• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

something I want to say

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
As far as I can see it is not accepted as such.
Universalism is associated closely with Unitarianism.
And no other Christian church accepts that Unitarianism can be Christian.

However from the point of view of the Universalist or Unitarian there is no problem at all.

I identify as an Anglican with Unitarian leanings which casts me in the heretical category.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Christian universalism is just one more of the (around) 50,000 brands of christianity.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Well with Christian Universalism you're automatically saved. With regular Christianity you have to ask for forgiveness to be saved. I could be wrong. I never studied Christian Universalism.
I find more than just asking for forgiveness but to endure 'faithful' to the end as per Matthew 24:13.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Christian universalism is just one more of the (around) 50,000 brands of christianity.
No, it's really not.

UU is to Christianity rather like Bahai is to Islam. Keeps the basics, but gets rid of the primitive morality. Far more inclusive and secular.
Tom
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
How is christianity in general.Like christian universalism?:)

From what I remember the Catholic position is closer to Christian Universalism than Protestant Christianity in that while there are people who are said to go to hell for eternity, others, who have not been so bad, go to a place called Purgatory where they are purified, and so end up being saved. I think the concept of Purgatory also applies to Christians who are not pure enough to go straight to heaven.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
From what I remember the Catholic position is closer to Christian Universalism than Protestant Christianity in that while there are people who are said to go to hell for eternity, others, who have not been so bad, go to a place called Purgatory where they are purified, and so end up being saved. I think the concept of Purgatory also applies to Christians who are not pure enough to go straight to heaven.
Even Catholic scholars debate about how purgatory really works. Purgatory is a rather late invention (11th century iirc) to fix the problem that good people could go to hell. It rests on the word that Jesus would come back to judge the souls of men. For some this is absolute and hell is empty now. Others think that certain sins (about which they also don't agree) can send someone strait to hell. There is also the question how long someone has to spend in purgatory. Some think it depends on the sin for others it is always till the judgement.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Even Catholic scholars debate about how purgatory really works. Purgatory is a rather late invention (11th century iirc) to fix the problem that good people could go to hell. It rests on the word that Jesus would come back to judge the souls of men. For some this is absolute and hell is empty now. Others think that certain sins (about which they also don't agree) can send someone strait to hell. There is also the question how long someone has to spend in purgatory. Some think it depends on the sin for others it is always till the judgement.

I did not know those things. Then again I was a Catholic in my early years. I remember saying prayers on all saints day for the release of souls from Purgatory. (indulgences--which are what ended up being sold, which I think was one of the things Luther did not like).
Certainly the theologians in Catholicism seem to have done a lot of thinking about things and maybe thought they could invent things like Purgatory because the Pope had so much power and could establish them as fact. :)
When I was a Catholic there were less severe sins (venial sins) and more severe ones (mortal sins). These mortal sins seemed arbitrary at times, such as missing Mass on a Sunday or other feast days that were called "Holy Days of Obligation", or purposely eating meat on a Friday or eating within a certain time frame of receiving Holy Communion. These sorts of sins seemed designed to establish and enforce the power of the RC Church. If one committed a mortal sin and did not go to confession they were in danger of going to hell if they died.
Interesting religion when I look back on it. It is easy to see how many Protestants have a serious dislike for it.
I don't know how things have changed since I was young. Rules and regulations were in the process of change when I was on my way out of the Catholic Church.
One of my class mates at school became firmly established there and has become one of the extremely conservatives who want the Latin Mass back and say the Papacy has gone down hill since Popes and Vatican councils started making changes in the mid 20th century.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Certainly the theologians in Catholicism seem to have done a lot of thinking about things and maybe thought they could invent things like Purgatory because the Pope had so much power and could establish them as fact. :)
The Catholic theologians love debating, they even have a fraternity of elite debaters, the Jesuits. They appoint a special solicitor to represent the opposite site in questions like who gets to be a saint, the "advocatus diaboli". Luther famously debated his point in letters and councils.
You'd better have all your ducks in a row when you go up against an experienced Catholic apologist.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
The Catholic theologians love debating, they even have a fraternity of elite debaters, the Jesuits. They appoint a special solicitor to represent the opposite site in questions like who gets to be a saint, the "advocatus diaboli". Luther famously debated his point in letters and councils.
You'd better have all your ducks in a row when you go up against an experienced Catholic apologist.

Yes they have things worked out and have had plenty of time to do it.
There certainly is diversity in the body of Christ-------------assuming it is part of that body, as I assume I am part of that body.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Wow, then it is No wonder Jesus forewarned us that MANY would come 'in his name' but prove false (Matthew 7:21-23)

And he says the same in just about every version, and every one reckons he is talking about the other sects
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
No, it's really not.

UU is to Christianity rather like Bahai is to Islam. Keeps the basics, but gets rid of the primitive morality. Far more inclusive and secular.
Tom

Just another version. Each one modified to suite the particular believers ideas of what Christianity should be.

But i don't think it will cause a civil war like the schism from catholicism to protestantism
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
UU does not pretend to be a Christian Church nor claim to be, however individual members of a UU congregation may come from and identify as Christians. Other will come from totally different Religious traditions and none.
In recent times most unitarian churches have joined with the UU to forge a single entity. but usually keeping their original Unitarian Church names. In the UK most Unitarian churches identify as Christian. the same is not true in the USA.
In Ireland they are "Non Subscribing Presbyterians" (they do not subscribe to the Westminster confession "Trinity") and are Unitarians.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I can agree because why else would a person belong to a belief unless they believed it was the right one__________

True enough but only part of the story
In the case of christianity the right one of around 50,000 slightly different beliefs, which in some cases those differences have been the cause of mass violence and killing
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
True enough but only part of the story
In the case of christianity the right one of around 50,000 slightly different beliefs, which in some cases those differences have been the cause of mass violence and killing
Or, perhaps more than in just 'some cases' because often false clergy use the pulpit as a recruiting station so that parents will sacrifice their young on the Altar of War as if that is the same thing as the Altar of God. False clergy and the political ' kings/rulers ' are often found to be in bed together (political fornication).
This is why I find the false clergy feel secure and think they sit as some sort of religious ' queen ' who will never see sorrow or mourning - Revelation 18:7-9.
Whereas, Jesus and his followers were politically neutral even remaining neutral in the issues of the day between the Jews and Romans.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Or, perhaps more than in just 'some cases' because often false clergy use the pulpit as a recruiting station so that parents will sacrifice their young on the Altar of War as if that is the same thing as the Altar of God. False clergy and the political ' kings/rulers ' are often found to be in bed together (political fornication).
This is why I find the false clergy feel secure and think they sit as some sort of religious ' queen ' who will never see sorrow or mourning - Revelation 18:7-9.
Whereas, Jesus and his followers were politically neutral even remaining neutral in the issues of the day between the Jews and Romans.

It is not your prerogative to point and accuse of "false clergy" the OT is full of examples of where their belief developed.

Politically neutral??? Wow,

His preaching was tinged with political statements. His healings carried massive political implications for the ways we structure our world and understand our neighbor. His execution was of the kind reserved for acts of political disruption. That is, he died on a cross because the political authorities of his day saw him as a threat to the political structures and order of his day.​

Was Jesus Political? Undoubtedly | HuffPost

My own view is that he taught one god which is in direct opposition to polytheism of the official government of the time and a direct threat to the emperor of Rome who was a god, in effect, jesus publicly and repeatedly denied the emperor, how political do you want?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
It is not your prerogative to point and accuse of "false clergy" the OT is full of examples of where their belief developed. Politically neutral??? Wow,
His preaching was tinged with political statements. His healings carried massive political implications for the ways we structure our world and understand our neighbor. His execution was of the kind reserved for acts of political disruption. That is, he died on a cross because the political authorities of his day saw him as a threat to the political structures and order of his day.​
My own view is that he taught one god which is in direct opposition to polytheism of the official government of the time and a direct threat to the emperor of Rome who was a god, in effect, jesus publicly and repeatedly denied the emperor, how political do you want?

The Pharisees could Not execute Jesus so they had to trump up charges such as: sedition, treason and injured majesty so the Romans would do their dirty work of the Sanhedrin.
This I find is why Pilate said what he did at John 18:33-40.
By Jesus saying ' his kingdom was Not of this world ' in verse 36 shows Jesus was Not there to overthrow any political situation.
Jesus was there Not to overthrow but to teach about religious truth - John 17:17 - teach the truth as found in Scripture - Matthew 9:35-38.
Jesus nor his first-century followers did Not take sides with either the Jews or the Romans but remained neutral.
 
Top