Talk:Universalism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not okay. I've suggested a  split (1) top half Universalism (disambiguation) (2) bottom half Universalism (religion).  Goldenrowley 06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OKay I just took care of the article split -- now it is better I hope. Goldenrowley 00:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARTICLE needs to be re-thought 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: Can someone work the Primitive Baptist Universalist denomination into the Christian section?  Badagnani 03:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done! Caroline1008 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Primitive Baptist Universalist]]

message: Hey guys, looks like Christian Trinitarian Universalism needs to be merged in as well...
Chef Ketone 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Another Possible Merger?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Ok I took care of making this more clear (if possible). Goldenrowley 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of various sections. 

message: As the Hindu universalism sub-subsection only mentions Gandhi's view of the subject, and as not all Hindus follow it, I have changed the title. --Shruti14 t c s 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed Sub-subsection Name 

message: I would very much be interested if anyone knows of the term Trinitarian Universalism  being used in a notable publication.--GMS508 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: 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)
replies: text: its worth researching, what do respected people think and say. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism 

message: Does this link fit somewhere here ?
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.89.158 (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.74.37 (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.74.37 (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Multifaith" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with you both. Goldenrowley (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forms of God 

message: 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)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.123 (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What do you mean by Universalism?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: 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 :(
This needs to be updated to reflect a more accurate number.
98.228.100.244 (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2010 comments

message: "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): 
:*http://books.google.com/books?id=eEwTAAAAYAAJ 
:*http://www.ineas.org/in/ne/199704mandeans.htm 
:*http://www.oxfordjournals.org/semitj/jsss_3.pdf
:*http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/yahya.html 
: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)
thread_title:  Mandeans mentioned in the Koran? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: When the Universalist denomination existed in America, its - ITS - adherents considered themselves 'Christians' in some meaningful sense.  Soon after the Universalists (as congregations and a denomination) were merged with the Unitarians (as congregations and a denomination), the notion that the ('dialectically'?) resulting denomination was entirely or largely 'Christian' (by its own understanding) was gone (by that time, a minority of those folks who by then began calling themselves 'UUs' were post-Christian, non-Christian, pagans, secularists, religious liberals, liberal religionists, humanists, etc.  And then, they began 'stepping out' of that 'faith tradition' and 'experimenting' (far beyond any HISTORICALLY meaningful understanding of the term 'universalism' in any Abrahamic contexts. MaynardClark (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this a suggestion or a correction? I'm having a hard time following what you're getting at here. —PermStrump(talk) 02:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unitarian Universalism 

message: 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.
-Adam C.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.130.205.50 (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Universalism 

message: "In this world, there is no one who is not suffering from either pain or who is not continuously trying to work for happiness in life."
The above sentence in the subsection "Universalism" suffers from both a double negative and the word "either" in the wrong place in the sentence.  "Either pain" seems to imply that there are two possible pains from which someone can suffer, but not both such pains at the same time. Clearly, it cannot actually mean that.  I have, therefore, edited it to read as follows:
"In this world, there is no one who is not suffering from pain or who is not continuously trying to work for happiness in life."
By removing the misplaced modifier "either", the sentences has clearer meaning and the word "or" is sufficient to convey that it's one or the other.  I let the double negative stand.Toddabearsf (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universalism - sentence with tortuous syntax 

message: Hinduism is not an universalist religion. Other religions and religious books are rejected. Current branches of hinduism are advocating universalism but accept the authority of the vedas. There may not be clear rejection of other religions in the vedas because it is the oldest religion in the world and at the time may not have come in contact with other expressions of religion. Movements like Sai baba, may have commercial interest driven by the snatana dharma which is a misguided branch of hinduism , which has started creating as many gods as possible . this is something that was uncommon durin vedic times.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.148.92 (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism 

message: Re: (removed Category:Christian terminology; addedCategory:Religious terminology using HotCat)
The problem I have with removing the category 'Christian terminology' is that the term 'universalism' MEANS something very different in the history of Christendom than it does in some of the other religious faith traditions.  IMO, that more SPECIFIC category should stay (or be restored).  In addition, if other faith traditions have their own nuances or understandings of the term 'universalism' which are not shared by the others, perhaps a category for each ought to be included, also.  MaynardClark (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Faith Particularism vs. 'Faith Generalism'

message: Added citations to a quote from Guru Nanak. Section still needs citations for most of the text and I see in some other areas outside of Sikhism on this wiki article needs citations.
Kozan Huseyin (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikhism 

message: I'm not sure I can see the value of the repetitious extracts from the New International Version and English Standard Version in the Universalist theology subsection? One such repetition is identical word-for-word, and most are so similar as to serve no discernible purpose (if there is one, it certainly isn't explained). Can we do away with this unnecessary and uninformative duplication? JezGrove (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. LadyofShalott 15:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Will put on my "to-do list" :) Sethie (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: btw if anyone else feels inspired... go for it! Sethie (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication? 

message: I'm not sure why Da'wah is in the See also list on this page. Anyone want to make a case for keeping it? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see the relevance myself, so I'd be inclined to delete it. JezGrove (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: not seeing it's relevance to this article Sethie (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Da'wah relevance 

message: Have been disatisfied with the introduction section for awhile. Have made a few changes and input, feedback and other changes are welcome. Sethie (talk)
Took out the extended definition of religion..... still looking to create a great intro! Help appreciated. Sethie (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: The Critics section doesn't seem to offer any direct criticism. The information there sounds very neutral to me. I suspect this is simply a need to clarify and expand the section. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge or references to do so. Any volunteers? Jean15paul (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics section should be expanded and clarified 

message: Article seems to have become totally focused on religious universalism. Not at all helpful to me as I came here for the political/philosophical side of it. And as a Wikipedia editor I think we need  to at least be mentioning the other side, which I found fairly easily via google. Dakinijones (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only religious universalism?