Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[Major_Tom]

It appears that what you are talking about is opinions regarding truth, rather than truth itself.

In your view, all opinions regarding truth are as valid as another’s. That is, it is akin to one person saying, “Buttered popcorn is the best!” and another person saying, “No, caramel popcorn is the best!”.

Of course, in the above scenario, there is no right or wrong answer. It simply depends upon the taster’s preference.

What we Catholics are saying is this: it is not correct to say “Popcorn is made out of buttercups!”

Hmm, are you sure about that?. You meniotned Ignatius Loyola earlier. I recall a quote attributed to him.

“That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black”.

Perhaps I have the context wrong?

 

[nmgauss]

Or at least I think that’s how it is supposed to work, except most just take the free gifts and brush off the Giver. Which makes it also important to create an environment of love within a church (Christ reflected in his church), making the person feel more compelled to “act right.” It seems to me that might be what the Unitarians are striving to do, but Christians more often than not fail to do this or do it adequately.

Maybe it’s good to have competition to see who can be the most loving, kindly, humble, and holy.

In Christianity, is there any expectation that the receiver of love, kindness, and alms give something back in return. When I was growing up, I was told that receiving assistance from someone made me beholden to them. I was made to feel obligated to do something in return in addition to just a “Thank You”.

Is there anything the Bible that expresses this attitude?

 

[mek42]

Do UU who were once Catholic ever miss high church?

 

[nmgauss]

I don’t know. I don’t invest too much thought into legal penalties.

I have invested most of my apologia in attempting to provide reasonable, thoughtful reasons why it’s untenable for any moral person to be pro-choice.

Logic dictates that either the fetus is a human person or it is not.

If it is a human person, then it ought not be murdered, no matter what the circumstances of the mother.

Any argument that is offered for the killing of the fetus ought to be reasonably applied to a 2 year old toddler as well.

When in vitro fertilization results in the creation of multiple embryos, and one is implanted successfully in a womb, and the others are dumped down the drain, is this murder?

 

[nmgauss]

No. We consider the 12 Apostles to be founders of the Catholic Church. When I say “at the top” the universe of discourse is: the Magisterium. The 12 Apostles consisted of the Magisterium of the CC.

St. Paul is generally regarded as the most influential person establishing the Christian religion. The Catholic Church did not come along until Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire, and this did not happen until the fourth century CE. Then and only then was Roman Catholicism equated with Christianity.

 

[LeftyDisciple]

But not be led to a moral truth in the church they join? The church can only lead them to a more prayerful life?

No a person can be led in morals too once they join. But at the same time I don’t think a person can not learn and understand good morals beforehand.

 

[Tomdstone]

St. Paul is generally regarded as the most influential person establishing the Christian religion. The Catholic Church did not come along until Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire, and this did not happen until the fourth century CE. Then and only then was Roman Catholicism equated with Christianity.

I don’t think it was Roman Catholicism at that time since Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholicism were united in one Catholic Church.

 

[LeftyDisciple]

Do UU who were once Catholic ever miss high church?

That’s a great question. I’ve heard of Catholics who have left the faith who have gone on to TEC because of high church or liturgical services. But I think I’ve seen stats that there are once Catholics among UU. Hopefully Tom will have some insight.

 

[PRmerger]

No a person can be led in morals too once they join.

Excellent.

And that is why I asked the question initially but have not heard of any examples of the above.

But at the same time I don’t think a person can not learn and understand good morals beforehand.

Of course. No one has posited anything contrary to the above.

That is the natural law which is written in our hearts.

 

[Tomdstone]

That is the natural law which is written in our hearts.

Does the natural law, written in our hearts, allow for capital punishment or not?

 

[PRmerger]

St. Paul is generally regarded as the most influential person establishing the Christian religion.

The 12 Apostles, and Mary are considered the most influential people in establishing the Christian religion, under the influence of Christ and the Holy Spirit. We put St. Paul up there, too.

The Catholic Church did not come along until Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire, and this did not happen until the fourth century CE. Then and only then was Roman Catholicism equated with Christianity.

No. The CC was established at Pentecost.

St. Justin Martyr, circa 155 (that is, waaaay before Constantine in the 4th century) detailed how the early Christians worshipped:

Originally posted by St. Justin: And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Sounds very Catholic to me!

 

[PRmerger]

Does the natural law, written in our hearts, allow for capital punishment or not?

Certainly, if it’s the only way to protect innocents against an unjust aggressor.

 

[PRmerger]

When in vitro fertilization results in the creation of multiple embryos, and one is implanted successfully in a womb, and the others are dumped down the drain, is this murder?

I don’t know about the legal definition of it. But the moral definition would be: yes.

 

[PRmerger]

If there was a reprimand, what did it accomplish?

Well, perhaps it stopped him from fornicating even more than he would have.

We simply don’t know what effect it spoke in his heart.

Perhaps it even effected his salvation because it caused him to repent on his deathbed.

How awesome would that have been, right?!!

 

[PRmerger]

You’re repeating that a l it. Forgive me if I’ve posted this… it seems to me that you are looking for very concrete examples.”I joined a church on Monday. I learned on Tuesday that they teach that I should accept abortion. On Wednesday, I’m now biting the bullet and I accept abortions”. Is this the concreteness that you’re looking for?

No, not concreteness.

Over the course of my life (I’m 44), I’ve changed my opinions on abortion, and capital punishment (I mention these because they are the hot topics). I have not changed churches every time this has happened. Would you grant the possibility that these changes occurred because I’ve matured, in part due to the influence of my religion? Would you grant the possibility?

Only if it was because you had this conversation in your head:

I have learned through my church that it is the will of God that abortion be seen as sinful.

I have misgivings about this because I see women who are suffering from poverty.

But God has said it, so I conform my beliefs to God. And I now will pursue the teachings so that I can understand why God desires that abortion be understood as an intrinsic evil.

And then, like a student attempting to understand an answer that his Calculus prof has given, he accepts the answer and then pursues the truth of this answer until he “owns” it himself.

“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer.”–Cardinal Newman

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, and here we have a fundamental disagreement. I know several homosexuals (to varying degrees of friendship) and will not say to them “you are disorderd”. You may do so, I will not.

Their desire is disordered.

Just like everyone else’s.

I wouldn’t have a problem saying that to anyone, homosexual or not, as I know that they would say, “Right back at 'cha!” and I would have to respond, “Touche!”

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t recall Judas being addressed as the Holy Father.

He was an Apostle, Tomdstone.

But the Pope is so addressed, including Pope Alexander VI. Would you say that Catholics should not expect the Holy Father to be holy? this is what has stumped many Protestants who say that if the Holy Father is not holy, why then should he be addressed as the Holy Father?

Catholics should expect the Holy Father to be holy.

When he is not, what do you think this means, exactly, Tomdstone?

 

[PRmerger]

The example of pedophilia seems to come up fairly frequently whenever I hear similar comparisons (i.e. the recent Boy Scout thing). Followed by bestiality (Rick Santorum comes to mind). Not sure why exactly.

It is brought up frequently because it is the nature of the discussion that demands that we find a common sexual activity to which both parties on the CAFs (we assume) find offensive or immoral.

Thus, we cannot bring up pre-marital sex, because typically one of the parties involved in the dialogue doesn’t see it as wrong.

We cannot bring up homosexual sex, because typically one of the parties involved does not see it as wrong.

So there has to be some sort of sexual activity we invoke to which we can both say: yes, we agree that this is immoral.

Then we can go on to cite the analogy, or further the dialogue, or make our argument.

 

[Tomdstone]

He was an Apostle, Tomdstone.

Catholics should expect the Holy Father to be holy.

When he is not, what do you think this means, exactly, Tomdstone?

This is when Christians begin to ask questions. And this is what happened in Europe when millions of Christians decided to reform Christianity and embarked on the Protestant Reformation.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm, are you sure about that?. You meniotned Ignatius Loyola earlier. I recall a quote attributed to him.

“That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black”.

Perhaps I have the context wrong?

Amen! I give that quote a

But it appears to be a non-sequitur? Or I am not understanding your point.