-- If a god Existed, We Would Have Been Created in Heaven --
(from Counter Apologist)
#God #apologetics #theism #soteriology #theology #theodicy #Heaven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEHvDHkqBWk

There is something frustrating about rigid #soteriology that seems to fly in the face of the claim that the message of the #cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18).

We always try to make #God too small.

#Christianity #Religion #Bible

All that is meant by the mainstream use of the term "svabhāva" is that experiences such a greed/hatred can be distinguished from each other and from experiences such as generosity/love.

These kinds of distinction are central to #Buddhist #soteriology across the board.

NB: this is an *epistemic* distinction, not a metaphysical distinction. A product of sañjānati rather than vijānati.

#buddhiststudies

‘Many hate the Cross because it means a salvation not of their own choosing or making . . . a salvation unearned, undeserved, unmerited. They would much prefer God to punish them than to forgive them because that would mean that God is dependent upon them and needs their obedience to be their God.’

#stringfellow #theology #soteriology #salvation

‘Many hate the Cross because it means a salvation not of their own choosing or making . . . a salvation unearned, undeserved, unmerited. They would much prefer God to punish them than to forgive them because that would mean that God is dependent upon them and needs their obedience to be their God.’

#stringfellow #theology #soteriology #salvation

In short, universalism, for me and many others, is about theodicy. Not #soteriology. The issue isn't about salvation (traditionally understood). It's about suffering. Universalism, as best I can tell, is the only Christian doctrine that takes the problem of suffering seriously. As evidence for this, just note that when a theologian starts taking suffering seriously he or she starts moving toward universalism. Examples include Jürgen #Moltmann, Marilyn McCord Adams, and John Hick. Take suffering seriously and the doctrine soon follows.

I gravitated to universalism in college because the problem of horrific suffering became (and remains) the defining theological predicament of my faith experience. It is the obsessio of my theological world. And while I find the doctrine of hell distasteful, this is due, again, to my theodicy concerns. Is God really loving if he tortures people for eternity? More, isn't "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior" largely contingent upon where you were born in the world, a manifestation of what philosophers call moral luck? In every case it all goes back to theodicy.

Here's a test you can try on people. Whenever you find a person who doesn't "get" universalism (not that they have to believe it, they just have to "get" it) you'll have person who doesn't "get" the problem of horrific suffering. The two, in my experience, are of a piece.

Even on my own campus, where there are some very sharp theological minds, I am often frustrated by how often people just don't get it. Not the universalism. I'm talking about the problem of suffering. Because if they get the latter they get the former.

I was reminded of this association this week while reading Moltmann's Trinity and Kingdom. In it he writes:

It is in #suffering that the whole human question about God arises; for incomprehensible suffering calls the God of men and women in question. The suffering of a single innocent child is an irrefutable rebuttal of the notion of the almighty and kindly God in heaven. For a God who lets the innocent suffer and who permits senseless death is not worthy to be called God at all...The theism of the almighty and kindly God comes to an end on the rock of suffering...

The question of #theodicy is not a speculative question; it is a critical one. It is the all-embracing eschatological question. It is not purely theoretical, for it cannot be answered with any new theory about the existing world. It is a practical question which will only be answered through experience of the new world in which 'God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.' It is not really a question at all, in the sense of something we can ask or not ask, like other questions. It is the open wound of life in this world. It is the real task of #faith and #theology to make it possible for us to survive, to go on living, with this open wound. The person who believes will not rest content with any slickly explanatory answer to the theodicy question. And he will also resist any attempts to soften the question down. The more a person believes, the more deeply he experiences pain over the suffering in the world, and the more passionately he asks about God and the new creation.

Innocent suffering is the open wound of life and the real task of faith and theology is "to make it possible for us to survive, to go on living, with this open wound."

Now here's the deal. You either get that, or you don't.

And if you don't, well, I'm sure you're a very nice and devout person.

But you'll never understand why I believe in universalism.

~Richard Beck on why he embraces #UniversalSalvation

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2011/02/universalism-and-open-wound-of-life.html is

‘God wants to save the wealthy as well, but precisely because he wants to save them, he tells them that they cannot be saved until they are converted to the Christ who lives in particular among the poor.’

—Óscar Romero

#romero #theology #soteriology #liberation

‘God wants to save the wealthy as well, but precisely because he wants to save them, he tells them that they cannot be saved until they are converted to the Christ who lives in particular among the poor.’

—Óscar Romero

#romero #theology #soteriology #liberation

@sjvn Now you've got me thinking down a rabbit hole about #soteriology as "Terms of Service" and "Indemnity Clause".