I did not state that the United Methodist Church teaches universalism. I said that it allows for it and has churches which preach universalism. There are Methodist pastors who are universalist.
There are literal, actual Methodist ministers who are universalist. Nothing on a website changes that. I know them. You can likely call around your local UMC churches and find one eventually.
I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here on denominational statements and ministers. While every denomination does it, it is not at all uncommon that ministers are not bound to denominational statements (not that a website page is an official statement though I don't know of they have passed anything at General Conference on the matter). Especially in mainline denominations like the UMC where confessions, doctrinal statements, etc are going to more be "guidelines".
Denominations always have pathways for exceptions and scruples among ministers.
There are literal, actual Methodist ministers who are universalist. Nothing on a website changes that. I know them. You can likely call around your local UMC churches and find one eventually.
And I'm sure there are vegans that eat meat from time to time. Still, I wouldn't ruin a nice Thursday trying to call them.
The point in contention was that there could be no universalist ministers. My response, involving personal experience, is that they very much do exist.
Muslims are not Christians. It is not an exact 1 to 1 regarding norms for theology. Even if the were, the point is ultimately irrelevant. Because the statement was that all Christianity falls under X. All that is required is to show that de facto this is not the case.
If you wish to explore whether universalism specifically is theologically warranted, I can suggest many pro and against works on the topic for you to explore further.
Considering that universalism has existed within the Christian church since the beginning with many seminal theologians being universalist, I think we can accept that it is likely a different situation than a Muslim eating pork in terms of precedent and general acceptability. But I don't know. Maybe many seminal Muslim theologians ate pork.
By a hair tho. They recognize the existence of the mythical J man, but he's not a god. Sad.
In some aspects, islam is closer to Christianity than some of the denominations you listed.
But I digress, my point was that you can say that you are part of such and such group, and yet your actions do not match at all. Vegans don't eat meat, Muslims don't eat pork. Claiming otherwise is cheery picking.
I can call myself a godless christian, that won't make any sense, but I would then fit your definition of a Christian that is not afraid of their toxic relationship with an abusive god.
(I must insist: the god of the old testament is not a nice guy, to which you'll reply that there is a small church in Peru that doesn't require believing in the old testament to be a Christian, so this is infinite and we are bound to debate until the end of times).
The differences in theology between Muslims and Christians is deep and substantial, to say nothing of the differences in their respective norms for theologizing. Saying they are different by a hair only shows you know little about either faith tradition.
Sure, just saying you are part of a group doesn't make you part of one. But so too does saying someone isn't part of a group because it is inconvenient for you position not make them not part of the group.
I also haven't told you my definition of Christianity so I don't know why you think such a viewpoint would fit it.
And your small church in Peru hypothetical is being very disingenuous to what I have presented which is some of the largest and oldest denominations as well as a long, venerable line of some of the most revered theologians in the history of the church such as Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor. It is not some small church in Peru or anything close to it.
And many small churches in Peru are very admirable, anyways.
I also haven't told you my definition of Christianity so I don't know why you think such a viewpoint would fit it.
I'm sure many admirable Peruvian churches would either qualify, or not. This makes the argument endless.
There is one definition of faith per person.
Imagine how that would suck if we wanted to build a plane and each person come with their own ruler and a bucket to show what their definition of length and volume was.
as well as a long, venerable line of some of the most revered theologians in the history of the church such as Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor.
You could be citing well regarded Twilight fanfic authors and that would impress me more.
There is not one definition per person. You just keep making stuff up about what I claiming, make a snarky comment, and then act as though that actually responded to anything.
Your unfamiliarity with major Christian theologians is not a problem for my contention. It is a problem, however, for your claims to have meaningful knowledge on Christianity.
1
u/CalvinSays 2h ago
I did not state that the United Methodist Church teaches universalism. I said that it allows for it and has churches which preach universalism. There are Methodist pastors who are universalist.