Greg, a friend, responds to the Universalist Web Site.
It is a candid response many Christians would find interesting.


  Hi, it's Greg.  I received your web page.  Though
I haven't read your commentary on Ephesians in its'
entirety I find your scholarship impressive.  It has
been a long time since I've read anything like that.
     Long ago I considered whether the Bible
(specifically the New Testament) indicates in any way
that the whole of humanity shall some day be saved.  I
quickly came to the conclusion that it does not.  I
refer you to the following texts: Rev. xxi, 8., John
iii, 36.,  Mark xvi. 16., Matt. xix. 24., Matt. vii.
14., Matt. xxii. 13,14, & so on.  There are many many
examples from the Scripture of how a select few shall
inherit the Kingdom of God, and the vast majority of
Mankind shall be obliterated.  Indeed, the eschatology
of Revelations (if taken seriously as a blueprint for
things to come) envisages the virtual eradication of
humanity.  For my part I think the author of
Revelations was writing from the point of view of a
persecuted Christian in a certain time and place, and
that the methods of many modern Evangelical
Bible-believing Christians to take much of what is
written there completely out of context, and try to
introduce it as a virtual plan of things to come is
ludicrous.  Or for that matter, if one takes seriously
the tale of Noah's Ark, it would seem that the
Almighty isn't too terribly fond of his creation and
destroys it rather easily and willfully.
     For my part, I believe the story of the flood is
a myth, so I am writing from the point of view that
the story can at best be understood as parable.  I
don't say it is a "lie" in the sense in which the word
is understood in the modern world.  I rather see it as
a myth that likely began as an oral story, and was at
some point written down by learned men.  I think that
for someone to consider it a "literal" story goes in
the face of common sense at the beginning of the 21st
century.  These stories were written down by scribes
of an earlier age in which myth was part of everyday
discourse, and miracles were not something that you
could prove or disprove in a court of law or a test
tube.  In pre-scientific societies how else to explain
much of what could be observed in the World?  It is
only really since the 17th century that this Worldview
has changed.  In Medieval Europe there was no division
between "myth" and "logos".  For modern people to try
to impose a 21st century scientific method on the text
of the Bible, and try to say that Revelations predicts
nuclear war, or clashes of civilizations, or that any
of it relates directly to geo-political situations of
the modern day is unfortunate.  Indeed, prophecies
given in Revelation have been de-contextualized and
"made to fit the times" so many times throughout
history that I can't help but see the entire text as
utterly strange if interpreted as such.  In any case,
I think it odd even for a work of the 1st century or
whenever it was written.
     The Bible, in its portrayal of Christ, shows him
to be the leader of a small band of followers.  I
think that he likely believed the end was nigh & that
it would come sooner rather than later.  Thus was the
thinking of the time.  Jews of that time were
persecuted severely in their small Roman province, and
I think were likely in a mindset where they were
thinking in terms of retribution.  The God of Israel,
the God who destroys "heathens", should come and
destroy the Roman occupier (Pagan idolaters).  It is a
natural human compunction.  If you feel persecuted you
take pleasure in lashing out at non-group members.  In
the case of many a modern Christian the non-group
member may consist of most anyone else that is not a
"Christian".  Some groups undoubtedly consider most
everyone around them hell bound (that is to say the
'worldly').  Others may try to play about with the
meaning of the text (the New Testament) & try to make
out that there is much suggestion of universal
salvation in it (the Classical liberal/ devotee of the
Higher Criticism point of view), unfortunately there
isn't.
     I think trying to make the case that the New
Testament/Christianity preaches universal salvation
for all is a good gesture, but ultimately
disingenuous.  Sure, some parts of the Bible can be
read to mean that so long as you are a good person
Luke x. 29-37, you are saved.  Just as often Jesus is
portrayed as telling people they are doomed Matt vii
22-23.  Christianity may have some universalist
tendencies, but for all the universalism which can be
found, there are in equal parts exclusivity; a belief
that there can only possibly be one way to salvation.
What this means for the majority of humanity who do
not profess Christianity I can only guess.  Many
Christians it seems to me are smug in their conviction
that they have an understanding of the "truth".  It is
great comfort to them that all the skeptics, and
so-called secular humanists, and members of other
faiths are doomed to Hell for all eternity (Ps. ix.
17.)  It is a great balm to many a believer that those
who supposedly mock his/her faith shall burn for all
eternity.  The kinds of individuals that take solace
in most everyone that disagrees with them going into
the Lake of fire is beyond me.  There is nobody whom
I'd want to see burn in eternal Hellfire.  Well . . .
Hitler? No, not even Hitler really.   Anyway, Jesus
pulls few punches Dean.  As a boy I always had the
image of him as this nice hippy-lookin' guy holding
babies and smiling.  I wonder if I met him if I'd even
like him.  Perhaps, he'd be as likely to condemn me as
save me.  It was he who called the Pharisees a brood
of vipers was it not?  And whose point of view does
one choose to portray the great man anyway?; Matthew,
Mark, Luke, or John?  Which gospel portrays the man
best?  I'll leave that one to you to ponder . . .

Cheers, Greg

 

   Dean,
              As for my letter to you about theological speculations; I don't spend that much time thinking about Christian doctrine. I have felt for the longest time that the Christian dogma of eternal damnation and punishment is somehow pointless to discuss anyway, because who really knows about these things?  Only the dead know, and they aren't able to tell us one way or the other are they?  I know of no population surveys of the inhabitants of Hell. I have heard it said that the Jews have no distinctive theology of the afterworld.  I suppose therefore that Jesus (as a Jew) perhaps didn't embrace such concepts.  That, when he referred to Hell, he was referring to Gehenna (if I recall correctly a refuse heap, or place for abandoned things &/or people (?).  It was commonplace in the Roman imperial times to actually simply abandon unwanted children at the local town dump.  It sounds quite harsh to us in the 21st century, but if a Roman mother had a deformed child, or for that matter if she had a child that she simply didn't want, she would take it to the town refuse heap and expose it. Concepts of heaven, hell, judgment day, and so on seem to have entered Judaism at a rather late stage (if at all), and are as a result of the influence of Zoroastrianism, or so I have heard.  In any case, all of this is simply speculation.  I guess the whole debate just bugs me because of the folk who (in my opinion) are such narrow minded gits that they see heaven as an exclusive preserve of Christians (specifically, Evangelical, born-again folk).  The notion of 95% of all humanity being eradicated by this supposedly "loving" God who gave his only begotten son as a sacrifice is in my mind obscene.  I  recently saw an interview on TV with a prominent member of the Christian right who said that he believes (of course based on the Good Book) that non-Christians are doomed to eternal damnation.  A woman called that program and asked him if he therefore believed that victims of the suicide terrorist act of Sept. 11th who happened to be working in the World Trade Centre, and were not "saved" were Hell-bound.  His response was so typical, "Well, . . . it's not my opinion of course, but according to the Word of God, yes they are."  Thus, I suppose, a woman of Hindu, Jewish or Muslim background whose final moments consisted of being burned alive and throwing herself out of the window of the World Trade Centre would escape from her earthly Hell of torment & pain to be quickly dispatched by God into everlasting torment in the hereafter.  The same kind of "Bible based" Christianity presumably would likewise condemn the 6 million victims of the Holocaust (the majority of whom were of course not Christian) from a terrestrial Hell into an everlasting fire for all eternity.  In any case, recall that all the folks who talk of eternal damnation for non-Christians (those who haven't had their conversion experience a la the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus) base their judgment on the existence of Hell on the Bible.  They always seem to be able to quote some pertinent scripture to the effect that the fires of hell await all non-believers (i.e. yours truly).  I was once told by a Baptist minister that if I were in the middle of a street and a car was bearing down on me I'd have to quickly make a decision for Christ.  Again, a lovely image NOT; it's like Jesus is some sort of Chicago street cop (i.e. Dirty Harry) with a gun placed against my temples, "Go ahead punk, make your decision!"  What kind of God is this?  And does this even involve free will?  How relevant is free will when you have a gun pointed at your head anyhow?

Anyway, I don't know much.  One day, I guess we'll all know.  I look forward to hearing from you soon Dean.  Take care bro'

Greg

   

Return Home To Universalism