I doubt he can join. But participating in UU activities without trying to impose his views on his hosts appears OK. I think the idea is to learn from others. If there is anything admirable about what Phelps is saying, my guess is that UU is willing to listen.Interesting. So the Reverend Fred Phelps, who espouses vile and despicable beliefs, need not renounce his current beliefs in order to join the UU.
Curious.
But whether or not what Phelps is saying is “admirable” is subjective. Shirley Phelps-Roper might find his preaching quite admirable, while others may disagree. Therefore, it appears UU congregants are only interested in learning from those with whom they agree (or whose words they find “admirable”).I doubt he can join. But participating in UU activities without trying to impose his views on his hosts appears OK. I think the idea is to learn from others. If there is anything admirable about what Phelps is saying, my guess is that UU is willing to listen.
How do you go from visit to join?Interesting. So the Reverend Fred Phelps, who espouses vile and despicable beliefs, need not renounce his current beliefs in order to join the UU.
Curious.
Is there a substantive difference, from a UU perspective? If one visits a UU “church”, is that person not also joining other UUs in their pursuit of “truth”?How do you go from visit to join?
But the Church is a place for sinners is it not? I don’t think that Mr. Phelps would get very far with some of his more controversial views in a UU congregration and he would begin to feel uncomfortable as people expressed their disagreement with him.Interesting. So the Reverend Fred Phelps, who espouses vile and despicable beliefs, need not renounce his current beliefs in order to join the UU.
Curious.
But what about thing’s that totally matter. Do you not agree. Like Sin. Like not knowing about creation is one thing. Its not a sin to believe one thing over another, what I am saying thats not going to send one to hell.Actually, the “Universalist” component of Unitarian Universalism came from a separate, Christian offshoot that later merged with the Unitarian church to form the UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association).
This “universal” relates to the idea of universal salvation, from a questioning of the Christian notion of an eternal hell.
Is there a “Universal” truth…? In Catholic doctrine, I believe that truth regarding the creation hasn’t been completely revealed. That is, one Catholic can believe in a literal seven-day creation, and one Catholic can read Genesis symbolically, correct? So, from one truth, there are two perspectives that are acceptable to people in your faith. Similarly, we acknowledge other faiths, and the varied ways that they have experienced God.
Personally, I like the phrase “One light, many windows”.
Since the Bible is a collection of writings by people with different perspectives, it is natural to have inconsistencies. Why is killing people OK for Joshua but it is not OK in the NT? Why did the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah deserve to be slaughtered rather than be given an opportunity to repent?This is why liberal interpretations of the bible are wrong, every different contradictory interpretation is not as valid as the other, when these things were written, only one interpretation was intended. So in other words, UU encourages people to twist the word of God in order to suit their own whim and fancy?
How many times do you come accross people on these forums who say things like “That’s not what I said” or “that’s not what I meant” or “your misinterpreting what I said” ?
I visited a UU last weekend to see what it was about. I did not join their congregation.Is there a substantive difference, from a UU perspective? If one visits a UU “church”, is that person not also joining other UUs in their pursuit of “truth”?
Again, from a UU perspective, what is the difference between joining and visiting? It was my understanding that one does not need to formally join a UU church in order to participate.I visited a UU last weekend to see what it was about. I did not join their congregation.
…
Nor does one need to convert to participate in Catholic Mass, except for Eucharist.Again, from a UU perspective, what is the difference between joining and visiting? It was my understanding that one does not need to formally join a UU church in order to participate.
Why not? Are only certain beliefs tolerated?I doubt he can join.
Yes. And we must conform our views to God.But the Church is a place for sinners is it not?
That’s exactly my point.I don’t think that Mr. Phelps would get very far with some of his more controversial views in a UU congregration and he would begin to feel uncomfortable as people expressed their disagreement with him.
For the same reason that a parent might swat a toddler’s behind when he runs into the street, but wouldn’t do that to a teenager who may have placed himself in danger in a different situation.Since the Bible is a collection of writings by people with different perspectives, it is natural to have inconsistencies. Why is killing people OK for Joshua but it is not OK in the NT? Why did the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah deserve to be slaughtered rather than be given an opportunity to repent?
Because the Church discerned that these texts were the inspired Word of God, but that the other gospels were not.Why are there four Gospels instead of only one? It seems to me that the Word of God would justify only one Gospel.
The question was whether someone with what Catholics consider to be a vile and despicable viewpoint would be allowed to preach at a UU church.I visited a UU last weekend to see what it was about. I did not join their congregation.
I also visited a Mass, in the parish where my new house is, no less, and a daily minyan at a synagogue. Have I joined all three groups without knowing?
This is from a use of the English language perspective. I am not UU, so I cannot answer from that perspective.
It’s just a guess on my part, but perhaps it is the paradigm of common sense.And I want to know what paradigm is used to exclude certain viewpoints, while being “tolerant” to all sorts of other viewpoints.
I don’t understand.It’s just a guess on my part, but perhaps it is the paradigm of common sense.
Whoa, I missed something. When did Fred Phelps enter this conversation…?Interesting. So the Reverend Fred Phelps, who espouses vile and despicable beliefs, need not renounce his current beliefs in order to join the UU.
Curious.
Fair enough.Whoa, I missed something. When did Fred Phelps enter this conversation…?
In five-ish years at my congregation, I don’t think I can recall our pastor discussing abortion at the pulpit. A few times, obliquely, in anecdotes illustrating other points, I think. Just sayin’.
I really don’t see how this is that difficult to get. The guideposts on our side of our road are farther apart than the ones on your road. Doesn’t mean they don’t exist. We can ponder whether the trinity is a valid concept… whether God exists at all… does he have a plan for us? And without prefacing all of them with “heresy” before the discussion gets going.
And where do the standards begin? The seven principles. Posted on page 1.
And I hope that UUs never object to the Catholic Church having borders or barriers as well.Fair enough.
I am heartened to hear that you do indeed have borders or barriers–those points of view to which you say, “This is not consonant with Truth and therefore ought not be espoused.”