This concludes the major and relevant part of the exchange between me and Dr. Hany Mina that took part in the form of emails.
I just wanted to add a little comment from my side.
When I read those emails now I can see two things that have changed in my view:
1- I see Logic as less of a problem than I did back then. At the time, I couldn't see how anybody can neglect the logic of Universalism. To me it seemed to solve almost all problems posed by other views, and raises virtually none*. Now I know better. I know that Logic has very little to do with how people decide what to believe and what not to. The problem doesn't belong to this realm alone. We are very complex beings, and logical thinking is just too simple a process to fully account for our rationality.
2- I have more respect for the Doctrine of Reserve. I still don't endorse any teaching contrary to my beliefs, but I don't wear those beliefs on my sleeve either. I now believe that ideas should be revealed gradually and cautiously. This is related to the previous point, I guess. If belief isn't logical, then teaching theological concepts shouldn't be merely the laying out of ideas in logical sequence. That just doesn't do it, and can at times cause harm to the listener.
So, that's it. I am glad that I have shared those emails with everybody.
I wanted to share them because I personally found them very heartwarming.
Heartwarming because of the incredible amount of love and patience that Dr. Hany has replied with, and to a person he doesn't know and has never seen before.
I found it heartwarming also because to me, Universalism is just that. It is full of love. It is reassuring. It is consistent with itself and the character of God as I know him. And best of all, it doesn't claim those who don't believe it are expendable; it is all-inclusive, tolerant of others, gives no ultimatums and has no deadlines.
I hope you found that exchange to be as useful and heartwarming as I did back then, and as I do every time I read it again.
*I know people find "free will" questions to be a problem with Universalism, but I never saw free will as a problem. I hope to explain why in later posts.
I just wanted to add a little comment from my side.
When I read those emails now I can see two things that have changed in my view:
1- I see Logic as less of a problem than I did back then. At the time, I couldn't see how anybody can neglect the logic of Universalism. To me it seemed to solve almost all problems posed by other views, and raises virtually none*. Now I know better. I know that Logic has very little to do with how people decide what to believe and what not to. The problem doesn't belong to this realm alone. We are very complex beings, and logical thinking is just too simple a process to fully account for our rationality.
2- I have more respect for the Doctrine of Reserve. I still don't endorse any teaching contrary to my beliefs, but I don't wear those beliefs on my sleeve either. I now believe that ideas should be revealed gradually and cautiously. This is related to the previous point, I guess. If belief isn't logical, then teaching theological concepts shouldn't be merely the laying out of ideas in logical sequence. That just doesn't do it, and can at times cause harm to the listener.
So, that's it. I am glad that I have shared those emails with everybody.
I wanted to share them because I personally found them very heartwarming.
Heartwarming because of the incredible amount of love and patience that Dr. Hany has replied with, and to a person he doesn't know and has never seen before.
I found it heartwarming also because to me, Universalism is just that. It is full of love. It is reassuring. It is consistent with itself and the character of God as I know him. And best of all, it doesn't claim those who don't believe it are expendable; it is all-inclusive, tolerant of others, gives no ultimatums and has no deadlines.
I hope you found that exchange to be as useful and heartwarming as I did back then, and as I do every time I read it again.
*I know people find "free will" questions to be a problem with Universalism, but I never saw free will as a problem. I hope to explain why in later posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment