# Debating Universalism



## FrozenChosen (Dec 22, 2004)

Does anyone have any particular ways of dealing with the false religion? It has come up recently and I would like to know more about approaches to this worldly idea.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 22, 2004)

I have several things going through my mind on what Universalism is. Could you elaborate?


----------



## openairboy (Dec 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by FrozenChosen_
> Does anyone have any particular ways of dealing with the false religion? It has come up recently and I would like to know more about approaches to this worldly idea.



Are you referring to purportedly "orthodox" doctrine ending in universalism, i.e. Jesus' death was substitutionary, and it just so happens that it is for every single individual; therefore, every single individual is saved. Or are you suggesting more of a pluralist vision, i.e., we are all going to the same place?

Honestly, I have found no benefit arguing with the former. If you have a friend that is debating the issue, then they are worth a lot of your time. The typical universalist, however, I have found to be quite hardened. They may still be saved, but their doctrine is terrible.

carm.org has some decent material on the subject.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Do you mean, all will go to heaven? Jesus says otherwise. So they can't agree with the bible. if they don;t then ask them what revelation is the source of their epistemology.
> 
> Or, do you mean unitarian universalists? Ask them to define God. Everytime they do so they will introduce a distinction within the God-head, but they can't do this. So, they will have to say, "he's unknowable." If so, then how do they know he (ooops, he/she/it distinction). How do they know that it (oops, personal/impersonal distinction)... this is getting tricky. Anyway, how do they know that ____ (oops, abstract/concrete distinction). I'll just say it: how do they know that gjokwehvgfwim is a unity (oops!!!! unity/disunity distinction).


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> Or, do you mean unitarian universalists? Ask them to define God. Everytime they do so they will introduce a distinction within the God-head, but they can't do this.



Help me pin this down. If they give even a definition of God they introduce distinctions, which their position does not allow because they say he is a unity/monad. What I am asking does a definition of God presuppose a distinction of him?

Thanks


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 23, 2004)

So it all goes back to the "One and the Many" problem? I think I can take it from there.


Thanks


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 23, 2004)

Doesn't Islam suffer from this exact same problem? Particularly this:



> Sure. If god is a pure oneness with no pluarlity then god is one what? A unity of what? Anything said will introduce a division, a plurality, at least between subject and predicate. This is why unitarians have ben on the "wholly other" side of the debate because to say "God is X" creates a disctinction between god and X. The "wholly other" makes god unknowable and unspeak-about-able. If so, then you can't know "it's" a unity.



Could that paragraph be copied and pasted into an Islam discussion and make sense?

[Edited on 23-12-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 23, 2004)

That quote sounded vaguely familiar the first time I read it tonight. I think it would apply to any god that was a monad.


----------

