Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[SteveVH]

… there really isn’t a particular text or body of texts that is given consideration over and above the others. In that sense, there is not a “sacred” text.

In short, you really have no idea what you believe.

 

[tomarin]

Did Jesus say The Father is greater than I?

The best I can do to answer your question is to point out that in John 10:30 Jesus says “I and my Father are one.” Other than that, I don’t think he addresses the issue directly. But I am no Bible scholar, to put it mildly.

 

[SteveVH]

1. I, personally, believe that Jesus was a great man who had much to teach. I only believe that he was the son of the god/de/ss in the sense that we all are sons/daughters/other of the god/de/ss (or possibly gods/goddes/goddesses).

Then you are very unfamiliar with what Jesus actually taught. Jesus was certainly not just a great man who had much to teach. He taught that he was the Son of God; that he was God himself and that there was no way to the Father but through him. That is why he was crucified; he made himself equal to God. Jesus was either who he claimed to be or he was a liar. Those are your two choices. We can either deny what he said or accept it. And if we accept it then we must follow Jesus only.

 

[Major_Tom]

In short, you really have no idea what you believe.

I have no wish to get into an argument. Yes, Steve, I have beliefs. You believe that not all truth has been revealed, yes? I also believe that not all truth has been revealed. Do you read books that do not have “Nihil Obstat” on them? I do as well. Not sure where else to take this.

 

[Major_Tom]

Jesus was either who he claimed to be or he was a liar. Those are your two choices.

I reject your premise. YOu don’t get to frame theology for me. Those words were written of Jesus, by others. Would you categorize Mohammed and Joseph Smith as liars?

 

[Lochias]

See, the UU doesn’t care about what you believe, they care about how you behave.

…does the UU then think that what a person believes has no bearing on how they behave? Really?

 

[Lochias]

I have no wish to get into an argument. Yes, Steve, I have beliefs.

If, as another UU poster just mentioned, the UU doesn’t care what you believe so much as how you behave, what good are UU beliefs in the UU church at all?

 

[Major_Tom]

If, as another UU poster just mentioned, the UU doesn’t care what you believe so much as how you behave, what good are UU beliefs in the UU church at all?

I’ll allow cheese_sdc to respond to that, since he posted it. The core principles of Unitarian Universalism are posted elsewhere in this thread, I believe on page 1.

 

[Lochias]

The core principles of Unitarian Universalism are posted elsewhere in this thread, I believe on page 1.

But…

So a white supremacist probably won’t be comfortable in a UU congregation. He (or she) could come to every service they want, but if they bring their racist bovine fecal matter, then we’d have issues. Big issues.

…this statement appears to indicate that the UU church is just fine with (in this example) white supremacists as long as they only advocate for white supremacy outside of the church walls. Thus, no-one in that UU church would expect the white supremacist to follow the UU’s core principles outside of church grounds. Is this correct?

If we tolerate everyone’s beliefs and actions simply so we don’t risk “stepping on someone’s toes”, what is the UU church, really, except just another social club? What does the UU offer beyond, say, a knitting club or a fan base’s Internet forum? Any organization can host events like charities and the like. Why even call yourselves a church?

Note that I ask these questions out of genuine curiosity, and not to demean you. It just doesn’t make very much sense to me.

 

[ProudUU]

But…

…this statement appears to indicate that the UU church is just fine with (in this example) white supremacists as long as they only advocate for white supremacy outside of the church walls. Thus, no-one in that UU church would expect the white supremacist to follow the UU’s core principles outside of church grounds. Is this correct?

If we tolerate everyone’s beliefs and actions simply so we don’t risk “stepping on someone’s toes”, what is the UU church, really, except just another social club? What does the UU offer beyond, say, a knitting club or a fan base’s Internet forum? Any organization can host events like charities and the like. Why even call yourselves a church?

Note that I ask these questions out of genuine curiosity, and not to demean you. It just doesn’t make very much sense to me.

You may not “mean” to be demeaning, but you sort of are. No, we don’t have a sacred text. No, we don’t tolerate all beliefs and actions. I agree with the previous poster (can’t remember who it was right now) who said they wished we could do away with that word, tolerance. Bt since we’re using it, to apply that word to myself, I have no problem with differing theological beliefs, so long as those beliefs are not forced upon others in any way. I have no tolerance for beliefs that are used to deny rights to others.

And I don’t want to speak to cheese_sdc’s meaning of “don’t care what you believe, but how you behave,” as I was not the one who posted it. But, from my own perspective, his statement is true in that all theological beliefs are welcome in the UU church, but one is expected to behave as a UU at all times. And that means living by the seven principles. A white supremacist, to use that example, does not live by the seven principles. A white supremacist, by belief and actions, directly opposes the seven principles. A white supremacist calling him or herself a UU would honestly be akin to me calling myself a Catholic. I do not believe in the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the Bible, etc., etc., etc. To call myself a Catholic would be an utter lie. I could go sit in a Catholic church every Sunday, but that wouldn’t make me Catholic. A white supremacist could sit in a UU service every Sunday, but that wouldn’t make that person a UU.

 

[Major_Tom]

But…

…this statement appears to indicate that the UU church is just fine with (in this example) white supremacists as long as they only advocate for white supremacy outside of the church walls. Thus, no-one in that UU church would expect the white supremacist to follow the UU’s core principles outside of church grounds. Is this correct?

If we tolerate everyone’s beliefs and actions simply so we don’t risk “stepping on someone’s toes”, what is the UU church, really, except just another social club? What does the UU offer beyond, say, a knitting club or a fan base’s Internet forum? Any organization can host events like charities and the like. Why even call yourselves a church?

Note that I ask these questions out of genuine curiosity, and not to demean you. It just doesn’t make very much sense to me.

Again, I can’t speak for cheese (never typed THAT before!). I wouldn’t have stated it that way.

Does the Catholic Church care what you think? Broadly, yes. But they aren’t going to pat you down before you enter the church, right? And unless you’re very demonstrably blasphemous, you’re not going to be excommunicated. You may very well hold heretical views, yet you probably aren’t going to be barred from attending church. There’s little mechanism for that. Likewise, little mechanism in our church. Broadly, is anyone welcome to attend your church? I’m gonna guess yes.

Anyway, I’m guessing that’s what cheese meant.

It’s a mischaracterization to say that we don’t take stands to prevent stepping on toes. I posted this anecdote a few times earlier… I visited a mosque last year with a group of youth, as part of our UU religious ed group. I dislike the separation of sexes that occurs during their call to prayer. As a class, we discussed this afterward. We didn’t shy away from it because we thought it’d be insensitive. Likewise, I’m skeptical of the Mormon baptism of the dead. Everything should be on the table for a good, rigorous discussion.

But…

If we tolerate everyone’s beliefs and actions simply so we don’t risk “stepping on someone’s toes”, what is the UU church, really, except just another social club? What does the UU offer beyond, say, a knitting club or a fan base’s Internet forum?

At its core, the purpose of the church is to understand God. At its core, a knitter’s club’s purpose is to understand and practice knitting…!

 

[cheese_sdc]

…this statement appears to indicate that the UU church is just fine with (in this example) white supremacists as long as they only advocate for white supremacy outside of the church walls.

Haha! That’s not what I said at all.

 

[ffg]

I reject your premise. YOu don’t get to frame theology for me. Those words were written of Jesus, by others. Would you categorize Mohammed and Joseph Smith as liars?

The problem with this premise is two fold. However, to start it is important to think about what can be agreed as a ‘known’ to you and I.

We should be able to agree that world history happened. From there we should be able to evaluate historical contexts and drive ourselves toward truth in history.

Therefore there is not a framing of theology, it is an understanding of world history. If this is lacking, it’s an easy fix, read a lot and use reason to evaluate. Some people intertwine a little accuracy with a lot of false tails. It helps to know non-Christian historians have concluded the Bible’s historical contexts are accurate. I don’t know if the same can be said for the writings of the other religions you referenced.

This leads us to the second problem with this premise, thinking that world history is false because of bad intentions.

Even with those who penned for the other religions you referenced, their intentions one would logic would be pure, even if their understanding of history was lacking.

We are currently living in a world full of negativity. The written word today needs to be properly evaluated vs history because we spill words like my kids spill water today, often and in large sums.

Reality is this was not always the case, a good understanding of History would help with understanding the social environments of the times. It was not a quick thing to pen writings, those who did, did so out of importance, it was not fun or easy, like typing.

If it was out of a desire to fool, one can logic most writers who experienced Jesus would have opted for life in prison vs torture that leads to death. Some would have thrown their hands in the air and said - Just Kidding! Historical accuracy flows when you compare the damage to the bones with the writings.

Then there is the softball answer - Details about the revolt for the creation of the USA can’t be trusted because those who experienced it are dead? Or, those who wrote lived, therefore they can shape history in writing?

This is very narrow as there are more people who experience events and pass them down by word, than those who write about them.

Then of the pool of those who write about events, a small portion would be those who purposefully write contra to reality in world history.

 

[cheese_sdc]

You guys are really good at pushing things to extremes. The post I was responding to took an extreme position, and that what was what I was responding too.

But that’s what I get for taking PR’s bait.

I’ll know better next time.

 

[Major_Tom]

The problem with this premise is two fold.
.

I’m not sure if you’re referring to my comment, Or SteveVH’s original post. He suggested (wait, he didn’t suggest, he stated). He stated that UU’s don’t believe in anything. Then he offered up a straight-up question: Jesus is a liar or he is not. Then I responded with a comparably framed question re: Mohammed and Joe Smith. Do you have a problem with SteveVH’s premise or mine?

 

[Major_Tom]

Thanks. I didn’t think you meant “mine is better than yours…” but wanted to disabuse you of the often seen claim that Christians are focused on the afterlife and thus are “working their way up the ladder…” rather than responding out of love and Christian charity.

One thing I learned in a four year Spiritual Direction course (at an Episcopal Cathedral before I was Catholic) was that there are three main paths of spirituality…study and learning, meditation/prayer, or action. I think the Indian terms were Bahkti (meditative) Gnana (study) and Karma (action). Different churches and different elements within churches have a primary focus with all three elements to some extent represented.

In my own life I’m very much of the faith in action bent, second study and learning, third meditative/prayer. But as you said, in the Church there are many who are focused upon prayer and certainly study and learning are also essential elements and tradition.

Again not to say “mine’s better” but that the outreach and action was what drew me away from UU’dom first into Methodism until I realized their untenable position on life issues (kill the innocent, save the guilty) and fled for my true Home in the Catholic Church. I attended several UU congregations both with my mother and with friends. I just didn’t find much spiritual food…as the services are described no major focus but bits and pieces from different traditions and more important, no real faith in action other than the occasional fundraiser or protest.

I found that I belonged in the Catholic Church and the term “Coming Home” truly resonated with me. As Fr Arrupe said “Fall in love and stay in love…”

Lisa

I’m happy for you… that’s a nice post.

I had a similar experience. Ironically, going in the other direction…!

 

[Lochias]

Does the Catholic Church care what you think? Broadly, yes. But they aren’t going to pat you down before you enter the church, right? And unless you’re very demonstrably blasphemous, you’re not going to be excommunicated. You may very well hold heretical views, yet you probably aren’t going to be barred from attending church. There’s little mechanism for that. Likewise, little mechanism in our church. Broadly, is anyone welcome to attend your church? I’m gonna guess yes.

Yes, anyone is welcome to come to a Catholic Mass, but the central focus of that Mass -The Eucharist- is off-limits to those who either do not understand the faith and reasons behind it, or choose not to. The Church is very clear, too, on what is and isn’t sinful to do; it’s the Do’s and Do-Not’s of the Faith that are actually the most freeing and wonderful part of it, to my mind. When we know from reputable sources that there are Truths that are objective and cannot be changed by man-made democratic process, we are free to live as we were meant to.

It’s a mischaracterization to say that we don’t take stands to prevent stepping on toes. I posted this anecdote a few times earlier… I visited a mosque last year with a group of youth, as part of our UU religious ed group. I dislike the separation of sexes that occurs during their call to prayer. As a class, we discussed this afterward. We didn’t shy away from it because we thought it’d be insensitive. Likewise, I’m skeptical of the Mormon baptism of the dead. Everything should be on the table for a good, rigorous discussion.

Discussion is fine provided that one’s conscience is properly oriented towards seeking the truth, and not to defining objective Truth to fit our own opinions and emotions. This is the major disconnect from reality that I see with UU churches in general.

At its core, the purpose of the church is to understand God. At its core, a knitter’s club’s purpose is to understand and practice knitting…!

And who said that the core purpose of a church is to understand God? Did God say that?

 

[Major_Tom]

Not at all. If you don’t mind me asking, how did you get involved with this denomination/religion? Were your parents members of it?

Thank you for asking. I was brought up Catholic. Catholic school, mass every Sunday. Married in the church, had my kids baptized. Post-Catholic high school, I very much coasted. When my kids began elementary school, it focused the question of faith more sharply for my wife and I.

I hadn’t even heard of Unitarian Universalism till about ten years ago. Finally attended a service, have been very happy since…

Have you been a life-long Catholic…?

 

[Lochias]

You guys are really good at pushing things to extremes.

I thought we were just having a discussion. What is is, exactly, that’s made you uncomfortable?

 

[Tomdstone]

He taught that he was the Son of God; that he was God himself.

That Jesus is equal to God the Father is difficult to see because
God is all knowing. but Jesus said: But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.Mark 24: 32-36:

If only the Father knows the day and not the Son, then Jesus did not have the same knowledge as the Father?

Also, God the Father is greater than Jesus according to John 14:28, where Jesus says “the Father is greater than I.” If Jesus is equal to God the Father, then how can the Father be greater than him?