Are Unitarians Christians?

[Publisher]

Quakers tend to be more ‘religious’ than UUs. They were frankly mystical at the start (hence the name) and were/are theists and followers of the social gospel of Jesus, which they still are. Most Quakers attend Meetings, dominated by silence and witness. They refer to the “Light” and “that of God” at Meeting–when they talk. There are both Quakers and UUs that follow Jesus as a great prophet, teacher and spiritual leader, and I think those UUs who* focus* on Jesus have groups within UU churches–there are always a lot of groups and committees, ditto the Quakers–and also talk to each other online. In addition to Quaker Meetings, there are a few Quaker churches, especially in the midwest, where they sing hymns, have a Quaker minister and maybe a sermon (I have never attended one of these).

I don’t know if viewers are aware of this, but in the contest of the Quaker Meetings, there aren’t any ministers. (Confusing: both the congregation and its services are referred to as meeting–usually the congregation is a Meeting, and the service is a meeting). Elected members of the Meeting run the Meeting, but all the members are expected to donate their time and involvement in a serious way.

There are ‘birthright’ Quakers (their term) and UUs, but many are refugees from other denominations, for UU in proportion to the percentage in the general population, thus a lot of former Catholics, mainstream Protestants and quite a few Jews, the latter perhaps more than the general population.

UU has a strong presence in international charity, but the Quakers’ presence is remarkable, considering their numbers and the fact that most Quakers aren’t rich–in the American Friends Service Committee. The Quakers have founded many outstanding colleges such as Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr, Haverford, Earlham, Wm. Penn, Friends University, Whittier, George Fox, Guilford Colleges, Johns Hopkins and Cornell Universities, and Germantown Friends and Delaware Friends, outstanding prep schools. They founded and maintain an outstanding groups of fully accredited retirement homes in the east and Middle Atlantic states known as the Kendal Corporation.

…all by a denomination with a US 2007 membership of about 86,830 members!–the size of some RC dioceses.

LOL…Friends do have lots of “committees” and “meetings”…Friends use “Meeting” to differentiate between the "local congregation (monthly meeting) and “Church”. The Church meets each First Day…Friend’s don’t “go to church”…we are the church and we “meet” for worship and seek to take care of the business by implementing our “concerns”.

In the 19th century the evangelical revival hit the Society of Friends as well as the Methodists with a force. Many Meetings decided to embrace a “programmed” venue…and began using the term “Friends Church” to distinguish themselves…those of us in “non-programmed” Meetings choose to continue the “witness” and not use “church” in how we designate our particular tradition.

Both Friend’s Meetings and Friend’s Churches get together from time to time to pool our resources.

All those Friends who designate their meetings as “churches” still refer to it as “Monthly Meeting” and their yearly governing body as “Yearly Meeting”. Most “Friend’s Chruches” are members of “Friend’s United Meeting” or “Evangelical Friends International”.

Those monthly meetings who have paid pastors “record” ordinations…Friends do not “ordain” it’s ministers…God ordains them, we can witness through observation that someone has a “gift of ministry” and each Yearly or Monthly Meeting may choose to “record” that in our records. “Recorded Minister” means that a Meeting…yearly or monthy…reconizes the “ordination” from God upon an individual for ministry…not to perform some rituals or rites. Even in “Friends Churches” the head of the Meeting is the Clerk…not the pastor.

I attended George Fox College many years ago when it was still a “college” and not a “university”.

On a side note…all “Birthright Friends” must petition the Monthly Meeting they attend when they reach a certain age to be recorded as full members…children of Friends are recoreded as members…but all Friends eventually must become Friends by “convincement” (conversion). If a “birthright Friend” does not petition the Meeting to be a “full member” he or she cannot take part in the Meeting for Worship for Business and have a voice.

 

[PRmerger]

They do attract disaffected Catholics,

Well, since the largest Church in the US is the Catholic Church, and the number of ex-Catholics is nearly the second largest religious group in the US, there has to be some place for these “disaffected” Catholics to go.

 

[1234]

Well, since the largest Church in the US is the Catholic Church, and the number of ex-Catholics is nearly the second largest religious group in the US, there has to be some place for these “disaffected” Catholics to go.

I don’t know where disaffected Catholics go, besides UU. A lot don’t go anywhere. Some probably go to Protestant and various Anglican churches, some to Orthodoxy. A few, believe it or not, convert to Judaism. If all the disaffected Catholics converted to UU, UU would be much larger than it is.

One of the hallmarks of UU is its respect for reason. There are three ways the human race differs from all other animals: humans walk upright (like many primates) , have an opposable thumb (ditto) and have by far the largest brain for size, especially the frontal lobes. Humans can think, reason, and are conscious, far more than any animal we know about. UU feel that the ability to reason, to form one’s own opinions, and to respect the fruits of reason and science are paramount. No UU believes something because they’re told to do so.

There is a currently a thread on CAF debating the merits of Sir Thomas More. His reputation received a big boost after the famous play “A Man For All Seasons” was performed, starring the famous British actor Sir Paul Scofield. I saw it on Broadway, an unforgettable experience. But the play did not represent More accurately, ignoring some of the more controversial events in More’s life, notably his persecution of heretics, meaning those who wanted to read and spread the English Bible. People posted on the thread that they believed that More was a saint because Rome had canonized him, disregarding the facts of More’s life. A Unitarian would never do this. Unitarians form their beliefs based on facts, not on what they are told to believe.

 

[PRmerger]

If all the disaffected Catholics converted to UU, UU would be much larger than it is.

Well, you don’t say!

One of the hallmarks of UU is its respect for reason.

It’s right up there with Augustine, Aquinas, Ambrose, Anselm, Pope JPII, Pope B16.

No UU believes something because they’re told to do so.

I sure hope you’re not implying that the Catholic church proposes something to the contrary?

 

[PRmerger]

Unitarians form their beliefs based on facts, not on what they are told to believe.

Well, that’s a little disingenuous, 1234, isn’t it? I mean, really, unless you met St. Thomas More yourself, what you’re going to believe is that which you’ve been told to believe as well, eh?

I propose that you believe that Manila is the capital of the Philippines even if you’ve never been there? You’re simply trusting that the map, google, Wiki, Mrs. Cartigiaroni in 4th grade, your Filipino doctor, or your mama was telling you the truth when you accepted this.

 

[1234]

It’s right up there with Augustine, Aquinas, Ambrose, Anselm, Pope JPII, Pope B16.

Reason and science. Many of the doctrines of the RCC, and indeed of Christianity, fly in the face of reason.

*** I sure hope you’re not implying that the Catholic church proposes something to the contrary?***

Implying isn’t the word for it.

 

[1234]

Well, that’s a little disingenuous, 1234, isn’t it? I mean, really, unless you met St. Thomas More yourself, what you’re going to believe is that which you’ve been told to believe as well, eh?

I propose that you believe that Manila is the capital of the Philippines even if you’ve never been there? You’re simply trusting that the map, google, Wiki, Mrs. Cartigiaroni in 4th grade, your Filipino doctor, or your mama was telling you the truth when you accepted this.

It doesn’t matter to me, personally, where Manila is. I trust that if I’m on a plane to Manila, the *pilot knows where it is. And there’s no reason for people to lie *about where Manila is.

Catholics believe that More was noble and a fine, forgiving man, which he wasn’t, because they’ve been told that he was. The Catholic church can’t be wrong, after all, so they’d better believe it. I don’t care–I used to believe the same thing myself, until I read what More had written about himself, his beliefs and most importantly, his actions–and I changed my mind, as many others have done. The Catholic church has a vested interest in maintaining the fiction about More, as it’s already canonized him.

You would have been better off using as your example Einsteins’ Theory of Relativity. Shouldn’t I have to test it, rather than just go ahead and believe it…? Well, it doesn’t matter to me in my daily life whether I believe in relativity or not. Relativity doesn’t affect my life on a day to day basis. But if someone came along and tried to get me to believe in their religion with no evidence, no proof, in a system which threatens to invade and control every action of my daily life, and extort money from me for the privilege—then you’d better have some pretty good proofs.

More received the mercy that he didn’t show to others. Henry commuted More’s death sentence for treason from hanging and quartering to beheading. More didn’t extend this mercy to those he condemned, who were burned alive.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Many Unitarians don’t even believe in God----I AM SERIOUS HERE.

Some are more New Age/Pagan than Unitarian but identify themselves as Unitarian anyway. They basically welcome everybody----they are incredibly “Loose.”

Walid Shoebat, the Ex-Palestinian-Terrorist turned Christian Protestant Apologist and Anti-Muslim Commentator, has an interesting definition of what constitutes a CULT--------

“If the Religion denies the Holy Trinity, it is a Cult.”

One can take that however one will-------just thought I’d include it here in light of the Non-Trinitarian Nature of Unitarianism.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

It doesn’t matter to me, personally, where Manila is. I trust that if I’m on a plane to Manila, the *pilot knows where it is. And there’s no reason for people to lie *about where Manila is.

Catholics believe that More was noble and a fine, forgiving man, which he wasn’t, because they’ve been told that he was. The Catholic church can’t be wrong, after all, so they’d better believe it. I don’t care–I used to believe the same thing myself, until I read what More had written about himself, his beliefs and most importantly, his actions–and I changed my mind, as many others have done. The Catholic church has a vested interest in maintaining the fiction about More, as it’s already canonized him.

You would have been better off using as your example Einsteins’ Theory of Relativity. Shouldn’t I have to test it, rather than just go ahead and believe it…? Well, it doesn’t matter to me in my daily life whether I believe in relativity or not. Relativity doesn’t affect my life on a day to day basis. But if someone came along and tried to get me to believe in their religion with no evidence, no proof, in a system which threatens to invade and control every action of my daily life, and extort money from me for the privilege—then you’d better have some pretty good proofs.

More received the mercy that he didn’t show to others. Henry commuted More’s death sentence for treason from hanging and quartering to beheading. More didn’t extend this mercy to those he condemned, who were burned alive.

Does it mean that Henry VIII was right in executing More simply because More objected to Henry’s creation of Anglicanism and marriage to Anne Boleyn in defiance of his Marriage to his First Wife?

 

[PRmerger]

Reason and science. Many of the doctrines of the RCC, and indeed of Christianity, fly in the face of reason.

Well, I wouldn’t say that the doctrines of Christianity “fly in the face of reason”, but, yes, many of the doctrines of Christianity are supra-rational. And to our benefit, too. Because, really, how rational is sacrificial love?

As Blaise Pascal said: 2 errors–to exclude reason, and to exclude all but reason.

PRmerger said: I sure hope you’re not implying that the Catholic church proposes something to the contrary?

You replied:

Implying isn’t the word for it.

So what is the word?

And please provide the Church document that supports your proposal. Thanks!

 

[PRmerger]

It doesn’t matter to me, personally, where Manila is.

LOL! This comment seems to indicate that facts don’t matter to you?

I trust that if I’m on a plane to Manila, the *pilot *knows where it is.

Exactly. A very Catholic POV. You trust those that have authority.

 

[seeker57]

Well, I wouldn’t say that the doctrines of Christianity “fly in the face of reason” …
…

And please provide the Church document that supports your proposal. Thanks!

I would argue that many church teachings do indeed fly in the face of reason, but because many of them are probably based on historic demagoguery, arguing that point would be useless because we would be arguing faith, not reason.

As for providing a church document to support anything, which church would you prefer: Catholic, Methodist, some other Christian sect?

Remember, Catholics are just one of many Christian sects found on this planet.

Seeker.

 

[PRmerger]

I would argue that many church teachings do indeed fly in the face of reason, but because many of them are probably based on historic demagoguery, arguing that point would be useless because we would be arguing faith, not reason.

Please see the trail of dialogue below, Seeker. My request for a church document is in response to 1234’s implication (awaiting his correction, as he claims “implying isn’t the word”) that Catholics must only believe something because they’re told to. (That seems to fly in the face of reason, given the immensity of Catholic writings providing apologia for its theology.) Anyhooo…see below:

No UU believes something because they’re told to do so.

I sure hope you’re not implying that the Catholic church proposes something to the contrary?

Implying isn’t the word for it.

 

[PRmerger]

As for providing a church document to support anything, which church would you prefer: Catholic, Methodist, some other Christian sect?

Remember, Catholics are just one of many Christian sects found on this planet.

Seeker.

Catholic would be good.

I’ll provide you with a quote from the Catechism, which indicates that religious assent is distinct from the assent of faith, although an extension of it.

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[Janet1983]

Many Unitarians don’t even believe in God----I AM SERIOUS HERE.

Some are more New Age/Pagan than Unitarian but identify themselves as Unitarian anyway. They basically welcome everybody----they are incredibly “Loose.”

Well according to their website, the take anybody who wants become a part:
“We welcome people who identify with and draw inspiration from Atheism and Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, Judaism, Paganism, and other religious or philosophical traditions.”
By the way… “other religions” include Islam and Hinduism…

 

[PRmerger]

Well according to their website, the take anybody who wants become a part:
“We welcome people who identify with and draw inspiration from Atheism and Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Humanism, Judaism, Paganism, and other religious or philosophical traditions.”
By the way… “other religions” include Islam and Hinduism…

I may be speaking out of my ignorance here, but I am fairly certain that their position holds a certain hypocrisy, in that they most likely will not accept white supremacists, male chauvinists, devil worshippers…

Transvestites? Yes. Wiccans? Yes. Liberal Muslimes? Yes.

But an orthodox Christian? Not so much. Polygamist wife-beating Christian? Nope.

Of course, from a Catholic POV, this is a must–one must adhere to Truth, not tolerance.

I’m just saying that this intolerance of certain points of view is especially egregious in an organization which professes to accept all viewpoints.

 

[1234]

Does it mean that Henry VIII was right in executing More simply because More objected to Henry’s creation of Anglicanism and marriage to Anne Boleyn in defiance of his Marriage to his First Wife?

More was executed for treason. He refused to sign the First Succession Act, which listed Princess Elizabeth as the successor to the throne. This act excluded Mary, daughter of Henry’s first marriage, which he felt was illegitimate, as he had married his brother’s widow, forbidden by Levitical law. Eventually, all three of Henry’s living children, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth were listed as legitimate successors.

Henry was desperate to have a legitimate male heir. There had never been a successful queen ruling England. England was still a weak nation, liable to invasion by France, Spain and the Holy Roman Emperor (it was invaded by the Spanish Armada under Elizabeth much later; the Armada was destroyed). Henry felt, as all his male children had died at or shortly after birth, that God was punishing him for marrying his brother’s widow in defiance of the Levitical law which had been put aside by a papal dispensation. His wife, Katherine of Aragon, was 6 years older than him and past childbearing. Henry’s obsessive nature and ferocious conscience (he had been trained for the church as his older brother was the king) fed on him and were fueled by a violent obsession with Anne Boleyn, the mother of Elizabeth. But he insisted that everyone recognize Elizabeth as the legitimate heir, and to refuse to do so was treason. Almost everyone signed, including loyal Catholics. More refused to, but didn’t say why. Henry considered it mandatory that the highest citizens in the land support Elizabeth and insisted that they, and More, sign. More was convicted of treason and beheaded. He could have been hanged,drawn and quartered, the penalty for treason, but was spared that.

As I have said in previous posts about Thomas More, treason is the most serious of all offenses that a citizen can commit, and remains so to this day. The Rosenbergs, parents of two young boys, were convicted of treason and electrocuted. Jonathan Pollard, a spy for Israel, our ally, was convicted and sentenced to life. During WWII, England promptly hanged German sympathizers and spies in England. US soldiers displaying cowardice during WWII were convicted of treason and hanged.

 

[seeker57]

I may be speaking out of my ignorance here, but I am fairly certain that their position holds a certain hypocrisy, in that they most likely will not accept white supremacists, male chauvinists, devil worshippers…

Transvestites? Yes. Wiccans? Yes. Liberal Muslimes? Yes.

But an orthodox Christian? Not so much. Polygamist wife-beating Christian? Nope.

Of course, from a Catholic POV, this is a must–one must adhere to Truth, not tolerance.

I’m just saying that this intolerance of certain points of view is especially egregious in an organization which professes to accept all viewpoints.

Actually, yes, you are speaking out of ignorance.

Unitarian Universalists accept people of all faiths, even Christians.

But, those joining a Unitarian Universalist congregation must covenant to affirm and promote the Seven Principles.

Those principles are:

1 - The inherent worth of all people.
2 - Justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
3 - Acceptance of one another and encouragement of spiritual growth.
4 - A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.
5 - The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and the community at large.
6 - The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all.
7 - Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are all a part.

So, yes, we accept people of many spiritual beliefs, sexual orientations, ages, colors, ethnicities, etc., as long as they are willing to covenant with the congregation.

This would exclude the white supremacist, because such a person would not agree with the first principle. I should note that most white supremacists I have heard about profess to be Christians, which we do not.

So, would a Catholic, Orthodox Christian, or Conservative Jew be welcome? Yes, of course. But chances are they wouldn’t stick around because, being non-creedal, few if any others in the congregation would concur with their their dogmatic approach to spirituality.

You said it yourself.

Of course, from a Catholic POV, this is a must–one must adhere to Truth, not tolerance.

As a Unitarian Universalist, I would never agree to that, because I don’t believe there is one truth. I would gather this means I could never be Catholic.

To be a Unitarian Universalist, you must agree with the principles of our faith. That is not hypocritical, just the parameters that allow you to be one of us.

It would be rather like the restrictions the Catholic Church places on its adherents. You must believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, the infallibility of the pope, and even that, although the God you believe in loves everyone, he would also condemn some for not practicing what you call the right religion.

Does that make your faith hypocritical?

Oh, and regarding,

I’m just saying that this intolerance of certain points of view is especially egregious in an organization which professes to accept all viewpoints.

I often hear others say Unitarian Universalists can believe anything they desire. That is not so.

We are free to explore spirituality as we see fit.

But, that doesn’t mean we must accept all viewpoints, specifically those which are counter to the principles that are the foundation of our faith.

I hope this clears things up for you.

Seeker.