What if: Univeralist Christians win

In early Christianity it was commonly believed that everyone would eventually be saved by God and would eventually go to Heaven/New Earth forever. St. Augustine even acknowledged that Universal Salvation was a fairly common view. Universalists can believe a variety of things, but ultimately believe that hell is only temporary. People can still get punished for not believing in or accepting Jesus while alive or for committing sins they have not repented for, but these punishments are just temporary.

What if Universalists had won and convinced the overwhelming majority of Christians and relevant higher ups in early Christianity that hell is only temporary? How might this have effected Christianity and the world going forward? Would it likely be more or less successful? And what impact might this have on culture?

For a second scenario, what if the Univeralists won, but also at some point early on came to believe in and teach a more “Earthly” Heaven and New Earth? Where marriages can last forever, families from when alive remain special forever (your son will always be your son and not just a brother in Christ for example), domesticsted animals and pets are saved, everyone gets a nice house in the afterlife, and life is in general more like Earth, but without sin, with love for all, and with God being worshipped on a daily basis and loved above all else? Perhaps triggered by something like an early Saint having a Near Death Experience where he sees his dead spouse, parents, family, dog, and God (who tells him he has to go back for now and tell everyone), who wanted to take him out to eat or see a play, or some other generic entertainment normalish people at the time would consider a great day.

How might the second scenario effect things? Would this make Christianity more or less effective at converting people and keeping them? What changes in culture might it have?
 
Would this be better or worse at competing with a hypothetical Islam equivalent than OTL Christianity?

I feel like if given the opportunity, it could outperform OTL Christianity in India and the Far East given that it doesn't require their ancestors go to hell. In the long run it would probably be less centralized, given that there is less imperative to get all of the details of doctrine right, which could enable it to be one of many religions in a place like India, or even able carve out a niche in a place like China.

It would also probably be more popular today, provided it lasts that long.
 
Mormonism covers a lot of those bases - eternal marriage, ordinances (sacraments) on behalf of dead ancestors, continued spiritual progression after death.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Less effective at conversion. in NRM it generally accepted that more 'hard line' religion that insists on commitment from its member, separation of believe run believer, and confidence of believer as special 'elect' would be more effective at gaining followers than religion that more wishy-washy in practice and theology.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I can see both sides of the argument as far as the advantages of hardline religion versus the ancestors of being able to save your ancestors.

Another thing might be doctrine itself not being the critical factor, but rather the mutual support, fellowship and organization of early Christian communities and the assistance they provide in *this* life that might be most decisive. If that is identical in this TL to OTL's non-universalist Christianity, the faith with the altered doctrine might have success matching OTL' basically.
 
It was not "commonly believed" - it was an opinion among several. Fairly common doesn't mean it's universal (no pun intended). Origen and others held this opinion
 
Paradise-On-Earth-jehovah-witnesses-36949317-500-296.jpg

I used to think Jehovah Witnesses were a "nice" religion,

but . . .
 
They tell their members they shouldn't be friends with anyone who isn't a Jehovah Witness, which in my book is pretty much the definition of a cult. And then they sometimes kick people out, exile people, "disfellowshipping" is their word, that is, isolating people including from family members.

They've done a lousy job responding to the issue of sexual abuse, according to a royal commission in Australia which looked at a lot of different groups, plus other sources.

And they double down on the fear tactics. Members who aren't "in Jehovah's favor" at the time of armageddon will face both a painful death and nonexistence.
 
Last edited:
Point being, a hell which lasts forever has never made all that much sense. And even though this has scared people shitless through the ages, it may have been and may still be somewhat tempered by doubt in the back of a person's mind.

The idea of a temporary hell for the punishment of actual wrongs a person commits (for twenty years, for fifty years?) may be more believable and thus scarier. In the hands of a leader with a negative mindset, this still might be very much a fear-based religion.
 
Last edited:
Top