Hi Everybody
(been awhile since i’ve been on; i actually look younger in my new avatar i got a new haircut and lost about 25 lbs since 2014 missed you all)
Anyway, I have been disheartened, but also uplifted (because I believe it to be totally false in terms of causality and not even sociologically or demographically true), by the following curious argument, that Christian Universalism would only flourish in places of prosperity (i.e. white, middle or upper class North America), whereas downtrodden Christians would be far less likely to hold it.
I have been given various rationales for this. A big one is that the downtrodden, who experience systemic oppression, demand (and presumably exegete the Bible as demanding? - although this is never made clear) justice. A secondary justification has been that middle-class North Americans are insulated from violence, and therefore cannot fathom a God who is retributive - a corollary of this being, surely, that since white North America and other colonial powers cause (or ancestors caused) the oppression, of course, they would want to believe that God is all-forgiving to maintain the unjust status quo.
Obviously, the argument, to me, at best, is merely a sociological or demographical observation - but is this even true? For instance, poverty and oppression hardens some, but it is also makes some of the most merciful people this Earth has ever seen. And, what if it is?.. perhaps universalists are largely middle-class North Americans - it may be for other reasons, such as that we have more time to study the Bible or have Internet forums than our less fortunate brothers and sisters.
The accusation that “we’d” be universalists to protect our interests is a little disconcerting, but it also assumes that Christian Universalism is sort of a religion or theology of social quietism or inaction - but i don’t think that necessarily follows either…
Anyhow, i’m sure more than a few of you have come across this kind of reasoning… any thoughts?