• 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!

non-Christians only: universalist arrogance?

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
This is for non-Christians only!

Christian Universalism is the notion that non-Christians can be saved along with Christians...

I have just realised that Christian Universalism is condescending and disrespectful to non-Christians

Basically, it says to non-Christians "your path leads to my God"

As opposed to wherever it is they believe it leads

I'd find this insulting if someone said that to me

It's like saying "Christianity leads to nirvana!" (although that would not personally offend me but it would others)

I respect the paths others take

But it would be wrong and arrogant to insist that they all truly lead to my destination, to my God

And that is is exactly what Christian Universalism does

Unless of course there is a thing that happens to all people once they die, which is unlike how Christians imagine it...

I think that is a very real possibility but that there is no way to ever know, hence I'm going to carry on practicing Christianity without trying to Christianise the religions of others

I think that would be the right thing for me to do

So no, Buddhism and Hinduism (for example) do not lead to where I want to end up and it would be crass, wrong, and rude for me to impose my God-concept onto them, which is what Christian Universalism does with those religions. However, they are equally as valid as my own religion even if I don't believe what they believe

Aren't all supernatural beliefs arrogant? :shrug:
I mean if you believe "X" in exclusion to all other possible supernatural beliefs.
This idea that you personally have reliable knowledge about some supernatural fact seems pretty arrogant to me.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I don't use titles....rich greedy criminal star changed mind men began the use a title.

Humans are humans as humans one.

One species.

All holy one anything is mutual equal as each is a one.

In universal space law any body 1 is mutual equal..
1.

Mutual however is not equals equals equals...three.

So 1 in 000000000000space womb is everything as anything.

Why we don't just use one word.

Teaching said any one of all mutual holy in its abiddance.

Equals equals equals.

Humans on two rock ... heavens.

Humans as equal equal equal.

Hosts...all gases support you.
Father man son man. Equal mutual.

Hosts.....
Mother woman daughter woman. Equal mutual.

Why we are not just one of anything else.

Therefore told to be considered conscious I had to use a word. I chose spiritual as it covers a communal reason. Love respect all things.

As all things mutual support us living equal human human.

Yet as I'm conscious I notice man man or men seems to invade my mutual status as I'm not owned by you actually.

How men thought selves more spiritual and in hierarchy a God as compared to a fe... male.

Why I learnt self idolating is man's owned fall. Lying.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Doesn't every Christian believe we are always in some relation to God? Whether grace or dishonour or ignorance etc?
This is actually a good question that can't be answered without some context and choice of parameters.

Christianity and later Abrahamic creeds have a strange relationship with their own god-conceptions. On the one hand it is presumed existent and creator of all existence, and therefore belief in its existence is immaterial. On the other hand, somehow it is expected and sort-of-required to believe in the existence of that god anyway.

Further complicating the picture is the self-inflicted contradiction that somehow people will believe because they are expected to, starting with the young who are created as if they somehow could not happen to be disbelievers.

So what does a Christian make? Is it sincere belief in a divine Jesus? Does belief in an Abrahamic-styled god suffice? Perhaps a creator god with no particular human traits (such as those of Deists and perhaps Hindus)? Or is it just a matter of not pointing out to our parents and priests that it turns out that we do not believe in god?

In practice, the Christian communities that I met seem to universally take the last option as sufficient even while their discourse attempts to present the first as obviously true. Which is almost a good thing, since they go out of their way to forbid themselves from knowning how to deal with disbelief.

Christian Universalism seems to be among the very few forms of Christianity that even acknowledge that there is a tension between sincere belief in a divine Jesus and being raised into Christianity before we are even interested in learning about - or even understanding - the concepts involved.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
This is for non-Christians only!

Christian Universalism is the notion that non-Christians can be saved along with Christians...

I have just realised that Christian Universalism is condescending and disrespectful to non-Christians

Basically, it says to non-Christians "your path leads to my God"

As opposed to wherever it is they believe it leads

I'd find this insulting if someone said that to me

It's like saying "Christianity leads to nirvana!" (although that would not personally offend me but it would others)

I respect the paths others take

But it would be wrong and arrogant to insist that they all truly lead to my destination, to my God

And that is is exactly what Christian Universalism does

Unless of course there is a thing that happens to all people once they die, which is unlike how Christians imagine it...

I think that is a very real possibility but that there is no way to ever know, hence I'm going to carry on practicing Christianity without trying to Christianise the religions of others

I think that would be the right thing for me to do

So no, Buddhism and Hinduism (for example) do not lead to where I want to end up and it would be crass, wrong, and rude for me to impose my God-concept onto them, which is what Christian Universalism does with those religions. However, they are equally as valid as my own religion even if I don't believe what they believe

I am okay with the idea, and I have found those who take this viewpoint much easier to deal with from a non-christian perspective. They don't proselytize to me. That they believe their own cosmology while being inclusive is fine with me.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I've literally never heard this perspective. Who holds this as a truth?

Surely you would have, albeit this isn't the way it's commonly worded.
Basically, from a certain Christian perspective, all people are judged on their passing, with a binary destination of heaven or hell.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Surely you would have, albeit this isn't the way it's commonly worded.
Basically, from a certain Christian perspective, all people are judged on their passing, with a binary destination of heaven or hell.

I guess in some sense that makes sense. Just never heard it worded that way, "All paths lead to God"... It strikes me very much of what a pluralist religious organization would say. And I typically don't equate Christianity with pluralism.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I guess in some sense that makes sense. Just never heard it worded that way, "All paths lead to God"... It strikes me very much of what a pluralist religious organization would say. And I typically don't equate Christianity with pluralism.

Yeah...they didn't quite mean 'all paths lead to God' in a pluralist sense.
More like all paths lead to God's judgement.

Which is a common enough monotheistic view.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
This is for non-Christians only!

Christian Universalism is the notion that non-Christians can be saved along with Christians...

I have just realised that Christian Universalism is condescending and disrespectful to non-Christians

Basically, it says to non-Christians "your path leads to my God"

As opposed to wherever it is they believe it leads
I would rather they say that; than my path leads to your God's hell; which seems to be what all the other Christians believe.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Aren't all supernatural beliefs arrogant? :shrug:
I mean if you believe "X" in exclusion to all other possible supernatural beliefs.
This idea that you personally have reliable knowledge about some supernatural fact seems pretty arrogant to me.

No, not necessarily. But even if that was so, the same could said of any positive metaphysical claim.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Universalism human says the universe exists created.

A human man didn't invent it's presence.

I accept I never owned a thesis why it existed in a man a human life.... man on rock earth. A one of only position planet earth.

No man is God argument. Yet by organisation of men I'm rich supported and a theist human of science myself.

So advised by all humans...as consciousness isn't just one single human ever. It's historic and present awareness all humans experiences.

So I say earth is a Rock and is where I exist as I own bones as a human.

Versus AI machine themes a machine invented life thinker who says once no universe existed. As proof his conscious mind is gone.

I then do comparing as a human in science does.

I'm human however.

I say bio comparing places a living monkey in my human man's living life as only closest compared life support to my own.

I don't theory anything else.

Hence not wanting my biology human removed as I'm not any monkey biology..I would not agree with evolution theories or creationism.

Instead of the claim I'm a human. A man human. And I'm a scientist only...as the human.

Knowing most other human behaviour is no longer in human life as actual observation science supportive. I compare. I see. I am informed and I want to continue humans survival on planet earth.

As no matter what another human cult agrees in group coercing I'm just a human.

So once the legal precedence stated no man is God. As it was correct.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Lying. A humans teaching behaviours.

Theme consciousness or avoiding reality by want greed control.

Man. Builds machine. He knows he isn't machine. Knows a human woman isn't the machine.

He puts dust into machine to react it. Not lying but involves human lies...life's safety.

Man builds new machine. His theory about heavens only. He claims I've put the highest heavens into my machine.
Outright lie. Heavens is exact in space law.

Reaction was to introduce space into the mass. By machines human controlled.

Man with new machine says now I must put space into a gas.

Gas already owns space naturally to not be mass.

Two humans.
In law two humans mutually own biologies life sacrifice.

Twice given electricity for a machines life only. Direct thought of man says my machine lives. It's a lie.

Theist says I believe in life's sacrifice to practice technology. The lie a higher science mind is involved in awareness.

Theoried involving biology with a machine theory as proof they are prepared to cause it.
 
Top