Or more precisely, an Evangelical Universal Reconciliationist.
I also believe this to be scripturally supported.
Lol, well I'm a liberal individualist anarchist subjectivist postmodernist anti-capitalist anti-legalist non-conformist with regards to my views of Christianity and I feel pretty justified in seeing things my way. My views may not conform to the "traditional" way of seeing things, but because I can justify the process of deriving my views, I believe in the correctness of my views.
To me there is something far more important than saying whether or not there is a hell and what it's like. I believe it is far more important to ask why one should exist. Until that question is answered, a person should not even insist on the existence of hell.
At least it is not scientology.
I thought any idea of "hell" would have been bad enough for you regardless of interpretation, justification, rationalisation, metaphor, context, etc., etc. So Scientology is actually worse in your view?
But about 5 years ago, I been thinking critically about this business of Hell and could simply not fathom that the majority of the billions of people who are living or who have lived are consigned to a never-ending hell, according to the doctrine of my church. If that is the case, then God has a very poor track record in the salvation business. I mentioned that I'm a modified evangelist because I'm willing to conceed that a vast more people are saved than I realize.
Personally, I don't believe that the idea of an existence of hell should be justified on the grounds that it was mentioned in the written tradition of Christianity. I mean sure, yes, it's a part of Christianity because it's mentioned, but I think people stumble on the reason why. I can find a number of other reasons why a hell should exist apart from just the notion of sin. I cringe at the latter because it is driven so much by habit as to not be enlightening about the notion of a hell.
Christianity arose in a Jewish context and has many literary links to Judaism. My impression of Judaism is that it is often driven by a process of asking questions and finding answers than of setting in stone what people should think and believe. If I am right that these processes of asking questions and finding answers were taking place during the lifetime of Jesus, then Jesus' religion emerged in that context.
Sure he says, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life," but that doesn't mean all Christians have to agree on what Christianity is or isn't. If Jesus got people started on a journey asking a question and then finding an answer, then to properly understand the path Jesus was advocating, a Christian must try to understand this process of asking questions and finding answers, particularly the kind of questions and answers depicted in the New Testament. To understand the path described by Jesus, a Christian must seek to understand the journey taken by the first century Christians.
The trouble with fundamentalist Christianity is that it dictates to people what it considers to be "the question" and "the answer" for everybody. The question and answer are always the same regardless of the person and situation. It is the idea of a man dying on a cross so that God could forgive the sins of the human race. The problem with this is that it ignores a multitude of other questions and answers Jesus explored during his ministry. It gives Christianity a more narrow scope than it deserves.
Jesus' ministry was driven by the idea that if there was a question, there must be an answer, if there was a problem, there'd be a solution, if there was a need, there was a way of fulfilling it. If a man was hungry, Jesus could find food for him. If he was thirsty, he'd be able to find something for him to drink. If he was sad, something would make him happy. If he felt poor, Jesus would make him feel rich.
Blessed are the meek.
Jesus' teachings were about turning an unfulfilled mass of people into satisfied people. The idea of salvation from God's wrath and forgiveness of sins ignores this. Actually, the way I see, the
former is the
real salvation. Far better than resting and getting lazy on the legend of a lamb sacrifice and forgiveness is fighting against poverty, injustice, oppression and persecution in the world.
Blessed are the meek.
The way I see it, Jesus never defined a "hell." He only gave descriptions of it. As China Cat points out, as have many others before, the word hell used in the writings didn't always refer to the same concept. Yet when translated into English, we get the same word.
Hell is a literary construct.
I don't believe Jesus wanted people so much to believe in a so-called well-defined "hell," but to think of the consequences of not living in noble, dignified and honourable ways. There may not actually even be
one hell at all, but many hells. It might not even be two, four, seven or twenty hells. It could be a hundred. There could even be an infinite number. Some of these "hells" might not even conform to our traditional notion of a "hell."
But perhaps the piece of information you most want to hear is whether or not I believe in hell.
My answer would be that I believe in the
value of a literary construct called hell. What I don't believe in is the insistence of a particular definition of hell as a model of conformity for all Christians. I believe everybody needs to develop their own concept of hell or whether they want one or not.
When Jesus got people started on a path toward God, he did not make rules saying, "you have to believe this, you have to believe that." It began with a question followed by an answer. With a good religious education (or any kind of education) you don't dictate to people how they should think. You guide them towards "good thinking." They may even develop opinions you never imagined, and they could still be good ideas. Jesus was that kind of teacher -- guide not dictator.
Jesus didn't dictate the idea of hell. He presented it as a beacon. The point of a concept of hell is not to have everybody agree on it. Instead, make of it what you will, but whatever concept you form in your mind, make it meaningful.
My position is that there is no hell except for the hell that to you is a meaningful hell. The trouble with fundamentalist Christianity is that it fears that if people don't receive solid concepts on concepts like "hell," then it is not contributing anything meaningful. This is why fundamentalist Christianity insists on a definition for all Christians.
I do have what I consider to be a
solid concept with regards to the meaning of hell. The difference that I have with fundamentalist Christianity is that the
solid concept I follow has to do with the
process of finding a meaningful concept of hell that works for my personal journey, rather than finding a definition that will work for all Christians. Fundamentalist Christianity believes that there must be a
solidity of definition of hell in a Christian community, whereas I believe in a
solidity of process. What I mean by that is that rather than reaching
consensus on a definition, people should reach a
consensus on the process of developing a concept.
Inductively, this had led me to believe that even for those who have never heard of Christ, the provision of the Blood He shed for us must invariably be available for them. C.S. Lewis mentions the term 'anonymous Christians' as those who have demonstrated Christ-like quailities in their lives that evidences the fruit of a believer, even though they are not connected in Name.
Very recently, I've been hit hard on the idea of Universal Reconciliation, which is a belief that eventually everyone will be 'saved'.
Previously I didn't discuss my own concept of "hell." I felt it more appropriate to discuss it here.
I don't think in terms of saved or unsaved. To me it's relative. I actually think in terms of the more basic idea that "good people go to heaven" and "bad people go to hell." But that's relative. Good people get better places in afterlife. Bad people get worse places in afterlife. The category of "saved" and "unsaved" is simply to distinguish the better from the worse-off.
Personally, I think the black and white categorisation of saved and unsaved is detrimental to the process of actually understanding Christianity. Earlier I said that Christianity was about resolving questions, problems and needs and providing answers, solutions and fulfillment.
There is a lot of injustice, oppression, persecution and exploitation in our world. If a hell must exist, then it is a
necessary evil to deal with the injustice, oppression, persecution and exploitation that takes place in our world. Indeed many people regard hell as evil. Yes, I agree. Hell is evil. But it's a necessary evil. It's necessary because of the evil in the world. Crime and injustice must be punished wherever it happens.
Injustice, oppression, persecution and exploitation are perpetuated by big business, big banks, politicians, armies, governments and religious leaders. This is evil and there must be a place for people who participate in this evil. That "place" is hell. Why should the wrongs of the powerful and rich go unanswered?
The "saved" are not the ones who adhere to Christian ideology, but those who either fight against this injustice, oppression, persecution and exploitation or abstain from it. It is harder for the rich and powerful to reach heaven. Whoever is first in this world will be last in the kingdom of God. These are the
real Christians.
The popular idea of salvation ignores all these other ways of thinking of Christianity. It assumes the same question and same answer for everything.
