Ask a Unitarian Universalist

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowHereThis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Major_Tom said:
I think we’ve established a difference of opinion. I think you can be well-cathechized, and still deny the essential truth of Catholicism. A few people have chimed in with “no, you can’t”; I think PR at first said “no way”; but recently said “maybe”.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I did say “maybe”. Can you point to the post in which you surmised this was my position?
 
Major_Tom said:
Do you think that Absolute Truth dictates a single answer to any moral quandary? I do not think that absolute truth gives us only one correct answer.
Click to expand...
Usually. 😉

For example: in another thread I brought up the issue of female genital mutilation.

I can’t think of any single approach to this horrific, barbaric custom than: It is horrific and barbaric and ought to be banned.

Can you think of any other answer we ought to be giving to this custom?

Most situations do have a single answer: it is always immoral to torture animals for fun. It is always permissible to tell your children they cannot bully others. It is never permissible to kill a 2 yr old, even if mom is a single mom and just found out she lost her job. etc etc etc
 
PRmerger said:
I don’t think I did say “maybe”. Can you point to the post in which you surmised this was my position?
Click to expand...
Post 970. Wasn’t trying tp put words in your mouth… i was thinking of the first sentence below…
PRmerger said:
Can you point me to a well-catechized ex-Catholic? I am certainly willing to entertain the notion that he exists.

But at this point I am an agnostic as to his/her existence. 🤷
Click to expand...
 
Major_Tom said:
One more example. Two families are dealing with end-of-life concerns for a parent. (My family went through this). Both families pray, consult with their priest, yet come up with different actions: one carries out every possible measure to prolong life, even though that life is struggling. The other family decides on no extraordinary measures, administering as much pain-relief as possible. Aren’t both defensible?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think both are defensible. Both may be moral.

But there is always an underlying principle that ought never be violated. To wit: we don’t do evil that good may come. We never murder. We always give our lives to God. We defer to the Word of God in guiding our actions.
 
Major_Tom said:
Post 970. Wasn’t trying tp put words in your mouth… i was thinking of the first sentence below…
Click to expand...
That ought not be interpreted as a "maybe’. That needs to be understood as, “If you can show me that one exists, I’ll consider changing my opinion.”
 
PRmerger said:
Yes, I think both are defensible. Both may be moral.

But there is always an underlying principle that ought never be violated. To wit: we don’t do evil that good may come. We never murder. We always give our lives to God. We defer to the Word of God in guiding our actions.
Click to expand...
So “absolute truth” does not necessarily guide me to only one action that is considered appropriate? There may be more than one action that is considered ok in a morally difficult situation?
 
PRmerger said:
Usually. 😉

For example: in another thread I brought up the issue of female genital mutilation.

I can’t think of any single approach to this horrific, barbaric custom than: It is horrific and barbaric and ought to be banned.

Can you think of any other answer we ought to be giving to this custom?

Most situations do have a single answer: it is always immoral to torture animals for fun. It is always permissible to tell your children they cannot bully others. It is never permissible to kill a 2 yr old, even if mom is a single mom and just found out she lost her job. etc etc etc
Click to expand...
Just posted my previous answer before I saw this… I bring this up, because we (and others) are often accused of being relativist. (Which I agree with, by the way, at least for myself). And the resaon is because of scenarios like the one I stated.
 
Major_Tom said:
So “absolute truth” does not necessarily guide me to only one action that is considered appropriate? There may be more than one action that is considered ok in a morally difficult situation?
Click to expand...
Yes.

The Church has no problem proclaiming that her teachings are relatively absolute.
 
Major_Tom said:
Just posted my previous answer before I saw this… I bring this up, because we (and others) are often accused of being relativist. (Which I agree with, by the way, at least for myself). And the resaon is because of scenarios like the one I stated.
Click to expand...
You will give examples of things that are relative. And I will agree.

I will give examples of things that are absolute. And you will agree. (At least, I assume so. You have not yet addressed my situation of female genital mutilation. But I can’t imagine any other answer than, "Yes, it is never okay to endorse female circumcision.)

I think that we can meet in the middle if we say this: there are indeed some Absolute Truths.
 
PRmerger said:
To be sure.

I am perplexed, though, as to what you think this means?

I get that.

But my position is that you could not provide any reasoned defense of most Catholic teachings.

No. Recitation is not the same as being able to provide a reasoned explication of the teachings.

Recitation is not the same as catechesis.

That, friend, is another example of not knowing the faith. You don’t even know what catechesis is.

I apologize in advance if you take offense to this. My tone is nothing other than that which a debater offers in a moderated debate.
Click to expand...
Again, I’m losing interest in this particular thread. I admit also that I have difficulty sometimes in ceding the last word. I don’t perseverate over some of these definitions as much as you do (no sarcasm), and I don’t always craft my responses to such a degree of finesse that they stand up to this level of analysis. If I spent that amount of time on them, I’d end up not posting at all, which defeats the purpose of me trying to engage folks here in discussion. The subtleties that you sometimes reference are not always at my fingertips, simply because I no longer practice the faith. Most of it does come back with time on these points, though.

There’s an interesting element of time, here. Almost as if you (or others, I’m not trying to pin something on you), are thinking that the faith wasn’t adequately explained in the past to some folks, and that somehow a key window of opportunity has been missed. Maybe if an eight-grade religion teacher had done a little better job explaining “trinity” or “grace”, things might have been different for these folks. I don’t see it that way. I still try to read a variety of things… I grabbed a Gary Wills book off the library shelf last week. I can think of that, plus a little C.S. Lewis, and a Ben Witherington, Jr. book that all made a defense of “classical” Christianity. They were good books with good points, some of which I can’t refute. However, I still favor by far the Hans Kung (yes, I know how you feel about him), Karen Armstrongs, Greg Easterbrooks, Joesph Campbells and John Shelby Spongs (new to me; I grabbed both he and Wills at the same time). To me, those are far more compelling, far more enriching books that I believe are steering me in the right direction.

I’ll try to make this my last word on this particular line: I am confident that the faith was well explained to me. I wager that I can explain it as well as, if not better, than many Catholics that I know. The choice to not accept it is mine, not the fault of a poor teacher.
 
NowHereThis said:
Potential children, and it’s not murder because murder by definition is illegal and abortion is legal. There is a meaningful difference between “potential” and “actual”. Children are potential adults, but we don’t give them the right to vote, or the privileges of driving.

Meanwhile, the couple involved are actual adults, with all the rights that entails, including the right to make personal medical decisions appropriate for their unique circumstances. Between the potential child and the actual adults, the rights of the actual adults have all the weight.

So that having been said, where is the line between potential and actual child for me? That’s when the child can survive outside the womb (viability). That’s a meaningful line because now there is a way to distinguish between what the child is and, for example, a donated organ. Donated organs are living and they carry a distinct human genetic code. But they cannot survive without being attached inside a person, and a viable child can.
Click to expand...
Let me make this as crystal clear as I can. I’ve studied the Constitution for about 4 decades, and NOTHING in that grand document gives ANYONE the “right” to terminate innocent human lives. Yet, that is exactly what happens every time an abortion is performed: an innocent human life is terminated.
You have the nerve to call it a “potential life” but that is so wrong as to be laughable! Human life is a process with a definite ending at the moment of death. No measureable heart beat and no measureable brainwaves. Since all agree that there is an end to each life, there must be a point at which each human life must begin…when the process starts. I submit for your information…and for the edification of everyone else who reads this message… that without Conception there can be no human life. Thus, the moment of conception is when everything starts, and the child grows and develops and eventually makes his or her grand appearance at the moment of what we call “birth”. However, any mother can tell you that the child within her is obviously quite alive long before the moment of birth. An ultrasound also shows this to be true.
By the time a woman takes and passes a maternity test, the new human life already has his or her own unique DNA. That DNA differs from the DNA of the mother, so there is clearly a new and different human life growing within her. That new life is not part of her body. He or she is a separate entity, and must be given all the rights that are accorded to people who are already born (age notwithstanding, of course). The point of this paragraph is to show that while a woman may do whatever she wants with her own body, the new life within her is NOT part of her body! THAT is a totally separate life, and if you terminate that life, you have murdered an innocent human being. NONE OF US HAVE THAT RIGHT!!!
Your response to the initial question is why I have asked for both your reply and other replies to be checked and, if in violation of (or if they are contrary to) Church teaching, that they be removed from this site. This Page is not a Unitarian Universalist page: it is a Roman Catholic page.
 
PastGrandKnight said:
Let me make this as crystal clear as I can. I’ve studied the Constitution for about 4 decades, and NOTHING in that grand document gives ANYONE the “right” to terminate innocent human lives. Yet, that is exactly what happens every time an abortion is performed: an innocent human life is terminated.
You have the nerve to call it a “potential life” but that is so wrong as to be laughable! Human life is a process with a definite ending at the moment of death. No measureable heart beat and no measureable brainwaves. Since all agree that there is an end to each life, there must be a point at which each human life must begin…when the process starts. I submit for your information…and for the edification of everyone else who reads this message… that without Conception there can be no human life. Thus, the moment of conception is when everything starts, and the child grows and develops and eventually makes his or her grand appearance at the moment of what we call “birth”. However, any mother can tell you that the child within her is obviously quite alive long before the moment of birth. An ultrasound also shows this to be true.
By the time a woman takes and passes a maternity test, the new human life already has his or her own unique DNA. That DNA differs from the DNA of the mother, so there is clearly a new and different human life growing within her. That new life is not part of her body. He or she is a separate entity, and must be given all the rights that are accorded to people who are already born (age notwithstanding, of course). The point of this paragraph is to show that while a woman may do whatever she wants with her own body, the new life within her is NOT part of her body! THAT is a totally separate life, and if you terminate that life, you have murdered an innocent human being. NONE OF US HAVE THAT RIGHT!!!
Your response to the initial question is why I have asked for both your reply and other replies to be checked and, if in violation of (or if they are contrary to) Church teaching, that they be removed from this site. This Page is not a Unitarian Universalist page: it is a Roman Catholic page.
Click to expand...
More specifically, it is a Non-Catholic religions page. There is no purpose of having such a page if you expect all posts to mirror Church teachings.
 
PRmerger said:
You will give examples of things that are relative. And I will agree.

I will give examples of things that are absolute. And you will agree. (At least, I assume so. You have not yet addressed my situation of female genital mutilation. But I can’t imagine any other answer than, "Yes, it is never okay to endorse female circumcision.)

I think that we can meet in the middle if we say this: there are indeed some Absolute Truths.
Click to expand...
I’m commenting one post ahead of your posts… 🙂

Yes, I strongly agree with the above.
 
PRmerger said:
I think that we can meet in the middle if we say this: there are indeed some Absolute Truths.
Click to expand...
As far as the UU: would they agree that there are some Absolute Truths, and that some things are false and not acceptable to believe?
 
Major_Tom said:
I don’t perseverate over some of these definitions as much as you do (no sarcasm),
Click to expand...
I don’t perseverate either. Although my thoughts are well reasoned and rational and logical.

But perseveration is not an attribute that is attached to me and my posting style.
There’s an interesting element of time, here. Almost as if you (or others, I’m not trying to pin something on you), are thinking that the faith wasn’t adequately explained in the past to some folks,
Click to expand...
Yes. It is a generalization: the Church did an abysmal job providing nourishing catechesis to her flock in the past.

And then this generalization is reinforced as true individually when folks post here and make comments that manifest this dismal catechesis.

It is not as if I make this “accusation” blindly, without evidence.
and that somehow a key window of opportunity has been missed. Maybe if an eight-grade religion teacher had done a little better job explaining “trinity” or “grace”, things might have been different for these folks. I don’t see it that way. I still try to read a variety of things… I grabbed a Gary Wills book off the library shelf last week. I can think of that, plus a little C.S. Lewis, and a Ben Witherington, Jr. book that all made a defense of “classical” Christianity. They were good books with good points, some of which I can’t refute. However, I still favor by far the Hans Kung (yes, I know how you feel about him), Karen Armstrongs, Greg Easterbrooks, Joesph Campbells and John Shelby Spongs (new to me; I grabbed both he and Wills at the same time). To me, those are far more compelling, far more enriching books that I believe are steering me in the right direction.
Click to expand...
I say: go for it!
I’ll try to make this my last word on this particular line: I am confident that the faith was well explained to me. I wager that I can explain it as well as, if not better, than many Catholics that I know.
Click to expand...
Well, that is like saying that you’re proud that your child graduated from high school knowing his multiplication facts. Or that you’re proud that he made it without ever going to jail.

Knowing the faith better “than many Catholics”? That is a pretty low expectation, don’t you think?
The choice to not accept it is mine, not the fault of a poor teacher.
Click to expand...
Yes–I think at some point adults need to take the onus upon themselves.
 
PRmerger said:
I know you don’t. But is that something that is part of the UU paradigm–there are some absolute truths and some ideas which cannot be proclaimed as true?
Click to expand...
From what I know of UU, I don’t think that’s a problem, no. First example that jumped to my mind was slavery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top