other Gnostic works), citing the works as being heretical in nature. However, there are few people to date who have called into question the historical value offered by the codices manuscripts. Consider for a moment the fact that the Nag Hammadi Library and several other Gnostic texts give accounts relating to events occurring between the 5th century BCE and the 3rd century CE, a time period which is entirely unaccounted for in the modern Bible. While the sacred nature of the texts are disputed, they offer at least a historical perspective on the missing Biblical time period. Such an account deserves at least an objective consideration. In fact, the Gnostics were among the first post crucifixion christian movement in the Roman controlled region of Israel. The Gnostics taught that even the most evil human soul could be saved post mortem, while in hell. The pre-requisite for such a soul to be saved was that the soul (or soul’s owner) must experience true revelation of the existence of God, as a result said sou’s being in hell. The only soul’s who were never to be granted salvation by God were those who remained stubbornly ignorant of the truth (God’s existence and their connection to Him), even having found themselves in hell. Also, hell was not to be a place of “fire and brimstone,” but rather a spiritual existence (in or out of corporeal body) whereby that soul’s connection with God was eternally severed, meaning that soul had essentially been “forgotten” by God and could no longer be granted salvation under any circumstances. In other words, permanent separation from God was ultimately the worst punishment that spiritual man could suffer. No such underworld of humidified torture was believed to exist; such a place would torture only the physical body, not the all important soul, of man.
I suspect that even in your own research you will not find any direct dispute of such a concept in the 4 Gospels of the New Testament, at least not without some convenient interpreting of the text. In fact, you will likely find that the direct teachings of Jesus in the New Testament (pre-Saul/Paul era) are more in support of such a concept than in opposition to it. The New Testament Gospels are detailed accounts of the life and work of the adult Jesus Christ, which attest to the conceptual “fact” that Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified for the sins of the world (mankind) so that all may have eternal life (salvation) through His sacrifice. Such a concept clearly infers that the “New Covenant” held between mankind and God, as brought forth by the self-sacrifice of Jesus, that the Gnostic concept of human salvation is correct. As Jesus died to pay the debt for the sins of all mankind, it follows that no man shall be condemned to a physical or spiriual torture (hell) in any form, except those unwilling to receive salvation. Clearly, the teachings of Jesus, as found in the 4 Gospels, indicate that moving forward, salvation is a gift given freely and that such salvation is not contigent on any act, ritual, or requirement other than literal acceptance. The choice is ultimately to be made by each man, even those who are met with hell have the choice aqccept salvation or not. Hell is no longer a place for those who are deemed “not worthy.” Following the sacrificial death of Jesus, hell becam a place where all men are destined to arrive at and remain, for as long as we choose to remain ignorant of our connection with our creator and to accept salvation. Jesus created what one would call “a level playing field” for all mankind in our varying degrees of error. Some will make the choice to accept salvation while their corporeal bodies are still carrying their soul, others will accept salvation after having arrived in hell and “realizing” the existence of God to be true and their connection to him true in turn, while others will ultimately choose to remain stubornly ignorant, even in hell, refusing to admit knowledge of God and separating themselves from him absolutely, and existing forever without him in a permanent hell. I would ask that we all try to remember this, especially in times of anger or disappointment in our fellow man, and whenever we find ourselves touting salvation or levelling damnation upon ourselves or others.
More to come regarding the other posts on this topic, as time allows.[/u][/i]
Are Muslims Christians?
If a Muslim decides to call himself a Christian because he likes the letter ‘C’ better than the letter ‘M’, but doesn’t change any of his religious views, is he a Christian then?
Regarding the first posts of Ned Flanders and Scott Mears and Uccisore under this topic post:
The idea that “my heaven” could possibly exist is something completely off track from the description of heaven found in the teachings of Jesus. While at one time heaven may have actually been reserved for specific people (Jews, during the Old Testament times) Jesus makes clear that heaven can no longer be claimed by a certain race or type of people. Salvation becomes available to any and all at the moment Jesus allows His self-sacrifice to be carried out through crucifixion. You and I cannot claim to have a reservation for a proverbial seat in heaven, heaven exists as it is without reservable space, ready to accomodate anyone. As for the comment about being in good favor God, simply ignorant of the Biblical account regarding such an idea. No man will ever again be in good favor with God. How do we know this? Simple, look to the New Testament Gospels in comparisson to the Old Testament accounts of man being in favor with God. Jesus’s message spoke to the fact that mankind had strayed so far from our intended nature that we had become inherently perpetual in error. Man was so far removed from goodness that, according to Jesus, we were no longer capable of finding a path (of return) to God on our own, thus the need for Jesus’ salvific act via His crucifixion and death. Jesus, by His own account, was the representative of God and man together, and was such a representative across three (recurring triplicate theme) planes of existence; earth, hell, and heaven. Jesus was sacrificed as man and God together, and as such died, descended to hell, and ascended into heaven. In so doing, Jesus bridged the separations between these three planes as could not be done by any other means than His sacrifice. By this same act, Jesus also bridged the immeasurable space between man’s fallacy and worthiness of salvation. Therefore, no man must suffer an eternal hell, nor need be punsished for being incapable of that which would earn “good favor” with God. Whether you or I like the idea or not, we are all welcomed in heaven, which was probably the point (i.e. humans in error, especially when trying to judge one another).
To be clear, this does not excuse man from our duty in virtue. Knowing that we will ultimately arrive at a heavenly destination does not give any of us carte blanche to intentionally seek out and/or enact that which we know to be morally and ethically wrong, nor to ignore that which we know is right. More simply stated, the promise of guaranteed salvation does not excuse or justify behaving in a way which the behaver knows to be wrong, but enacts because they are aware of the ultimate end reward. In its simplest and most recognizable form; the end does not justify the means!
Though a great reward awaits us, the undeserving, we are all still responsible to ourselves and God (not each other) to at the very least make every possible effort to do that which is right. From the simplest to the most complex aspects of human life on earth (i.e. from opening a door for a stranger to issues such as abortion) we are to actively seek righteousness. Even knowing that we will never (any of us) make the proverbial finish line by our own efforts, we are still indebted to pursue (meaning kinetically vs. potentially) virtue, honor, and right in all things. Those who attempt and make error bear a more righteous soul than any who passively ignore such pursuits, desirously awaiting their arrival in heaven. In fact, the desire to arrive in heaven may compromise man’s pursuit of that which is true and right, as such a desire for the salvation God offers us often becomes the unwilling crutch of those who equally desire to attain such salvation passively. We need not answer to each other, we need not and should not levy judgement on one another in this spiritual matter, as each man is reponsible to himself and such a duty alone is enough to consume more than a lifetime. God knows us and that which can not be known for certain by human perception, and He alone has the right to spiritual judgement.
So if we’re all wecome in heaven, then what is hell even there for?
Yeah. What the hell is going on here? 
A waiting room for those that haven’t walked through the open door to heaven (sort of like that Seinfeld episode, where Jerry’s dentist has issues of Penthouse amongst the magazines)?
It’s a simple matter of perception. You’re asking a question which does not apply to the premise or proposition. The question “what is hell even there for?” is a bit of a red-herring. Such a question presupposes a related answer would arise from the proposition I provided in my earlier reply. However, no such answer can arise, as the proposition is clear that hell is not for anything. On the contrary, hell is the polar opposite of anything that exists with a purpose. Think of hell as a nothingness, a void, a proverbial “black-hole.” Rather, hell is a sort of existential vacuum where a soul becomes indefinitely suspended between existence and non-existence. God did not create a boiling lava pit where the soul is imprisoned, tortured, and parched. Hell is simply the space where God keeps his promise to allow man (mostly their souls of course) to exercise free will, even in existential terms. He is so ultimately perfect and true that even in physical death, having been freed from fleshly bonds, a soul is still given the choice of free will and can turn their back to God, can remain ignorant of God at will. Through Jesus God reduced the terms of salvation to its simplest possible form, man’s acceptance of such a gift. Even the spirit who was doubtful of the truth of God while in corporeal life is revealed the knowledge of God. Hell does not exist to serve a purpose any further than a ethereal facility for the souls who choose to remain there.