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'
