Poll on the number of categories?


#1
  • We have too many categories
  • We have just the right number of categories
  • We don’t have enough categories

0 voters

If you think we have too many, please suggest categories you think we should merge?
If you think we don’t have enough, please suggest categories you’d like to add?

Here are our current categories:
https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/categories


#2

For example, I’m thinking we merge all of the subcategories under “Studies” and rename the category as “Articles, Books, Essays, Films, Poetry, & Videos”.

Similarly, we merge all of the subcategories under “Practices” and rename it “Christian Living, Church, Evangelism, & Mission”.


#3

Your suggestions sound good to me, Alex. Also, I’d drop (or at least make read-only) any of the “Ask Dr. So&so a question” categories where the good doctor is no longer a participating forum member. You might also drop the women’s category. It just never got any traction.


#4

We could also offer Gerry Beauchemin a spot. He might be willing to drop by and answer questions since he posted about his new book recently.


#5

Thanks for your helpful feedback. I reckon it would be worth you asking Gerry.


#6

Also since we have so much interest in Preterism, Monism, and whatever the latest one is–where God has already done everything and you’re saved and don’t need to live a godly life, I can’t remember the name one… It might be nice to give those folks their own category. We might consider making it members only since it doesn’t actually reflect the views of our founders.


#7

Are you happy for me to delete it entirely, eternally, & irreversibly?


#8

Made lots of changes, hopefully for the better! As always, I’m open to feedback :slight_smile:


#9

I think so, yes. It seemed a good idea, but we can use group conversations via messaging if we have vulnerable ladies join the forum. The “ladies’ parlor” just never managed to find its wings.


#10

I think so, yes. It seemed a good idea, but we can use group conversations via messaging if we have vulnerable ladies join the forum. The “ladies’ parlor” just never managed to find its wings.


#11

Cindy, there is Ultra Universalism (UU) as distinct from the ECF (early church fathers) classical & the usually advocated form of Universalism called Purgatorial Universalism (PUR). In UU there is no afterlife “hell”, “purgatory”, punishment, chastening or sufferings for anyone including the wicked. At death both the righteous & the wicked immediately go to heaven &/or are saved. One form of UU states that there will be varying kinds of postmortem rewards.

There is also Pantelism, a form of Full Preterism, “This view maintains that the Scriptures both prophetically and redemptively, were entirely fulfilled in the person and work of Christ and consummated at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Accordingly, this consummation included not only Christ’s Second Coming, but the final judgment, the resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the reconciliation of all things…the reconciliation accomplished in 70 A.D was such that there no longer remains a lost condition in humanity and therefore no present need for conversion – which reduces to a form of universalism where all are saved and one must simply realize what has been done for all humanity.” https://www.theopedia.com/pantelism

Though Pantelists may disagree with the last statement above. Compare:

http://pantelism.com/redemption/fulfilledgrace.html

P.S. I disagree with both Pantelism & especially Ultra Universalism.


#12

I disagree with them both. But I’m open to hearing about them. And how they fit, into a person’s world views. It’s my hope to see how these viewpoints, fit in with the tribulation and Zombie Apocalypse…as the most probably, end-times model. And it can raise some questions, for these 2 viewpoints - and others, presented here.

  • Like did the tribulation and Zombie Apocalypse occur around 70 AD and there was a conspiracy, to cover it up?

  • Or someone describes their spiritual experiences here. How do we know, they are not the result of an organic disease or psychosis? Or come from a demonic source? Or a side effect, of some prescribed or unprescribed pharmaceuticals? Or if real and are from a divine source…should they be interpreted literally or figuratively? Or some combination thereof? In cases of zombies, more than one unrelated persons - have had recent visions regarding them (Christian centric, end-times visions). But should we regard them literally, like what might happen…in AMC’s The Walking Dead and Fear The Walking Dead?

  • And if some viewpoint here is correct…that has eluded all the brilliant, historical and contemporary theologians and philosophers…and only a FEW understand the truth…then haven’t God, made a COLOSSAL failure to communicate?

  • Or the Devil is some super powerful, God like bad dude. Question for everyone. In another forum thread, I posted Zombie Apocalypse [DOCU] . Where folks are actually preparing and training for it. And a comment from the YouTube audience asked: > “Question: If a Zombie apocalypse happened would the Zombies eat or fight each other as well as go for us?”…More info via the Christian visions at The coming zombie apocalypse and great tribulation. So my question is this. Wouldn’t Satan and all the evil angels, spend as much time fighting among themselves - as working havoc with us? And trying to out-seat Satan, as the “king of the hill”? And wouldn’t they have as many problems with ego - if not more so - then we do?

  • Etc,

I take the viewpoint that we ALL might hold some views, that exist outside the historical creeds and historical context - of church history and perspective. And all these views can be equally plausible, defend-able and presentable.

“I wish my name was Cobb. Then they would send over a Cobb salad.”-- Shirley Temple


#13

Let’s not turn Alex’s topic into a discussion of the relative merits and demerits of this or that theology, guys. I knew I ought to have PM’d that suggestion to him. My bad.

It’s ONLY a suggestion that a dedicated category might be provided for these more unusual theological viewpoints, since there has been so much interest in discussing them. And that perhaps this category might be made “members only” since it is outside the original charter of the forum. It’s not an invitation to discuss them here–we’ve been discussing them everywhere (which is the reason for the suggestion that maybe they deserve their own category.)


#14

I vote to keep the category “Chat about anything”. Sometimes someone might share a math puzzle Or some other relevant topic of interest…that doesn’t fit, one of the regular categories.


#15

Cindy, since i wasn’t clear which of 2 alternatives (UU or Pantelism) you were referring to & you were unaware of the name of what you were referring to, the intention of my post was to help clarify that, not initiate a discussion of these topics here. Likewise, i don’t think that was Mr. Zombie’s intention either.

As regards the 2nd half of your last sentence above, that might be a good idea. Though the Pantelists enjoy bringing up their Pantelism related views in every thread they can, no matter what the topic (e.g. “here’s the Pantelist take on basket weaving 101”), so i’m sure they wouldn’t want to feel restricted to one topic re Pantelism, especially one that is members only. Though they might very well like to - also - have a special topic called Panelism in addition to posting, as you put it, “everywhere”. To a lessor degree, i think, the same applies to UU. Though only 1 to 3 regular contributers hold to these views, & in general they are extremely rarely believed by universalists, let alone Christians in general.


#16

I second that. People here sometimes have theological and philosophical viewpoints…that lie outside, a normal, bell shaped curve - of collective opinions. Or at odds, with the historical creeds, church fathers and reformers. Where should folks express those viewpoints?


#17

Alex, I like your inclinations here!