Problems with Universalism

[Buddha Dharma]

Universalism seems to be of two kinds. Namely: the kind that says all religions contain truth, and the one that says all religions are true.

Historically, my school of Mahayana is the first kind. The Lotus Sutra says the Buddha can work through many seemingly different frameworks to benefit beings. However, that the Buddha is emphasized means it is not the second. That the premises of Buddhism are still exalted and promoted as truth, means it is not the second.

I would think the same is true of Christian Universalism. That Christian universalists do not typically think all religions are true, or that they are equally true with Christianity. I assume that Christian universalists still hold that Jesus's teachings are the most true.

I think the second kind of universalism is problematic. Because when you take emphasis off of truth statements and say that all beliefs are true- you're nullifying their power.

If two contradictory positions are true, that means in spirit- neither position is actually true.

I think Hard Universalism is a problem, and people that hold it maybe haven't thought out too well what they're saying?

If the statement that Allah is the only God without persons or incarnation, and the statement that Jesus is God Incarnate are equally true premises- that means both statements are wrong.

How do you think Universalists that hold all religions equally true can get around this?

 

[Sunstone]

I wouldn't say contradictory statements logically mean that both statements are wrong, but I agree with you that saying "All statements are true" (or its equivalent) is to weaken the emotional impact of knowing that a statement is true. It is also, as you point out, logically contradictory in practice to say "all religions are true".

 

[Aldrnari]

I would agree, generally.

It seems to me when you try and tie all religions together (or bring another religion's views under your religion's umbrella) you have to either ignore the contradictions, or pick one over the other. This is why I'm not a fan of religions or sects that do this...

What comes across to the people who actually practice the original faith is that their views are being misrepresented.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

I'm of the school of thought that believes that all (or most) religions contain truth* (which is perhaps why I am so interested in so many religions too?), but to state that all religions are theologically equally true (as to say, objectively true) is a lot different.
As an agnostic, I guess there is a certain reluctance to take that statement further, as I don't think we'll ever know as long as we're alive; what is theologically true and which is not.

I do think hard-universalism is as dangerous as both hard-theism and hard-atheism, however.




*and they often mirror each other in different ways too

 

[Aldrnari]

I'm of the school of thought that believes that all (or most) religions contain truth (which is perhaps why I am so interested in so many religions too?), but to state that all religions are theologically equally true (as to say, objectively true) is a lot different.
As an agnostic, I guess there is a certain reluctance to take that statement further, as I don't think we'll ever know as long as we're alive; what is theologically true and which is not.

I do think hard-universalism is as dangerous as both hard-theism and hard-atheism, however

Moderation is key.

 

[Nakosis]

Universalism seems to be of two kinds. Namely: the kind that says all religions contain truth, and the one that says all religions are true.

Historically, my school of Mahayana is the first kind. The Lotus Sutra says the Buddha can work through many seemingly different frameworks to benefit beings. However, that the Buddha is emphasized means it is not the second. That the premises of Buddhism are still exalted and promoted as truth, means it is not the second.

I would think the same is true of Christian Universalism. That Christian universalists do not typically think all religions are true, or that they are equally true with Christianity. I assume that Christian universalists still hold that Jesus's teachings are the most true.

I think the second kind of universalism is problematic. Because when you take emphasis off of truth statements and say that all beliefs are true- you're nullifying their power.

If two contradictory positions are true, that means in spirit- neither position is actually true.

I think Hard Universalism is a problem, and people that hold it maybe haven't thought out too well what they're saying?

If the statement that Allah is the only God without persons or incarnation, and the statement that Jesus is God Incarnate are equally true premises- that means both statements are wrong.

How do you think Universalists that hold all religions equally true can get around this?

What does it matter if none of these truths can be verified.

Universalism 1 - You can believe any various parts, ideas, sayings, messages, rituals etc... which you feel to be true.

Universalism 2 - The spiritual realm is a malleable truth. It bends according to our whims or beliefs. Our belief in it makes it true. Whatever that believe might be.

Either way the truth can be whatever you feel like it should be. My personal truth about any spiritual idea needs no external validation. One can if they want validate it on what someone else claimed to be true, Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna, but it's really all arbitrary.

 

[Jainarayan]

Paraphrasing Gandhi, "all religions contain some truth, all religions contain some error". Are all religions the same, do they have the same paths and goals? Not in my opinion. Is there one Absolute Truth? I believe so, but I don't think anyone knows it in its entirety or what it truly is. I think I'd rather be known as a pluralist.

 

[crossfire]

Much more universal, accurate, and easier to say, "All Sentient Beings are vulnerable to delusion, capable of awakening, and worthy of compassion."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Universalism seems to be of two kinds. Namely: the kind that says all religions contain truth, and the one that says all religions are true.

Historically, my school of Mahayana is the first kind. The Lotus Sutra says the Buddha can work through many seemingly different frameworks to benefit beings. However, that the Buddha is emphasized means it is not the second. That the premises of Buddhism are still exalted and promoted as truth, means it is not the second.

I would think the same is true of Christian Universalism. That Christian universalists do not typically think all religions are true, or that they are equally true with Christianity. I assume that Christian universalists still hold that Jesus's teachings are the most true.

I think the second kind of universalism is problematic. Because when you take emphasis off of truth statements and say that all beliefs are true- you're nullifying their power.

If two contradictory positions are true, that means in spirit- neither position is actually true.

I think Hard Universalism is a problem, and people that hold it maybe haven't thought out too well what they're saying?

If the statement that Allah is the only God without persons or incarnation, and the statement that Jesus is God Incarnate are equally true premises- that means both statements are wrong.

How do you think Universalists that hold all religions equally true can get around this?

There is a problem with both views. The Lotus Sutra says that he teaches the truth (the eight fold, mind only, etc) in the say people understand it. So, the truth of christ is not the truth of The Buddha. The truth of Hinduism is not the truth of The Buddha. He just changes his analogies to match his listeners intellect not belief. So, universalism in truth part has to first say all religions are true (the latter) and in doing so, their facts would line up as truths. Their truth is based on what religion defines as true; so, they cant be separated.

I dont like universalism (and not much more after another thread) because it says we we are one "family" with different beliefs. In the UU church I visited once, the common denomination wasnt the facts of each individual faith. They said people can believe what they want. They said their core is love and human positive traits shared by all religions. Not making them believe each others truth but worshiping together with a whole different truth altogether which has nothing to do with unifying all beliefs in one.

Its new age in my way of thinking. But the facts of each faith teaches didnt things they find true. Because of the facts and different things they hold true are not the same, as a result their truths are not either.

Universalism is built on another foundation. Not unifying religion but worshiping together with a different foundation altogether.

 

[siti]

I would think the same is true of Christian Universalism. That Christian universalists do not typically think all religions are true, or that they are equally true with Christianity. I assume that Christian universalists still hold that Jesus's teachings are the most true.

No - Christian Universalism is not about truth its about salvation - it is essentially the idea that no matter what beliefs they might hold in this life, all humans will ultimately be reconciled to God.

 

[wizanda]

If the statement that Allah is the only God without persons or incarnation, and the statement that Jesus is God Incarnate are equally true premises- that means both statements are wrong.

How do you think Universalists that hold all religions equally true can get around this?

Because there are always additional facts, that make sense of where human error in comprehension exists... Plus we always stay with variables, until anything concrete can be achieved.

So Yeshua is the Son of Allah, yet there is the one problem, the Quran doesn't allow that idea... It teaches the same as Judaism still believes, no Council of Elohim, and no God Most High...Where that would fit with more theology globally.

Thus tho Islam, Christianity (John, Paul, Simon) and Rabbinic Judaism quote prophetic writings, they're hopelessly lost.. As the prophets said would happen, as they don't listen properly.

Hopefully that makes sense of your question, this realm we're within, there is a reason for everything; the text might lead to a negative conclusion, yet when we don't remove jigsaw pieces for being light or dark, the whole picture makes more sense.

In my opinion.

 

[Vinayaka]

I do think hard-universalism is as dangerous as both hard-theism and hard-atheism, however.

Agreed. When your claim is 'I'm right and you're wrong," it really doesn't matter much. The tolerance scale remains at zero.

 

[columbus]

No - Christian Universalism is not about truth its about salvation - it is essentially the idea that no matter what beliefs they might hold in this life, all humans will ultimately be reconciled to God.

This is Universalism as I know it (with a capital U).
Almighty God wants Salvation for everyone. And, obviously, Almighty God gets what Almighty God wants.
It's the most logical kind of Christianity.

Tom

 

[Buddha Dharma]

What does it matter if none of these truths can be verified.

I believe I've stated my position about this in several other threads. Rather they can be verified is dependent on the verification method one accepts. It really is quite that personal.

Universalism 1 - You can believe any various parts, ideas, sayings, messages, rituals etc... which you feel to be true.

I am not sure how you got this out of my definition. Universalism 1- what you accept as true in other religions must line up to what you hold to be the actual full truth, so no you can't.

Universalism 2 - The spiritual realm is a malleable truth. It bends according to our whims or beliefs. Our belief in it makes it true. Whatever that believe might be.

I am not sure Universalism 2 goes to quite the stretch of the last two statements.

One can if they want validate it on what someone else claimed to be true, Jesus, Muhammad, Krishna, but it's really all arbitrary.

What isn't arbitrary?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

No - Christian Universalism is not about truth its about salvation - it is essentially the idea that no matter what beliefs they might hold in this life, all humans will ultimately be reconciled to God.

All Christian universalists believe no condemnation? I'd be surprised to find that were true.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

All Christian universalists believe no condemnation? I'd be surprised to find that were true.

That was the actual meaning of it. Universalism = universal reconciliation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As a nihilist, I don't believe in truth as even truth is dissolved in strict non-dualism. *scratches head*

 

[`mud]

When one tosses a coin, high in the air, and it lands on it's edge, that's Universalistic.

 

[columbus]

All Christian universalists believe no condemnation? I'd be surprised to find that were true.

There's a denomination called Universalist. That idea, that God can reconcile or "Save" everyone no matter what (Universal Salvation), is what mainly distinguished them from other denominations.
It was a reaction, largely, to the "Great Awakening" of the 1800s. It merged with the Unitarians in the 1950s to become the UUs.

To me, it's the only logical result from the beliefs both that God loves all His children and also that God is Omnimax.
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

I like Universalism as it stresses the point that your afterlife is not determined by religious beliefs but by the quality of your heart. The qualities of love, peace, compassion can be found in every religion so why bicker about the details that are so far from a complete understanding anyway.