I know that I am not alone in thinking that particularism is flawed. Eschatological Particularism, the idea that God can not or will not “save” every one and every thing, relies on a belief in a God who is either not omnipotent or is not benevolent. One of these must be lacking, or else God would spend all of eternity trying to reach every last soul, even if we accept that every person must submit to playing by some arbitrary rules set that God has imposed on itself to make creation into a game.
The only argument I have ever heard against Universalism, given the assumption of a loving creator, is that we have “freewill” to choose to be saved or not. That’s fine, as far as it goes, but it negates the idea of freewill in that we had to be created first. If Damnation is the default, and we have to choose not to be damned, then the act of Creation is the act of damning, and thus there is no inherent choice in whether or not to play the game, only whether or not to submit to the rules imposed. That, I have to point out, is not freewill.
So, I ask you, if there is a creator who can do all things, but chooses not to love us all, then how is that being worthy of reverence? How loving or powerful is a God who spends eternity fuming that we did something bad, especially if we believe that simply thinking something is a sin, and condemns souls forever? Not just to boredom or even discomfort, but to misery! That is not a God I can love. No temporal sin warrants eternal punishment.
That is why I reject the ideas of eternal damnation and original sin. My vision of God is a being of love, encouraging us to do better and treat each other with kindness; in short, to love each other as God loves us. Any less is a being unworthy of my worship or devotion.