Universalism

Universalism is commonly quite frowned upon within the Christian communities I have been a part of. It usually refers to the idea that whatever one's religious (or even moral) choices, all humans will be saved. From the Christian perspective, this is sometimes even used to emphasise the supreme power and value of Christ's sacrifice and redemption, and plays upon the "all" and "the world" (e.g. For God So Loved The World) such that the redemptive value is so massive as to save everyone.

Today I'd like to offer a slightly different goal to which even atheists or religious fictionalists might be able to adhere (neither of these are my own label). Both groups would describe the contents of the doctrines as "false", while differing as to the utility of conformity to the practices of religion. For the atheist, the whole religious enterprise can be seen as dangerous and harmful to modern humanity - religious fictionalists would say that although strictly speaking false, the practices can be really beneficial. However, if we were to take a step back (as the fictionalists do in part) and ask what are the values that belief in God (in his multiple forms) can MEDIATE? That should not be such a threatening question for any belief system. Christianity has a strong emphasis on mediation: Christ, in particular, mediating God's love. 1 Timothy 2:5 reads:

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

The Greek preposition "dia" - through - is also very strong in early Christian thought and communicates just how prominent the mediation principle is in antiquity, including Christian antiquity.

Atheists and religious fictionalists - nice ones anyway - still believe in love, patience, kindness, self-control, joy, gentleness, acceptance, inclusivity. These are very biblical ideas - why not see these as the core ideas? Rather than describing the symbols and structure that mediate the core values as "false", they could see them as story, maybe (although with great difficulty for the atheist) as necessary story.

Thus, a new universalist understanding could potentially emerge uniting at least three meta-perspectives (religious literalist, religious fictionalist and atheist): that goodness and love can be wrapped up in God universally.

Surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in GOD's house forever.

PSALM 23:6

Some thoughts on "Atheism"

What if words are just human inventions that help us survive? I believe that might be possible, but let's have a think about the implications for "atheists".

What might 'theism' mean? That a person believes in a form of divine consciousness independent of humankind? What would define that consciousness as divine? Eternal? Maybe, let's go with that. Now what if a person considers such a being or beings to exist, but feels that they are not relational gods. This "theist" feels and practices no allegiance to the gods. This would be a distinctly narrow view of theism that bypasses the social dynamics that seem to have turbo-powered the development and evolution of our human brains. True theism is always attached to a larger social religious landscape informed by the religions of today.

In parallel, you might have a person who feels belonging and relationship within the context of a faith community. The second person is governed to an equal degree by the communal values as all other members, their only difference being that this person has a sneaky feeling that actual existence of a god may not be necessary beyond the collective symbolism clearly at work binding the community in its values and goals. The values and goals are of maximal importance and the person feels strong allegiance to both the community and the values. They even can experience powerful cathartic sensations as they worship and pray with other believers. They consider life and relationships a privilege to be treasured and would never want to suggest that a person should stop their religious convictions if they were clearly the means by which a person understands, improves and fits into the world.

This last part: about treasuring life and not opposing those with literal religious convictions is key to understanding why the term generates misunderstanding. "The atheist" is commonly understood to mean opposing religious conviction: "you should not believe it, it's nothing but a bunch of lies and contradictions"!

Here, there are commonly a couple of dynamics at play. Firstly, a person may commonly have experienced, as mild as it might appear, a form of power abuse at the hands of those in charge in a religious institution and be reacting against that. Secondly, in light of plausible explanatory alternatives for the existence of all things, there is no reason given as to why the first form of theism as defined above could not be granted (an uninvolved deity). In light of these problems I want to ask:

1. What does it even mean to assert that a religion is "true" or even "real", when the adopted stories are indisputably held authentically and prove powerful to unite a community to positive action?
2. Why even bother to assert that you are an atheist? Why even enter the conversation?

In my next post, I want to address the possibility of "lies and contradictions" in the Christian faith.

Other religions "afraid" of the Trinity?

Anthony Buzzard is a biblical unitarian I keep at arm's length. Like many trinitarians, I find he tends to pre-suppose his own conclusions in a way which leaves me feeling dissatisfied with the journey he takes - back to the start! It can also lead to some quite unverified statements, like in his video "Jesus is still a Jew!" (2:25) where he talks about one leading world religion being "so afraid of the Trinity". Afraid?

According to Buzzard, this faith is "so afraid" of the [illogical, unreasonable, scary, ...] Trinity, that it is therefore impossible for them to get their heads around the possibility of God having a son. Without the Trinity dogma, this world religion would presumably accept God having a son, no problem at all.

That strikes me as a very big assumption indeed. I wonder if he ever bothered to ask any of his friends who believe that faith? I wonder if he is able to explain why that faith does not simply revert to pure Jewish monotheism?