|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Universalism article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Text from Neo-Vedanta was copied or moved into Universalism in religion with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Neo-Vedanta.|
|Text from Unitarian Universalism was copied or moved into Universalism in religion with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Unitarian Universalism.|
- 1 2002 comments
- 2 Universal indoctrination
- 3 any ideas on "moral" universalism?
- 4 ARTICLE needs to be re-thought
- 5 POV?
- 6 Primitive Baptist Universalist
- 7 Another Possible Merger?
- 8 Removal of various sections.
- 9 Changed Sub-subsection Name
- 10 Help
- 11 Buddhism
- 12 "Multifaith"
- 13 Forms of God
- 14 What do you mean by Universalism?
- 15 Definition
- 16 2010 comments
- 17 Mandeans mentioned in the Koran?
- 18 Unitarian Universalism
- 19 Christian Universalism
- 20 4th Paragraph in Islam's section ( Traditional Islam") is written from anti-Muslim perspective; no neutrality whatsoever.
Interestingly, the Unification Church (UC) is both univeralist and unitarian, although should not be confused with Unitarian Universalism. For one thing, the UC is a highly detailed and specific theology, while UU has become largely creedless. I really got to write more about this. --Ed Poor 09:28 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)
- "Universalism first became popular in the 19th century, leading to the formation in the United States of the Universalist Church of America, "
Is this factual, as a general statement? Universalism has always been "popular", however it is not always considered an orthodox belief. Gregory of Nyssa is commonly quoted as saying that, in his day, it is believed by almost everyone that there will be a Great Restoration that will put an end to all differences between people, and the whole creation will become the Church.
In fact, if popularity were the measure of Christian orthodoxy (but it isn't considered such by anyone, except perhaps universalists), I'm not sure that there has ever been a more orthodox view, since the popularity of this idea has never waned, much, even if it has sometimes been pushed out of view by dominant, non-universalist parties.
It hasn't always helped to reconcile differences between people while they wait for the happy day. Regrettably, there is an historical stream of anti-Jewish thinking that occasionally appears in universalism, blaming the Jews for infiltrating the surrounding nations with what is sometimes called "the Barbaric notions" of immutable prohibitions and everlasting punishments for transgressing them. However, it has served a formative role in the development of ecumenism, internationalism, women's rights, and the abolition of slavery.
It's true that in what had only recently become the United States, the Second Great Awakening included a big explosion of formally universalist teaching. But, people have always popularly liked the idea that there is a point, usually at the end of the world, sometimes as a cultural idea too, when differences won't matter anymore, because we'll all be Christians. As it has become more apparent that not everyone wants to be a Christian, popular universalism has transformed quite a bit.
These are just opinions on the level of hearsay. I don't think I'm qualified to edit the entry itself, since I am not a universalist, and don't have a sympathetic view of the issues involved in it, or its history. -- mkmcconn
- Sounds to me like you know what you're talking about. I edited the popularity sentence based on what you said, or at least based on what I think you said. ;-) Wesley 18:58 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)
- "allows or requires all people ... to join"
Can you give an example of a religion that "requires all people to join"? - UtherSRG 16:10, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Buddhism, carried to its logical conclusion. Also capitalism and communism. --Eequor 01:36, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neither capitalism or communism are religions. They are societal, economic, governmental systems. Buddhism doesn't require all people to join, although it would, like many religions, expect its adherents to behave towards all people in an equal manner. This doesn't mean that all people who interact with Buddhists are Buddhists, only that Buddhists are to respect everyone's Buddha nature, regardless of whether they understand the respect accorded them or not. Likewise, Cristians are taught to treat the stranger as ones neighbor. This doesn't make everyone a Christian, either. - UtherSRG 01:55, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Capitalism and communism are both religions. Look at the attitudes during the Cold War regarding them. Both are extremely secular, to the point that they have become secular religions. Capitalism holds "capital" sacred. Communism holds sacred its ideal philosophy. What was the Great Leap Forward but blind worship? What is the stock market but supernatural? The Great Depression was entirely driven by belief in that imagined entity. Today, capitalism and communism decide the lives and deaths of everyone in the world.
- The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to bring an end to the cycle of suffering. The Four Noble Truths all but explicity state their implications. All must act for the ultimate good. Learning to do so requires understanding of the Noble Eightfold Path. If religions are to truly strive for completeness and the good of all, there is no choice but that they converge to Buddhism. --Eequor 02:57, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
any ideas on "moral" universalism?
I am sure the idea has been explored before, and probably has a name and a following, of all things good and evil serving a common goal. Would this be considered universalism?
ARTICLE needs to be re-thought
This is an odd entry. The first 40% disambiguates the various universalisms, sending readers off to the relevant more specific entries. The next 55% then explains one of those "universalisms" -- the doctrine/heresy within Christianity of universal reconciliation -- pretty much duplicating the material in the more specific article on universal reconciliation!!
What would seem to make sense is this: Make this just a disambiguation article that sends readers to the relevant specific articles on the various "universalisms." Cut out the section on "Universalism in Christianity," leaving that to the article on Universal Reconcilliation. (If there's any good content in the cut section that's not in the UR article, add it to the UR article.) Take out "Universalism in Ananda Marga" as a separate section, and add the material in that bullet item to the list of universalisms. unsigned
- In general, I agree with the above. Please see the disambiguation of disambiguation that is also being done for Universal and Universality]. Twisted86 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems like the article can be separated into 2 main sections: Universalism in Philosophy and Universalism in Religion. It may be difficult to make it a pure disambiguation article because when I follow the links, they tend to lead to general articles about the philosophy or religion but not directly or specifically to the universalistic parts. Caroline1008 12:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, the article is now half disambiguation page and half about universalism in religion. Hope everyone is okay with it. I deleted some stuff that I thought was superflous (sp?) as they contained minutiae not suitable for an encyclopedic entry. Also I deleted the stuff about Christianity, Islam & Buddhism being Universal Religions and Judaism being an Ethnic religion. It just didn't feel right. I hope everyone is okay with these changes. Caroline1008 01:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not okay. I've suggested a split (1) top half Universalism (disambiguation) (2) bottom half Universalism (religion). Goldenrowley 06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- OKay I just took care of the article split -- now it is better I hope. Goldenrowley 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The article is just a laundry list of very distinct philosophical propositions that just happen to share (or in some cases, don't actually share) a common name. The two primary Universalisms (Hindu and Christian) are completely different ideas which do not imply each other and can exist completely independently of each other. All religions can contain truth and there can still be a Hell; likewise all souls could be reconciled in God and yet Christianity could still be argued the one true religion. Equivocation of the various uses of a polysemantic term confuses the issue; that's why Wikipedia has disambiguation pages. The "universal reconciliation" article should be renamed "Universalism (Christian)" with a redirect from "universal reconciliation," and a "Universalism (Hindu)" article should be created. Nelsonleith (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the Universalism in Christianity section seems strange. The claim, specifically, that "Universalism is the religion OF Jesus" is a pretty strong claim to be made without reference. More generally, every Christian denomination claims that their particular point of view were those held by Jesus, but it does not mean that such a belief is stated as fact, like here. Does anyone have any comments? Wtrmute 16:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking of doing a major rewrite of that section to make it more of an encyclopedic entry. It'll be something like this: a)what it means in Christianity b)brief history (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, the anathemas of various councils c)what is Unitarian Universalism d)what is Biblical Universalism which reconciles what the Bible says about judgment and hell to universalism. This version of Universalism has been called Trinitarian Universalism on Wikipedia but I think Biblical U might be a more accurate moniker. Please feel free to comment. If I don't hear a howl of protest, I'll do the rewrite sometime in September 2006 Caroline1008 02:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- On second thought, after doing much reading on Trinitarian Universalism, I think it'll be too much info to fit comfortablly here. I propose a tiny summary of what TU is all about here and then a clean up/rewrite of the Christian Trinitarian Universalism article Caroline1008 03:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The end of the current Christian Universalism section seems a bit non-NPOV - citing verses which tend to disagree with this doctrinal system. I'd hardly consider myself a universalist, but I can see where you can find scriptural support for aspects of it, and I doubt that the article on Calvinism concludes with a statement that this doctrinal system is contradicted by other verses that it has difficulty with.--Rich0 (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- done! Caroline1008 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Another Possible Merger?
I've added a little blurb about Trinitarian Universalism contra to Unitarian Universalism. Should Christian be dropped from the Trinitarian claim to be fair? Or would that start a flame war. Not that the issue is pretty hot already...--Caroline1008 10:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Contrary to popular beliefs and other religious traditions, the existence of the Unitarian Universalist Association does not imply that all member churches or members of member churches are either unitarian or universalist. The name is historical rather than descriptive. So an article that purports to reveal that there are trinitarian universalists in the UUA is not really news. There are people in UUA churches who believe in the trinity and people who believe that others will go to everlasting hell, I suppose. And some who believe both. What they have in common with other UUs is that they are working on their theology and not taking some authority as the final answer. –Shoaler (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If the UU have neither dogma nor doctrine, then we can't really say anything concrete about their stance on Universalism except to say it's in their name. Perhaps the UU have a statement of beliefs but allow their members to hold different beliefs contra to the statement and not be disfellowshipped? If so, then we can post as if the UU holds those beliefs generally if not globally. Caroline1008 02:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- The UUs have a set of "principles" which are not beliefs in the traditional sense -- not like "I believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth." Most UUs are comfortable with the principles. If a UU didn't believe, say, in "Justice, equity and compassion in human relations" (principle 2), s/he wouldn't be excommunicated but probably wouldn't feel much at home. So I think that we can post that nearly all UUs respect the UU principles. –Shoaler (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
After much reading (yawn!) of Trinitarian Universalism, I think there is way too much info to fit comfortably here. The leading theolgians, Torrance, Talbott, MacDonald, Reitan, Bonda, etc. are all still alive! as well as their major detractors, Lane and Walls. Therefore, I have tried to revise the Christian Trinitarian Universalsim page to make it more encyclopedic as well as renaming it Trinitarian Universalism. It'll be odd to call it 'Christian' when universalism is heresy for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants!! I've also removed the "possible merger" tags. Hope it's all okay. Caroline1008 03:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- also, would anyone mind terribly if I removed the last 2 paragraphs on this section? I've read it and read it and still can't wrap my mind as to why they're here. Hope I'm not offending anyone. It's only a suggestion! Caroline1008 03:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Removal of various sections.
A lot of the sections seem to be fluffy comments about how philosophy/religion X is just so universal. Admittedly, some religions/philosophies are universalistic in the sense that they claim to apply to all people everywhere, while others refer to a chosen people or race somehow, but that doesn't seem what is being gotten at. Would there be any opposition to removing large sections or chunks that don't seem to really have anything to do with some version of the word "Universalism?" SnowFire 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think each section is about Universalism just not clearly done, except for the section on Judaism. what in the world does a description of the chosen people theology have to do with Universalism? That's the only section making no relationship to Universal philosophy... Goldenrowley 06:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok I took care of making this more clear (if possible). Goldenrowley 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Ananda Marga and Online churches sections. The first is a single Hindu/yogic sect of questionable merit and does not warrant a separate section. Treating it at the level of Christianity and Hinduism was inaccurate. The second was nothing more more than promotion for a religious website of no established significance. PFR 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFR (talk • contribs)
Likewise removed separate top-level New Church section and added links to Swedenborgianism and The New Church in the See also section of Christianity.--PFR 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFR (talk • contribs)
The New Church section, which I had removed with the explanation in the previous paragraph, was restored by Goldenrowley, without comment here. In edit summary, Goldenrowley said "I think we should keep a paragraph on New Church, to balance some of the more traditional." I think this is an odd rationale for putting a church with several thousand members in the US, perhaps 25,000 worldwide, as a top-level category with Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam. I've removed it again. I had already added a link to its own page under Christianity. I believe this is the appropriate level for it unless each of those denominations listed under See Also in Christianity were expanded.--PFR 05:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFR (talk • contribs)
It looks like the Opposing Universalism section of External Links needs to be edited or removed. The one external URL in it now leads to a page which states "Access denied - You are not authorized to access this page" (amusingly appropriate, given the subject matter). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Changed Sub-subsection Name
I changed this back. The title Hinduism is consistent with the rest of the article. The answer here is to add to the section. PFR 05:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFR (talk • contribs)
I think this ought to be included, since a lot of Buddhism has believed in universal salvation for nearly 2ooo years. this would involve changing the definition, tho', as God isn't involved. Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- its worth researching, what do respected people think and say. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Does this link fit somewhere here ?
Why do you call this music Spamlink?
- Composition dedicated to MAHATMA GANDHI Mahatma Gandhi's favourite song, Vaishnava Janato... played on the flute by Composer-Flautist GS RAJAN at Kamani Auditorium, New Delhi. 2007.
Here is another version with a text sung by Lata Mangeshkar 
- The link is not directly related to the article and it has been included to increase the visibility of the performer. Please note that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files --jofframes (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Forms of God
It is not at all clear what purpose the section Forms of God serves in the description of Universalism. The section describes a few examples of ideas about the form and gender of God, but makes no connection to the topic of universalism at all. Tiggerdude (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think this section could be removed. Doesn't fit with the topic of the article, except the quote by Gandhi, which perhaps could be moved to the Hinduism section but would need a reference for it. Shiningdove (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This page does not use citations to support all claims. Not all Christian universalists believe that Satan will be saved, where did this claim come from? All claims, unless common sense, need backing, just like a research paper! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by Universalism?
Does the word Universalism mean the ideas that can be applied universally or is shared or can be accepted by people with all kinds of culture background? So why here it says that Universalism can be classified as a religion, theology and philosophy that generally holds all persons and creatures are related to God or the Divine and will be reconciled to God? Not every people accept the idea of god. And even for god or gods, every people can create its different stories and ideas of gods. So how can the ideas told by the article be called Universalism? And how can superstitions of religion be called Universalism? I'm rather puzzled by the word. Could someone share his or her views? -Dicting (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
the phrase of the article cited by you does not hold any truth in itself. It is just a personal notion. Maybe it is true as far as religion or theology are concerned because they usually refer to some God or to the socalled Divine, but philosophy not necessarily does.
What about that link Universal karma? Can it rightfully be added to the lemma here?
In looking for references to back up the 'non-Christian' definitions given here. I find that there are basically none. The huge, overwhelming, majority, of Google hits are for the Christian terms, with a few where the word is simply a variant on 'universality' without any reference to religion at all. I also find that the non-Christian sections are pretty much unreferenced. The only ref is to Gandhi, who is not really an authority on orthodox Hinduism. Even Miriam-Webster dictionary does not recognise any non-Christian religious meanings of the word.
I propose therefore that this article becomes about the Christian meaning. Matter relating to the other religions views on their own universal applicability can be moved to the religous articles themselves. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The source for the number of members points to adherents.com, which gives a source of a Village Voice article from 1999. This article has no mention of UU :(
Mandeans mentioned in the Koran?
"The Qur'an identifies Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and "Sabi'un" or "baptists" (usually taken as a reference to the Mandeans and related Mesopotamian groups) as "people of the book" entitled to recognition and protection as religious communities."
I've read the Koran several times and don't remember ever seeing a reference to the Mandeans. I know that the book often refers to the Sabeans, but this is traditionally interpreted as a reference to Zoroastrians. There is no other term used for Zoroastrians in the Koran, if you interpret Sabean as meaning Mandean then you would have to say it does mention Zoroastrians. I think this needs to be cleared up. A citation showing that the Koran mentions the Mandeans would be useful.
- I'm going on several ahadith (I'll have to look them up), generally considered authoritative for interpreting the Koran, that say something to the effect of "The Sabians are between the Jews and the Magians" (sometimes "read the Zabur" as well, narrated by half a dozen men; "reading the Zabur" implies a continuity with Judaeo(-Christian) tradition, ala the Baptist-venerating Mandaeans, and the word "Sabi'un" itself, meaning "baptists", etc.), which provides a contrast to Zoroastrianism, called "Magianism" amongst most people in ancient times. Also Ibn Kathir and Abu Hanifa. There's also the later jurists debates and decisions over whether the dualist Zoroastrians were people of the book; it was decided they were (whether on the basis of the Avesta or political expedience, I don't know). Whatever they are (which is pretty much unknown, but the only interpretation I've ever heard is Mandaean, supported by Mandaean belief in John the Baptist and etymology of "Sabi'un" itself), they can not be Zoroastrians as they are contrasted with Magians (Zoroastrians). Other (online) sources (not taken from a physical book in my library, so you can read as well):
- If none of those seem acceptable, it can be changed to "Sabians" (unknown, but variously identified as Mandaeans, Zoroastians, X, Y, etc. JohnChrysostom (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Unitarian Universalism originated in Christianity; therefor it makes sense to put it under the section of "Abrahamic faiths". Also, by putting it above the "Abrahamic faiths" section the chronology and the relation to Christian Universalism gets lost; this chronology is helpful in understanding how Unitarian Universalism developed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, but we're talking about now, not 300 years ago. The history of the church, in its own article, covers it for those looking for more. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the opening sentence of the paragraph.
"In Christianity, Universalism can refer to the beliefs that all humans either may or will be saved through Jesus Christ and eventually come to harmony in God's kingdom."
The words in bold are the focus of my sugggestion. This section needs scripture that supports the words "all...will". I cannot find anything in the Bible that says "all humans will be saved through Jesus Christ". Two verses of scripture states that the only means a person can come to God is unless God draws that person to him (John 6:44, John 6:65 NIV). This even brings the word "may" into question in the statement above, because may suggests that people have a power to do something that God just stated they don't.
4th Paragraph in Islam's section ( Traditional Islam") is written from anti-Muslim perspective; no neutrality whatsoever.
"Traditional Islam views the world as bipartite, consisting of the House of Islam, that is, where people live under the Islamic law - the Shariah - and the House of War, that is, where the people do not live under Islamic law, which must be proselytized (see da'wah) using whatever resources available, including, in some traditionalist and conservative interpretations, the use of violence, as holy struggle in the path of Allah, to either convert its inhabitants to Islam, or to rule them under the Shariah (cf. dhimmi)"
This is not the view of traditional Islam. This piece was obviously written by an anti-Muslim whose views about Islam are riddled with misconceptions. This contradicts Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. Biggest example is from the prophet of Islam after the conquest of Mecca, he let all non-believers go and didn't kill a single person in that city. Many other similar examples throughout the history of Islam. I recommend the removal of this paragraph.Ali4truth (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)