Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[PRmerger]

I’m curious, did you attend these weddings? Or did you feel strongly enough to not attend, where you otherwise would have if your friend had required an annulment?

Firstly, did you mean “acquired an annulment” instead of “required an annulment”?

No, I did not attend these weddings.

 

[PRmerger]

The “inherent worth and dignity of every person” principle is read to include sexual orientation. If a new Unitarian was opposed to homosexuality, say, I think that would necessitate some serious reflection for that person, as it conflicts with the stated principle. I think that would satisfy your scenario.

No, Tom. I don’t think you’re understanding the question.

My point is that I think you have devised/created a god whose views conform to every single thing that you happen to believe.

Logic tells us that if there is a god, he is going to have some revelation that is different from our own thinking, right?

I want to know if you can refute my “accusation” (too strong of a word, but a more subtle one is lacking in my vocab right now). Have you personally changed your view to conform to what God has revealed?

Or are you in a religion designed after the almighty self, rather than the Almighty?

As Chesterton said, “That Jones shall worship the god within ultimately means that Jones shall worship Jones.”

 

[Major_Tom]

I still don’t understand why you support abortions how do you know what the child will become if it’s not born yet?

I don’t like abortions. I don’t believe that I could ever counsel a woman to have one, if any woman asked my opinion. But I have heard wrenching stories of women in awful circumstances, who are unsure if they can bring a child into the world and give it the love that child deserves… if that woman decides to have an abortion, I don’t think that I could look her in the eye and say “That was immoral. That was illegal, and you are a killer”.

I think every resource should be made available to women who are pregnant (yet are thinking of an abortion) to have their child. As I said earlier, I think abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. The rarer, the better.

There are certainly Catholics who disagree with the death penalty, yes? How does a Catholic, who opposes the State killing someone, reconcile the Catholic Church’s allowance of the death penalty when that individual disagrees with it?

 

[Major_Tom]

Firstly, did you mean “acquired an annulment” instead of “required an annulment”?

Yes, Typo!

No, I did not attend these weddings.

Wow, you’re hard core!

 

[Major_Tom]

Firstly, did you mean “acquired an annulment” instead of “required an annulment”?

No, I did not attend these weddings.

How far do you go in not recognizing these marriages? They must have been a civil service, or of another denomination. Your faith doesn’t preclude you from attending non-Catholic services, does it?

Would you not send a wedding card, or an anniversary gift/card, when you otherwise would have?

 

[PRmerger]

How far do you go in not recognizing these marriages? They must have been a civil service, or of another denomination. Your faith doesn’t preclude you from attending non-Catholic services, does it?

Weren’t you once Catholic, Tom? Were you catechized?

Yes, we can certainly attend any wedding of anyone who is free to marry another person. That is, if she/he is not already married to someone else, and has done all the necessary requirements of the law in order to get married.

Would you not send a wedding card, or an anniversary gift/card, when you otherwise would have?

Yes, I send a gift.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t like abortions. I don’t believe that I could ever counsel a woman to have one, if any woman asked my opinion. But I have heard wrenching stories of women in awful circumstances, who are unsure if they can bring a child into the world and give it the love that child deserves… if that woman decides to have an abortion, I don’t think that I could look her in the eye and say “That was immoral. That was illegal, and you are a killer”.

I think every resource should be made available to women who are pregnant (yet are thinking of an abortion) to have their child. As I said earlier, I think abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. The rarer, the better.

There are certainly Catholics who disagree with the death penalty, yes? How does a Catholic, who opposes the State killing someone, reconcile the Catholic Church’s allowance of the death penalty when that individual disagrees with it?

So when do you think the fetus becomes a person? At birth?

 

[Major_Tom]

Weren’t you once Catholic, Tom? Were you catechized?

Yes, we can certainly attend any wedding of anyone who is free to marry another person. That is, if she/he is not already married to someone else, and has done all the necessary requirements of the law in order to get married.

Ah, of course. I was thinking of the marriage part of this equation. But in the church eyes, the previous marriage is still in place. Got it.

Oh, and yes I was…good memory.

 

[Major_Tom]

So when do you think the fetus becomes a person? At birth?

I think there are too many signs of life that exist, in the third trimester, to say that life begins only at birth. I don’t know when life begins. Personally, I would err on the side of caution and assume that it begins at conception.

 

[PRmerger]

I think there are too many signs of life that exist, in the third trimester, to say that life begins only at birth. I don’t know when life begins. Personally, I would err on the side of caution and assume that it begins at conception.

Yes!!

So I find it curious that you would not be against abortion.

Can you give any reason to allow killing of this human life that we couldn’t also apply to, say, a 2 year old toddler?

For example: I have heard the argument presented of a single mom who already had 4 children, just found out that she had lost her job, and then found herself pregnant with #5. Some would say that it would be justified to have an abortion in this case.

How would this be justified, in your opinion, while not using the same argument to say, “This situation would also justify her killing her 2 yr old toddler”?

 

[Major_Tom]

No, Tom. I don’t think you’re understanding the question.

My point is that I think you have devised/created a god whose views conform to every single thing that you happen to believe.

Logic tells us that if there is a god, he is going to have some revelation that is different from our own thinking, right?

I want to know if you can refute my “accusation” (too strong of a word, but a more subtle one is lacking in my vocab right now). Have you personally changed your view to conform to what God has revealed?

Or are you in a religion designed after the almighty self, rather than the Almighty?

As Chesterton said, “That Jones shall worship the god within ultimately means that Jones shall worship Jones.”

Oh, I understand the question.

Short answer, no. I understand your point and concern, but I disagree with the premise. It presupposes that God has communicated in such detail. The Chesterton quote is a good one. From a contrary angle, though, I think it’s a mistake to put on the lips of God the details of a man-made moral construct. I think that God communicates in a myriad of ways. Call it grace, conscience, or natural law. To some degree, we have to internalize that and come up with our own answers. Executing the specifics of that understanding differ according to the culture, don’t they? (Regarding marriage, for example, no marriage of cousins, the defined age of consent varies. Does the Catholic Church have doctrine on the definition of the age of consent?)

Perhaps, broadly, I suppose that you could say that God has communicated to us that over-consumption is not good, to use my earlier example, or adultery. Communicated through evolution, or natural law, perhaps?

I believe that the Catholic church does not have an established teaching on creation – that is, whether it was seven literal days, or a longer span of time. Correct? Do you have a position on that issue? (You don’t have to give the actual answer.) If so, how did you come about the answer, without guidance from the church?

My point is that I think you have devised/created a god whose views conform to every single thing that you happen to believe.

The inference is that I’m creating God. I’m trying to understand God, not create him. I suppose you see it this way: I’ve already determined the answer, and then I work backward to show the work. I see it the other way: the work is ongoing. If the answer has changed, it means that (hopefully) I’m gaining wisdom.

If I (and other Unitarians) were completely satisfied that we understood God, why do you think we congregate, instead of staying in on Sundays and enjoying our own gaze in the mirror?

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes!!

So I find it curious that you would not be against abortion.

Can you give any reason to allow killing of this human life that we couldn’t also apply to, say, a 2 year old toddler?

For example: I have heard the argument presented of a single mom who already had 4 children, just found out that she had lost her job, and then found herself pregnant with #5. Some would say that it would be justified to have an abortion in this case.

How would this be justified, in your opinion, while not using the same argument to say, “This situation would also justify her killing her 2 yr old toddler”?

As I stated before, I am against abortion. I would like to arrive, one day, at its elimination. I’d like to get there through education, and eliminating the conditions that lead to unwanted pregnancies.

Certainly, there is a qualitative difference between a child, in the womb at 30 weeks, and a 2-year old child, yes? One lives inside a human being. One does not. I’m against the arbitrary killing of 2 year olds. (We have common ground!)

The Catholic Church allows the use of capital punishment, correct? Why does it allow the killing of 32, 42, or 52-year olds?

Is it the Church of Christ, Scientist that has a policy against blood transfusions? I recall a few anecdotes about parents who have refused a blood transfusion, or use of antibiotics and such, in treating their children for “routine” illnesses. This makes my blood boil. What the heck is wrong with a blood transfusion? I simply do not understand the religious beliefs that yield this policy. Just like I don’t understand the Mormon baptism of the dead, the segregation of the sexes of Muslims during the call to prayer, and others…

The key question: should our law err on the side of caution on these issues, or on the side of religious tolerance? Unfortuneatly, I can’t define the moment when life begins (is it the ancient moment of “quickening”? can a child survive outside the womb at 28 weeks? 32? Is it the same age in all cases?) I’m in a quandary in establishing detailed policy on this, then, just as I am in establishing policy on the above conditions (blood transfusions, or when to withhold extraordinary measures being taken for the terminally ill).

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, I understand the question.

Short answer, no. I understand your point and concern, but I disagree with the premise. It presupposes that God has communicated in such detail

What about if we simply eliminate the presupposition that God has communicated “in such detail”?

Let’s just start with the premise that God exists, and that we accept that His ways are not our ways.

If you’ve ever said, “God wouldn’t care if we [fill in the blank]”, then you are indeed claiming to have at least some communication with God. “In such detail” is irrelevant

How is it that you have a God who happens to believe exactly the same things that you personally believe?

And when you profess, “God would never [fill in the blank]” and it just so coincides perfectly with “Major Tom would never [fill in the blank]” then I propose that you are creating a god in your own image.

You ought to be able to say, 'I believe that God would [fill in the blank]" even if “Major Tom wouldn’t care if [fill in the blank]”

Just something to think about…
.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that God communicates in a myriad of ways.

This is very Catholic, of course.

Regarding marriage, for example, no marriage of cousins, the defined age of consent varies. Does the Catholic Church have doctrine on the definition of the age of consent?)

No, she does not. She gives obeisance to the civil laws of the nation.

Perhaps, broadly, I suppose that you could say that God has communicated to us that over-consumption is not good, to use my earlier example, or adultery. Communicated through evolution, or natural law, perhaps?

I think natural law.

I believe that the Catholic church does not have an established teaching on creation – that is, whether it was seven literal days, or a longer span of time. Correct? Do you have a position on that issue? (You don’t have to give the actual answer.) If so, how did you come about the answer, without guidance from the church?

It would be wrong to say that I did not receive guidance from the Church.

The inference is that I’m creating God. I’m trying to understand God, not create him.

That is commendable. I adore seekers!

However, again, if you cannot say that God has declared something that is in opposition, or contravened by, or is antithetical, or is unpalatable (choose your word from the extreme to the subtle) to your own sensibilities, then I suggest you have created a god in your own image.

It’s the church shopping phenomenon that I am so astonished by. Going to a church every weekend to hear what the pastor preaches, and if he happens to preach things that you agree with, you join that church. If he says something that you don’t like, “God does not want you to divorce and re-marry!”, then you quietly seek a church that teaches, “God doesn’t care if you divorce and re-marry!”. Funny that god just happens to agree with your own sensibilities, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

If I (and other Unitarians) were completely satisfied that we understood God, why do you think we congregate, instead of staying in on Sundays and enjoying our own gaze in the mirror?

I don’t think that is my argument. I have not posited that you have ever claimed that you understood God (completely).

I am presenting this for you to consider: why does the God you worship agree with all of your own personal moralities?

Does it not stand to reason that the God of the Universe is going to decree some sorts of challenges to your own morality to cause you to conform to His Law.

Do not find a church that has set up Major Tom’s Law = God’s Law.

If you cannot say: God’s Law is [fill in the blank] but I really, really prefer/believe/wish that it were not so…

then you have created a god in your own image.

 

[PRmerger]

As I stated before, I am against abortion.

Excellent!

I would like to arrive, one day, at its elimination. I’d like to get there through education, and eliminating the conditions that lead to unwanted pregnancies.

Very Catholic!

Certainly, there is a qualitative difference between a child, in the womb at 30 weeks, and a 2-year old child, yes? One lives inside a human being. One does not. I’m against the arbitrary killing of 2 year olds. (We have common ground!)

What is the difference? What changes occur in a 30 week fetus that makes it perhaps less egregious to kill than in a 2 yr old?

That is, does having transparent skin (like a 30 week fetus has) give it a qualitative difference in its humanity?

The Catholic Church allows the use of capital punishment, correct? Why does it allow the killing of 32, 42, or 52-year olds?

It is a punishment. It serves a just cause.

Is it the Church of Christ, Scientist that has a policy against blood transfusions?

Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I recall a few anecdotes about parents who have refused a blood transfusion, or use of antibiotics and such, in treating their children for “routine” illnesses. This makes my blood boil. What the heck is wrong with a blood transfusion? I simply do not understand the religious beliefs that yield this policy. Just like I don’t understand the Mormon baptism of the dead, the segregation of the sexes of Muslims during the call to prayer, and others…

Me, too.

The key question: should our law err on the side of caution on these issues, or on the side of religious tolerance? Unfortuneatly, I can’t define the moment when life begins (is it the ancient moment of “quickening”? can a child survive outside the womb at 28 weeks? 32? Is it the same age in all cases?) I’m in a quandary in establishing detailed policy on this, then, just as I am in establishing policy on the above conditions (blood transfusions, or when to withhold extraordinary measures being taken for the terminally ill).

In the case of intentionally killing a human life, of course the law should err on the side of caution!

Imagine this scenario: you are hunting in the woods. You know it is populated with deer. And with some other hunters. You see a shadow move. Not sure if it’s a person or a deer. Do you shoot? Or err on the side of caution, just in case it’s a human person?

I can’t imagine that there’s any morally sane person who would say, “Well, since we can’t know with any degree of certainty if it’s a human person or not, go ahead and shoot!”

 

[mek42]

According to the Law, the wages of sin are death. We are also told that judgment is for God alone. Why is capital punishment not usurping God’s authority?

 

[Major_Tom]

Excellent!

In the case of intentionally killing a human life, of course the law should err on the side of caution!

This one surprises me. If the law should err on the side of caution, how can anyone allow a permanent, and non-correctable punishment (like capital punishment) to occur? Flawed human beings implement this policy ! I regularly read anecdotes of inconsistent enforcement, weak legal defense for the accused, etc. in the implementation of capital punishment.

Of course, punishment for a crime is reasonable. Life in jail is a punishment. Why is this not considered a reasonable enough punishment for a heinous crime? Many Catholics and Christians like to evangelize. Wouldn’t you want to take every opportunity to evangelize to a sinful soul (like a murderer) to atone for his sins? To encourage to repent? Confess? I think of some fine things that Charles Colson (of the Watergate era) did in prison ministry. Why the rush? An eternal soul is at stake, but, no, to quote Carole King ‘It’s too late, baby, now it’s too late!’

If the state decided that torture, or the intentional deprivation of food/water, was an appropriate punishment, would you accept that?

 

[Major_Tom]

Excellent!

Very Catholic!

What is the difference? What changes occur in a 30 week fetus that makes it perhaps less egregious to kill than in a 2 yr old?

That is, does having transparent skin (like a 30 week fetus has) give it a qualitative difference in its humanity?

It is a punishment. It serves a just cause.

Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Me, too.

In the case of intentionally killing a human life, of course the law should err on the side of caution!

Imagine this scenario: you are hunting in the woods. You know it is populated with deer. And with some other hunters. You see a shadow move. Not sure if it’s a person or a deer. Do you shoot? Or err on the side of caution, just in case it’s a human person?

I can’t imagine that there’s any morally sane person who would say, “Well, since we can’t know with any degree of certainty if it’s a human person or not, go ahead and shoot!”

What do you think is an appropriate legal penalty for a woman who has an abortion? And for the doctor/nurse etc that perform it?

 

[PRmerger]

According to the Law, the wages of sin are death. We are also told that judgment is for God alone. Why is capital punishment not usurping God’s authority?

I think that God has given us the authority to defend ourselves against unjust aggressors.