Jesus said," There was a rich man who had much money. He said, 'I shall put my money to use so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouse with produce, with the result that I shall lack nothing.' Such were his intentions, but that same night he died. Let him who has ears hear." Thomas, 63.
Neo-Platonism was a school of thought popular in the Imperial phase of the Roman world. All early Christian thinkers of this era were neo-Platonists although many neo-Platonists were non-Christian.
Plato, in the Republic, argues that all things emanate from the Good, a concept closely associated with the Christian God. Neo-Platonism holds that creation emanates from and returns to the One, which Christian thinkers of the time equated with God. These facts would suggest a strong Unitarian aspect to the early Church. However whether this model of the workings of God would necessarily imply Universalism is open to question.
On the surface it might seem to imply that the salvation of all souls is certain. All things begin with the One (i.e. God) and return. The Universalists of 18th century New England held that all souls were saved not so much because of the goodness of God but because they believed that the total depravity necessary for damnation was impossible. Plato held that evil was only the absence of good; it does not have an existence in its own right. Therefore damnation, if it were to exist, would entail extinction, obliteration. And the question as to how something could become nothing would have to be addressed and explained.
The position of the Catholic Church on this question is quite close to Universalism. I remember a Catholic priest on television describing how damnation, if it ever did actually occur, was very rare. And that no one who died and went to hell would have been surprised to find himself there. But the possibility of damnation for the utterly depraved had to be recognized.
Let us examine this idea. The above verse from Thomas is also mentioned in the canonical Gospels. The idea that it is very difficult for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is mentioned elsewhere: the heavily laden camel trying to squeeze through the Jerusalem gate called the "needle's eye" speaks of this difficulty.
The Devil, even if he doesn't really exist, is the father of lies. A statement that is true has a fundamentally more concrete reality status than a lie .
(see also above on good and evil).
The doctrine of the forgiveness of sins is fundamental to all Christianity and has nothing to do with Catholics confessing their sins to priests. We are imperfect beings but this will not prevent our salvation.
The two passages from scripture mentioned above refer to a certain form of imperfection or sin. Great wealth cushions our existence but also may have a blurring effect on our perception of the world. That the rich often fall prey to the vice of believing their own nonsense is uncontroversial. It is my belief that it is this failing rather than an excess of consumer durables that hinders the attainment of union with God by the rich. A private world composed largely of delusions will evaporate into nothingness at the critical moment.
How far can we expect the natural mechanisms we describe as 'God' to make allowances for unfortunates such as described above? There must surely be a question mark over this. The question mark must be even more emphatic in the following case. We have up to now, perhaps, being examining the hypothetical case of a rich individual who falls into sin and delusion as a side-effect of his/her excessively luxurious environment. However what of the case of an individual who actively seeks to build a private fantasy world created as a side-effect of excess wealth and regardless of the violence this lie inflicts on others?
I am a Unitarian, and while I pray for the salvation of all souls the possibility that Universalism is overly optimistic and naive must surely be entertained.
It is said that we reap what we sow. Are there those who devote their lives to actively seeking falsehood?

Brendan Burke MA(Phil).
Cork, May 2006.