Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[Portofino]

OP where have you gone? It is true that some people heaped abuse on you, but I thought you handled it better than anyone I have seen handling abuse on a forum. Please come back.

In the mean time, a question for other Unitarians: what was the original problem with viewing God as a Trinity? If you are open to most beliefs, a Trinitarian God should not have been such a big issue, correct?

Our Unitarian friends can correct me if I’m wrong, but there are a couple of reasons why they rejected the Trinity, including:

----the belief that Jesus never claimed to be God (“why do you call me good? Only God is good”–Mark 10:18); this may be the most difficult aspect of the Unitarian creed for a Catholic to accept, and I offer excuses for highlighting it, but the Unitarian church (since at least the 18th century) has had a “rationalist” perspective whereby Jesus Christ was an exemplary human being, a “prophet” and a teacher, but only metaphorically the son of God

–they held to a strict interpretation of monotheism (as do the Jews and the Muslims); “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24)

In an important sense, the doctrine of the Trinity was much more congenial to the Greek pagan mind, than it was to the monotheistic Jewish mind. It was difficult for the Jewish mind to wrap itself around the idea that God incarnated as a human being; but for the Greeks, who had anthropomorphic gods, even gods born of a divine father and a human mother, it was much more palatable as a concept. Likewise, the Greeks believed that the gods could undergo transformations, metamorphoses – Zeus could become a lightning bolt; or a ray of sunshine; or a swan. He could constantly change form, and imbue anything in nature. Thus, the concept of “one God in three Persons” was more readily understandable by the Greek mind. Finally, iconography itself – pictorial images of the gods – were also more palatable to the Greek mind, than to the Jewish mind. So, in an ironic sense, you could say that Unitarians went back to a more “Jewish” conception of what monotheism entails.

Not to mince words, though, I believe – returning to the first point – that the Unitarians of the 18th and 19th centuries primarily rejected the Trinity because, in their rationalist understanding of the Bible, they did not believe that the nature of Christ was divine (thus, they suspended judgment on such supernatural occurrences as miracles, virgin birth, even resurrection from the dead). Unitarianism was, in an important respect, the result of a fundamental encounter between traditional Christianity and the rationalism of the Enlightenment. Thomas Jefferson considered himself a Unitarian and I think his views on Jesus pretty accurately reflect the Unitarian view, in the 18th and 19th centuries, when he wrote, “[in the teachings of Jesus] we have the outlines of the most sublime morality ever to fall from the lips of man.” Nonetheless, Jefferson did not believe that Jesus was God.

 

[meltzerboy]

That’s my understanding, as well – that one can be a Buddhist-Unitarian, a Quaker-Unitarian, a Jewish-Unitarian, even an atheist-Unitarian. Its sine qua non is a commitment to love and service of neighbor, both on a person-to-person level and on the level of promoting social justice.

Historically, as I understand it, the Unitarians and the Deists were fairly close in orientation during the 18th century (Thomas Jefferson, for example, was both a Unitarian and a Deist). Nonetheless, Unitarians of the 18th and 19th centuries remained a Christian denomination.

When Ralph Waldo Emerson came along in the 19th century, he resigned his post as Unitarian minister, because he felt he could no longer – in good conscience – administer the Lord’s Supper; nor, frankly, did he consider himself a Christian (even though he was very much a believer in God and in the moral law). He was, in fact, the spiritual father of the New England Transcendentalists.

He tried to get the Unitarian church to follow him in moving even further afield from Christianity; it refused to do so, and he respectfully left the church. The rest is history – the New England Transcendentalists were a non-Christian offshoot of Unitarianism, which embraced mystical communion with nature and were also influenced by Eastern religions, particularly Hinduism.

Come the late 19th and early 20th century, and Unitarians “reabsorbed”, if you will, the Transcendentalist orientation; so, in the end, Emerson got his way Frank Lloyd Wright is a good example of this merging of the Unitarian and the Transcendentalist vision (he loved Emerson’s writings, yet was a member of a Unitarian congregation; he even designed a famous Unitarian church in Oak Park Illinois, called “Unity Temple”). Thus, at a Unitarian sermon today, in the early 21st century, you may hear a gospel passage being discussed, but you might also hear a reading from Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, or perhaps Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience; or Emerson’s essay on “Nature”; or, perhaps, a Buddhist parable.

Thank you, Portofino, for this concise history lesson concerning the Unitarian movement.

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes, I like and agree with that definition. ‘Safe, legal and rare’, as President Clinton put it? You seem dismissive of the “pro-choice” definition in your post. To be clear, do you think a woman who has an abortion (and the doctor and nurses who contribute to it) should be imprisoned?

Actually I don’t like that idea of putting abortion women in prison, even tho I do campaign against abortion…and was always against it, even in childhood as a Protestant, when it was illegal.

I guess that’s the important thing – “childhood.” Children (at least back then) are not so caught up in the adult prestige and rat races and can more easily see and understand it’s a child in the womb. It’s not that LIFE magazine has just come out with a cover picture of a fetus in the womb, but that I loved animals, and we had even striven to save the lifes of some newborn rabbits washed out in an arroyo flash flood. They looked pretty much like fetuses. We were very sad we could not keep them alive.

Since I was pretty much an outcast in high school and college, I never developed the “sensibilities” of a person in the prestige rat race, so the idea that a baby would be inconvenience or spoil someone’s life or lifestyle never arose in my mind. I readily opposed making abortions legal back in 1972, even tho I hadn’t entered the Catholic Church at the time (I was in formation).

But I’d really hate for women to go to prison for having abortions. For one thing prisons are atrocious, and women do get raped there (as happens in our area), and they don’t provide adequate sanitary amenities, like soap (prisoners have to buy them, and if they don’t have money, tough luck, they just do without).

I think if Unitarians at the least promoted life, including life of the yet-to-be born, and if those who were pro-choice at the least would speak out against abortion (as people do have a right to speak out), that would make me a lot happier. Even if they are against criminalizing it, they can at the least speak out against it. Like I’m against criminalizing overuse of fossil fuels (not feasible and would really turn people off from the environmental harms, including human death, caused by such), but constantly speak out against it.

I’d be happier if people like Obama and Pelosi would say, we don’t want to criminalize women who abort, on the one hand, but we think abortion is wrong; it is an evil, a killing of a little person, that should be avoided at all costs, and the gov is here to help if there is a very difficult situation for a woman considering abortion, and the gov will not abandoned that baby during its growth to adulthood, if the parents are unable to care for it.

Unfortunately I see a lot of exceedingly poor families around me that do not get adequate help with children, so it would seem their family’s best interest to abort, but even so many bravely trudge on an have their babies, putting them in more dire straights.

We live in a very mean and heartless society that puts poor pregnant women between a rock and a hard place. It pretty much galls me that many of the anti-abortion people here at CAF tend to be against a #%@$@# socialist welfare state that would help families with babies AND many are also against acknowledging that environmental problems, incl global warming, are real, threatening of human life, and need to be mitigated. Total disconnect re life issues, with non-Catholic Enlightenment (anti-Catholic)-based ideology trumping life.

Also I believe we are not “individuals,” self contained and with rights outside the context of society (other people), but “interdependents” and interconnected with duties to look out for each other. The fetus in the mother’s womb is the most obvious example of this. I believe there simply are not “rights” without concomitant “duties.” I think it is disgusting and extremely selfish that people put much more weight on “rights,” making “duties” into something unpleasant at best.

I wish we had a Bill of Duties to go along with and be equal to, even trump, the Bill of Rights.

Oh yeah, we do – the 10 Commandments And millennia of Church social teachings.

 

[Major_Tom]

That’s my understanding, as well – that one can be a Buddhist-Unitarian, a Quaker-Unitarian, a Jewish-Unitarian, even an atheist-Unitarian. Its sine qua non is a commitment to love and service of neighbor, both on a person-to-person level and on the level of promoting social justice.

Historically, as I understand it, the Unitarians and the Deists were fairly close in orientation during the 18th century (Thomas Jefferson, for example, was both a Unitarian and a Deist). Nonetheless, Unitarians of the 18th and 19th centuries remained a Christian denomination.

When Ralph Waldo Emerson came along in the 19th century, he resigned his post as Unitarian minister, because he felt he could no longer – in good conscience – administer the Lord’s Supper; nor, frankly, did he consider himself a Christian (even though he was very much a believer in God and in the moral law). He was, in fact, the spiritual father of the New England Transcendentalists.

He tried to get the Unitarian church to follow him in moving even further afield from Christianity; it refused to do so, and he respectfully left the church. The rest is history – the New England Transcendentalists were a non-Christian offshoot of Unitarianism, which embraced mystical communion with nature and were also influenced by Eastern religions, particularly Hinduism.

Come the late 19th and early 20th century, and Unitarians “reabsorbed”, if you will, the Transcendentalist orientation; so, in the end, Emerson got his way Frank Lloyd Wright is a good example of this merging of the Unitarian and the Transcendentalist vision (he loved Emerson’s writings, yet was a member of a Unitarian congregation; he even designed a famous Unitarian church in Oak Park Illinois, called “Unity Temple”). Thus, at a Unitarian sermon today, in the early 21st century, you may hear a gospel passage being discussed, but you might also hear a reading from Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, or perhaps Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience; or Emerson’s essay on “Nature”; or, perhaps, a Buddhist parable.

Wow. Excellent summation. Could not have said it better.

 

[Major_Tom]

What are your services like?
Also can I be a Christian UU, or a Jewish UU, Muslim UU, New Aged UU, etc? (Considering I accept the 7 (?) principles) Correct me If I’m wrong.

Thank You.

Services are not that far afield from Christian services in format. In addition to the collection and announcements (a book of Joys and Sorrows that anyone can write in), there is a reading/meditation, followed by a sung response. The range of options for the reading can include writers/works that are Hindu, Jewish, Christian, humanist… (Last week’s was from the Book of Psalms).

The meat of the service is a sermon, similar to the Catholic homily. Last week’s theme was on management. Our guest minister spoke of Jesus’s experiences in the final week before the crucifixion. What can we learn from that experience to manage our own pain and difficulties? Is there a limit to what we can plan and manage?

The pallete of music in our services is broader, and can include classical music in addition to the conventional Christian songs in our songbook (The first service I attended featured the Beatles’ ‘Eleanor Rigby’ sung by our choir, to accompany that day’s theme on suffering).

In terms of labelling, the “Christian-UU” identification came specifically from the history of early Unitarian congregations that were built, in part, on the traditions of Christianity. That identity is still intentionally retained by some individual congregations. Beyond that, any identification as a Hindu-UU, Jewish-UU, etc. is a personal identification, not really shared by the entire congregation per se. Although those traditions are woven into the content of services (There’s also a higher-than-average desire by many to skip the hyphens and avoid labelling all together!)

 

[Portofino]

Wow. Excellent summation. Could not have said it better.

Thanks In case it isn’t obvious, I’m something of a fan of your denomination

 

[Et_Cetera]

What’s the average age breakdown of the people who attend your services?

 

[3DOCTORS]

Actually I don’t like that idea of putting abortion women in prison, even tho I do campaign against abortion…and was always against it, even in childhood as a Protestant, when it was illegal.

I guess that’s the important thing – “childhood.” Children (at least back then) are not so caught up in the adult prestige and rat races and can more easily see and understand it’s a child in the womb. It’s not that LIFE magazine has just come out with a cover picture of a fetus in the womb, but that I loved animals, and we had even striven to save the lifes of some newborn rabbits washed out in an arroyo flash flood. They looked pretty much like fetuses. We were very sad we could not keep them alive.

Since I was pretty much an outcast in high school and college, I never developed the “sensibilities” of a person in the prestige rat race, so the idea that a baby would be inconvenience or spoil someone’s life or lifestyle never arose in my mind. I readily opposed making abortions legal back in 1972, even tho I hadn’t entered the Catholic Church at the time (I was in formation).

But I’d really hate for women to go to prison for having abortions. For one thing prisons are atrocious, and women do get raped there (as happens in our area), and they don’t provide adequate sanitary amenities, like soap (prisoners have to buy them, and if they don’t have money, tough luck, they just do without).

**I think if Unitarians at the least promoted life, including life of the yet-to-be born, and if those who were pro-choice at the least would speak out against abortion (as people do have a right to speak out), that would make me a lot happier. Even if they are against criminalizing it, they can at the least speak out against it. Like I’m against criminalizing overuse of fossil fuels (not feasible and would really turn people off from the environmental harms, including human death, caused by such), but constantly speak out against it.

I’d be happier if people like Obama and Pelosi would say, we don’t want to criminalize women who abort, on the one hand, but we think abortion is wrong; it is an evil, a killing of a little person, that should be avoided at all costs, and the gov is here to help if there is a very difficult situation for a woman considering abortion, and the gov will not abandoned that baby during its growth to adulthood, if the parents are unable to care for it.
**
Unfortunately I see a lot of exceedingly poor families around me that do not get adequate help with children, so it would seem their family’s best interest to abort, but even so many bravely trudge on an have their babies, putting them in more dire straights.

We live in a very mean and heartless society that puts poor pregnant women between a rock and a hard place. It pretty much galls me that many of the anti-abortion people here at CAF tend to be against a #%@$@# socialist welfare state that would help families with babies AND many are also against acknowledging that environmental problems, incl global warming, are real, threatening of human life, and need to be mitigated. Total disconnect re life issues, with non-Catholic Enlightenment (anti-Catholic)-based ideology trumping life.

Also I believe we are not “individuals,” self contained and with rights outside the context of society (other people), but “interdependents” and interconnected with duties to look out for each other. The fetus in the mother’s womb is the most obvious example of this. I believe there simply are not “rights” without concomitant “duties.” I think it is disgusting and extremely selfish that people put much more weight on “rights,” making “duties” into something unpleasant at best.

I wish we had a Bill of Duties to go along with and be equal to, even trump, the Bill of Rights.

Oh yeah, we do – the 10 Commandments And millennia of Church social teachings.

See, I’ve long thought that the “pro-choice” should also be working toward assisting women in crisis pregnancies to be able to keep their babies - at least the ones who say they are against abortion on demand for any reason, should be giving life the benefit of the doubt and encouraging the pregnant woman to do so as well. I realize this is tricky and they would feel it goes against their principles in a way, but if they’d just do something . . . surely it wouldn’t kill 'em to donate some baby food to a charity or something. Otherwise they’re really pro-abortion but calling themselves pro-choice, if you see what I’m getting at.

 

[lynnvinc]

See, I’ve long thought that the “pro-choice” should also be working toward assisting women in crisis pregnancies to be able to keep their babies - at least the ones who say they are against abortion on demand for any reason, should be giving life the benefit of the doubt and encouraging the pregnant woman to do so as well. I realize this is tricky and they would feel it goes against their principles in a way, but if they’d just do something . . . surely it wouldn’t kill 'em to donate some baby food to a charity or something. Otherwise they’re really pro-abortion but calling themselves pro-choice, if you see what I’m getting at.

I agree.

I think there is this whole area of “women’s rights” that comes up, and they are afraid to express opinions in favor of having the babies, for fear the women extremists would say they are trying to influence women perhaps with risky pregnancies or in situations of dire poverty to have children at some risk or harm to the woman; and that “pro-choice” means simply to stay silent on whether or not women should have the babies.

However, that really reduces the unborn babies’ rights to zero.

I think we need to get past this whole area of rights…bec ultimately it boils down to “might makes right” and women are more powerful than their fetuses.

We need a shift to “duties,” a duty-based code of ethics, and ask what is the pregnant woman’s duty to others, including her unborn child. I think people are going to be a lot happier in life if they are focused on fulfilling their duties rather than seeking rights (which can be very frustrating, with various rights of various people pitted against each other).

Maybe we need a Kennedy-type approach – “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, including giving birth to your unborn children and rearing them as strong, healthly, moral citizens committed to helping others.”

 

[3DOCTORS]

I agree.

I think there is this whole area of “women’s rights” that comes up, and they are afraid to express opinions in favor of having the babies, for fear the women extremists would say they are trying to influence women perhaps with risky pregnancies or in situations of dire poverty to have children at some risk or harm to the woman; and that “pro-choice” means simply to stay silent on whether or not women should have the babies.

However, that really reduces the unborn babies’ rights to zero.

I think we need to get past this whole area of rights…bec ultimately it boils down to “might makes right” and women are more powerful than their fetuses.

We need a shift to “duties,” a duty-based code of ethics, and ask what is the pregnant woman’s duty to others, including her unborn child. I think people are going to be a lot happier in life if they are focused on fulfilling their duties rather than seeking rights (which can be very frustrating, with various rights of various people pitted against each other).

Maybe we need a Kennedy-type approach – “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country, including giving birth to your unborn children and rearing them as strong, healthly, moral citizens committed to helping others.”

Funny thing, Christianity has taught this for, oh, roughly 2,013 years . . . And the Jewish religion longer ago than that, and pretty much any religion that doesn’t promote the mentality that hedonism, debauchery, and selfishness are not only to be permitted, but celebrated on Facebook and trash TV and . . . you get the idea.

Guess it’s sometimes a tough sell . . .

 

[ffg]

Thanks! I am neither surprised nor offended that you haven’t found what I’ve said to be persuasive.

Could you explain this further? Does “observational truth” have any relationship to Natural Law? What or who are these subjects you mention?

I read you as saying that “because we have special divinely guaranteed revelation, we can be certain that personhood begins at conception, whether it looks that way or not”. How close is that to what you meant to say?

Sorry, haven’t been on in a while. The observational truth point, if I remember correctly was due to your ‘weighted rights’ thought where an older person (subject) has more of the same right as a baby. My point after was that a right is a right, it either covers all people equally, or you are not talking about a right.

Then we have to distinguish between the common usage of ‘right’, like voting, it’s not a right in the same manner as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because it can be given and taken away and relates to people differently around the globe by culture and age, etc…

Observational truth is simple - what you see is what you get. Many people live by it, but it is a sandy foundation for delving into what is true as we don’t see everything, and bias can get in the way when we see, but do not believe.

I called your ideas / thoughts illogical, to be fair, some truth’s are not logical either. However, our capability to think and use common sense should help us build logical ideas and thoughts that conclude with seeing illogical truth’s (how else would we know it was a truth).

For instance, Jesus rising from the dead is illogical. As we evaluate the whole context, for the sake of time, focussing on the historical record of accounts of those who saw him after they saw him hanging on a cross lifeless. We can conclude that 1 of two things happened - It was true, or false.

Considering our historical accounts are leaning to the true side, similar to accounts of the revolutionary war as all of those people who where there are currently dead. We evaluate both situations the same way, through the eyes of those who were there.

Then we consider if the sources are trustworthy. In both examples above, people died for their cause, though the foundation of the cause was different, and war increases the risk. In one of the cases, there was no war, they were being killed because a stranger told them to tell others about subject matter that was illogical, but that stranger apparently did things that proved to these guys that death by way of torture was worth the information being shared.

With regard to when a human begins, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m coming from a strictly scientific point of view. (People don’t have to find religion to know killing is wrong)

What defines you as human? the 46 Chromosomes you have, 23 from your mom and 23 from your dad. When do they become 46? When they meet? At birth?

So I guess we have to debate if all Humans have the right to life?

If the answer to this is no, then it’s no for everybody. You have to accept that age is a none issue, kill away. Illogical with no semblance of truth.

Take care,

 

[3DOCTORS]

Thought a little levity might be “enlightening” on this thread . . . :newidea:

How many ___________s does it take to change a light bulb?

Presbyterians: None. Lights will go on and off at predestined times.

Baptists: At least 15. One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad.

Episcopalians: Eight. One to call the electrician, and seven to say how much they liked the old one better.

Mormons: Five. One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.

Methodists: Undetermined. Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved – you can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Churchwide lighting service is planned for Sunday, August 19. Bring bulb of your choice and a covered dish.

Nazarene: Six. One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.

Lutherans: None. Lutherans don’t believe in change.

Amish: What’s a light bulb?

Unitarians: We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb, and present it next month at our annual light bulb Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

Roman Catholic: None. Candles only.

from txipl.org/lightbulbjokes - more to be found there. I love lightbulb jokes.

 

[meltzerboy]

Thought a little levity might be “enlightening” on this thread . . . :newidea:

How many ___________s does it take to change a light bulb?

Presbyterians: None. Lights will go on and off at predestined times.

Baptists: At least 15. One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad.

Episcopalians: Eight. One to call the electrician, and seven to say how much they liked the old one better.

Mormons: Five. One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.

Methodists: Undetermined. Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved – you can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Churchwide lighting service is planned for Sunday, August 19. Bring bulb of your choice and a covered dish.

Nazarene: Six. One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.

Lutherans: None. Lutherans don’t believe in change.

Amish: What’s a light bulb?

Unitarians: We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb, and present it next month at our annual light bulb Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

Roman Catholic: None. Candles only.

from txipl.org/lightbulbjokes - more to be found there. I love lightbulb jokes.

LOL This is great! I would add Jews: Three. One to change the light bulb and the other two to argue about it. OR Three. One to change the light bulb and the other two to testify that it was done properly.

 

[lynnvinc]

Funny thing, Christianity has taught this for, oh, roughly 2,013 years . . . And the Jewish religion longer ago than that, and pretty much any religion that doesn’t promote the mentality that hedonism, debauchery, and selfishness are not only to be permitted, but celebrated on Facebook and trash TV and . . . you get the idea.

Guess it’s sometimes a tough sell . . .

That’s completely correct. Nearly all of history and nearly all religions are into “duty-based” code of ethics.

Now I have to mention that the Enlightenment and its stress on a rights-based code of ethics is not to be dismissed. There were plenty of abuses in traditional times in traditional religions. It’s just that we shouldn’t throw the good things about traditions out with the bad things, and should ever be mindful of problems with our modern thinking.

I guess all religions have as one of their purposes to get people to act right & not gum up society and others. Many traditions have it that one will be punished if they violate protocol. Christianity is weird (and this probably applies to Unitarianism to some extent) in that it uses the “carrot” approach more than the “stick” approach. God loves us despite all sorts of gross horrible things we do, and gives us a very simply way out of our messes (the only thing needed to sacrifice is our pride, so we can humbly confess our sins); and supposedly those who have been so loved will feel their hearts swell with love for the Benefactor and do His will … out of love, r/t out of fear of punishment.

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.

 

[3DOCTORS]

LOL This is great! I would add Jews: Three. One to change the light bulb and the other two to argue about it. OR Three. One to change the light bulb and the other two to testify that it was done properly.

How about Jewish mothers - “Don’t worry about me, I’ll just sit here in the dark!”

 

[PRmerger]

What defines you as human? the 46 Chromosomes you have, 23 from your mom and 23 from your dad. When do they become 46? When they meet? At birth?

Actually, this is not the Catholic position. Those with genetic defects, such as those with Down Syndrome, may have an extra chromosome.

We still consider them human persons, even if they do not have 46 chromosomes.

 

[ffg]

Actually, this is not the Catholic position. Those with genetic defects, such as those with Down Syndrome, may have an extra chromosome.

We still consider them human persons, even if they do not have 46 chromosomes.

I figured an asterisk was getting into weeds that were not necessary. Focusing on exceptions would only distract from the point.

Considering his translation of my first post, getting people to understand that religion is not the cause of why life begins at conception was the point.

But thanks for clarifying.

 

[Major_Tom]

Thought a little levity might be “enlightening” on this thread . . . :newidea:

How many ___________s does it take to change a light bulb?

Unitarians: We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb, and present it next month at our annual light bulb Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

Roman Catholic: None. Candles only.

from txipl.org/lightbulbjokes - more to be found there. I love lightbulb jokes.

That’s not bad! I’ll have to use that. Reminds me on another good unitarian joke. What’s a Unitarian’s definition of heaven?

A reeeeeally good discussion about heaven.

 

[adawgj]

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

 

[Major_Tom]

My question: has there been a teaching that you believe God has revealed that you have conformed your belief to, despite your own preference to believe otherwise?

That is, is there something, esp. regarding moral theology, that you wish God hadn’t declared?

In the interest of self disclosure I will give my own example:. I really, really, really wish that it wasn’t a teaching of the Catholic faith that divorce and re-marriage is adultery. There have been many a wedding that I wish I could have celebrated with, as my friend found happiness with a new spouse, but I cannot change the words of the Church. So I conform my views to Christ’s and do not make up a teaching like, "God wouldn’t care if my friend divorced her jerky husband and in fact celebrates with her as she finds happiness with her new sweetheart of a husband.

For it stands to reason, does it not, that God is going to declare some things that are unpalatable to you and me, right?

Few thoughts, which may or may not answer your question. I admit I’m having a hard time coming up with a cogent response, there’s a lot of open-ended content in your questions….

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.

That policy wasn’t a particular challenge to me when I joined the church, however. So I can’t say that that hypothetical scenario applies to me. Personally, have I changed any belief on a major policy issue as a result of joining this congregation? I would have to say no.

My question: has there been a teaching that you believe God has revealed that you have conformed your belief to, despite your own preference to believe otherwise?

Short answer, no. But I cannot honestly say, at least for some ideals, that I wish they were otherwise. I understand the need for moderation in things, for example (drinking comes to mind). But for that matter, becoming overly immersed in anything, (work, texting, or Facebook) at the expense of other more constructive endeavors and relationships has negative consequences. So, I know that excess in anything can have negative consequences. Thus, I can’t genuinely say that I wish it were otherwise.

Another point. I’m thinking of other spiritual benefits that come from joining a denomination/congregation. Listening to an effective sermon that exhorts you into community service… makes you appreciate your mortality… these would all be positive benefits of a service, yes? Even though it doesn’t speak to moral theology, per se?

You offered a personal example, I will too. Even though it doesn’t really fit the parameters in your questions. Suppressing angry/sarcastic outbursts is sometimes a challenge for me. I’m usually a very patient, but it’s still a challenge for me. And I know that sarcasm, though not meant to be, can be misconstrued and hurtful. Now, to be honest, I don’t think that I need Unitarian principles (nor Catholic ones for that matter) to know that I should cut back on the wisecracks. This example wouldn’t fit your question, either.

It’s certainly true to say that there are fewer doctrinal beliefs in Unitarian Universalism, compared to most religions. And certainly fewer than in Catholicism. (To use your example, we have no doctrine that would prevent a divorced person from re-marrying). Logically, then, there would be fewer potential outright doctrinal conflicts (of the kind you mentioned) for Unitarians. I’m thinking of our seven principles versus the Cathechism, which is well over 500 pages, and still doesn’t completely flesh out the doctrine and dogma of the Catholic church. So when you ask about God declaring some things as unpalatable, I do not believe that God has declared to us (humankind) that many directives of such specificity as your example.

There have been many a wedding that I wish I could have celebrated with, as my friend found happiness with a new spouse, but I cannot change the words of the Church. So I conform my views to Christ’s and do not make up a teaching like, "God wouldn’t care if my friend divorced her jerky husband and in fact celebrates with her as she finds happiness with her new sweetheart of a husband.

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?