Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[mek42]

The UU have their seven precepts. Imagine that some people had only, ‘Love thy neighbor,’ and had the strength rt out the rest on their own. Such a people might well end up similar to UU.

 

[PRmerger]

Some people join a church because they want to do what is morally right and they join a church which teaches and supports them in this. They want a church that teaches to love God and neighbor.

Ok.

It seems to me that the paradigm for any Christian would be: find the Church that Christ established, and then conform your views to Christ’s.

 

[LeftyDisciple]

I can see a point in what you are saying, insofar as it is also illustrated through interpersonal relationships. People sometimes push away from those who not tell them what they want to hear, and would prefer to keep company with people who do tell them what they want to hear. What they often realize is that the people who were giving them constructive criticism were the ones who really cared, and the people who agreed with them in everything were the ones who did not particularly care.

So I understand the logic of suspecting that a homosexual, for example, will be told “your behavior was a sin”; or a young man will be told, “your engaging in pre-marital sex is a sin” and he (or she) will go to a church that makes life less difficult for them, that proves itself to be less of a “nuisance.”

Of course, just because something is not what you want to hear, does not make it true; and just because something is what you want to hear, does not make it untrue. An example of the latter would be “God loves you”, while an example of the former would be, “all of us, without exception, will spend an eternity in hell.”

There’s also a distinction between something that is contrary to your desires (to your id, even) and contrary to your moral conscience.

For example, when a non-homosexual person leaves a Catholic or Evangelical Protestant church, because he does not agree with its teaching on homosexuality, it is usually because it goes against his conscience and his sense of empathy. He himself is not a homosexual, so his “id” gets no gratification from his saying, “I cannot accept that.” But it’s his conscience that tells him that this is unacceptable, and that he chooses not to believe it; or that, indeed, he cannot believe it.

Another example would be if some church said that you have to kill those who do not subscribe to your religion, because they do not subscribe to your religion. Surely, you do not want to hear it, and you may refuse to accept that God would ever command that; yet it is not your id that is involved in your sense of revolt, but your moral conscience.

A final example would be that of a woman in Islam. A woman may feel degraded, humiliated by certain teachings vis-a-vis women. So, she may decide to leave the Church. Yet it would be too easy to say “Hannah left because she didn’t want the Church of Allah, but rather she went to find the Church of Hannah.” There is a complex interaction between a. what she wants; b. what she believes is true (for example, she may find arguments of the intellectual or spiritual inferiority of women to be completely unconvincing); c. what her own conscience dictates, not merely for herself as a woman, but for all women, or for her daughters.

Bingo! Consciences play a huge role.

 

[LeftyDisciple]

Ok.

It seems to me that the paradigm for any Christian would be: find the Church that Christ established, and then conform your views to Christ’s.

It appears you did understand my earlier post afterall. Christians or persons of any faith community or religion find the church or religion they believe is the one to best lead them to truth. They can do this thru many means including thru study of the various religions, thru catechesis, prayer, and discernment of their consciences. For Catholics it is of course the Catholic Church in which they place their faith in and believe has always been, is and remains Christ’s visible Church on earth. For others it may be another faith community or religion. And each conform their views and adhere accordingly. Now indeed there may be only one ultimate truth and in that case everyone can not be right on every detail of faith. But I suppose I simply am not as suspicious as you are about consciences in what are are human journeys to understanding. We may simply have to agree to disagree on the level of suspicion. And I shall just leave it at that.

 

[LeftyDisciple]

Why does opposing homosexuality have to translate into not respecting the worth and dignity of every human person? As Catholics, we must respect the worth and dignity of homosexual persons. We do not have to respect a lifestyle that is in contradiction to God’s own laws, however. So we respect the worth and dignity of every person even though we may reject what they do.

I went back to Tom’s post to make sure I had paraphrased him correctly and what he actually said was a new UU who opposed homosexuality might have to at least do some serious reflection he thought. Because it would conflict with the principle regarding the inherent worth and dignity of every person. I am really hesitant to respond since I am not UU. But of course yes from what I know about the Catholic religion, Catholics reject the lifestyle as sin. But perhaps UUs believe homosexuals are born with a natural orientation and they do not reject it. But I shall let someone who knows more about UU respond. They no doubt can explain it better than I.

 

[Tomdstone]

Ok.

It seems to me that the paradigm for any Christian would be: find the Church that Christ established, and then conform your views to Christ’s.

Protestants conform their views to Christ but for the Protestant the Catholic Church needed to be reformed for several reasons, one of which was corruption at the top. Take for example, Pope Alexander VI whose mistress was the wife of three successive husbands and who bore him four children. Not to mention his other three children who had different mothers. Protestant reformers thought that this did not set a good example.

 

[PRmerger]

It appears you did understand my earlier post afterall.

Great.

Christians or persons of any faith community or religion find the church or religion they believe is the one to best lead them to truth.

Exactly. I have no quarrel with this.

My objection lies in the fact that some folks do not conform their views to this truth, as presented by the church or religion that they have joined.

This is limned by the fact that they cannot answer where they have changed their views because the church or religion has led them to that truth (specifically, regarding moral sensibilities.)

If someone claims to be joining a church to lead them to truth, yet also cannot say, for example, “I used to believe that it was ok to divorce and re-marry, but after joining this church or religion, I was led to believe that it is actually adultery”, then he is, indeed, creating a religion after his own image. He is creating his own morality, and then finding a religion that conforms to that.

That’s exactly backwards. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

But perhaps UUs believe homosexuals are born with a natural orientation and they do not reject it.

Those of us who are born with any type of disordered desire (and that is, sadly, all of us) must reject it.

There is something better for us than wallowing around in the muck, professing, “Well, this is natural for me to like!”

 

[PRmerger]

Protestants conform their views to Christ but for the Protestant the Catholic Church needed to be reformed for several reasons, one of which was corruption at the top. Take for example, Pope Alexander VI whose mistress was the wife of three successive husbands and who bore him four children. Not to mention his other three children who had different mothers. Protestant reformers thought that this did not set a good example.

Catholics also think that this did not set a good example

But you seem to be erroneously rejecting orthodoxy because of poor/sinful examples of orthopraxy.

That is, confusing bad practices of some in the Church with bad teaching.

That people in the Church did not align themselves with the teachings of the Church in no way means that the teachings are in error.

 

[Portofino]

Great.My objection lies in the fact that some folks do not conform their views to this truth, as presented by the church or religion that they have joined

.

 

[Portofino]

p.s. another thing that secular humanists, non-believers – and some Unitarians and others who consider themselves religious – would prefer to be the case, is that there were an “answer key” to life. It is as if life is a great math problem, a great puzzle, and they would prefer that someone would just give them the answer, to simply tell them the meaning of life. Instead, they experience the burden of having to find the answers for themselves ,to the best of their ability (and with the help of others, who are in the same predicament), even though they do not believe that one can ever be absolute sure that the answer one has come up with, is the correct answer. For these, there are no guarantees in life – and no such thing as freedom from the risk of error – though they would certainty prefer to be handed the answers to all of life’s great questions and riddles, and mysteries.

Freedom itself can be a burden, in the spirit of Sartre’s “man is condemned to be free.” There are times when a child takes comfort in being told what to do; having to decide for oneself, is a lot scarier. It can be scary for someone to tell you, “I’m not going to tell you what to do!”, in cases where you are having such a hard time making a decision, that you would prefer that someone else decide for you. This is not to say that a Catholic cannot agree with this sentiment, but is simply to point out that “freedom from the yoke of an external authority” can be a double-edged sword, just as adulthood can be a double-edged sword vis-a-vis the comfortable certainties of childhood, whether intellectual (mom and dad, or our teachers, have all the answers) or material (I never have to think about a roof over my head or food on the table). I do not mean to compare someone who obeys an external authority – such as a church - to a child, though many a believer would unabashedly proclaim (in a different sense, perhaps) that we are children of God and will remain children of God, our entire lives.

 

[Tomdstone]

Catholics also think that this did not set a good example

But you seem to be erroneously rejecting orthodoxy because of poor/sinful examples of orthopraxy.

That is, confusing bad practices of some in the Church with bad teaching.

That people in the Church did not align themselves with the teachings of the Church in no way means that the teachings are in error.

The teachings may not be in error, but according to some Protestants, the general atmosphere of corruption was stifling and not conducive to leading a good Christian life. Therefore they looked to reform the church and doing away with the corruption which they found unattractive. When a Pope has seven children by who knows how many different mistresses and prostitutes, then there is something wrong.

 

[SteveVH]

I went back to Tom’s post to make sure I had paraphrased him correctly and what he actually said was a new UU who opposed homosexuality might have to at least do some serious reflection he thought. Because it would conflict with the principle regarding the inherent worth and dignity of every person.

This is exactly the problem. They cannot separate the act from the person. We regard the homosexual as having dignity simply because of the fact that he or she is a human being. The idea that in order to accept a homosexual as having dignity we must also accept their life style is misguided. How should we regard a pedophile? Do we have to accept pedophilia in order to treat that person with the dignity due all human beings? Of course not.

I realize that you are relating another’s position and that this is not your own, but I think that those that do hold to this position need to re-think it.

 

[LeftyDisciple]

This is exactly the problem. They cannot separate the act from the person. We regard the homosexual as having dignity simply because of the fact that he or she is a human being. The idea that in order to accept a homosexual as having dignity we must also accept their life style is misguided. How should we regard a pedophile? Do we have to accept pedophilia in order to treat that person with the dignity due all human beings? Of course not.

I realize that you are relating another’s position and that this is not your own, but I think that those that do hold to this position need to re-think it.

I’m not finding “Ask a Unitarian Universalist” an appropriate thread for a prolonged debate into specific matters such as homosexuality, pedophilia, or even abortion for that matter and I have no desire to do so. Someone earlier as I recall said an issue is important but there are many. But I’ll only say perhaps they do not believe homosexual acts are sinful as Catholics do. But believe pedophilia acts are? I mean there’s even a mainline Protestant denomination or two which over the yrs have come to a different understanding of homosexuality. And the Catholic Church to my knowledge still calls them Christian. In a sense there can be so much in life to think and rethink about I suppose Which ironically is what Unitarian Universalists seem to do.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m not finding “Ask a Unitarian Universalist” an appropriate thread for a prolonged debate into specific matters such as homosexuality, pedophilia, or even abortion for that matter and I have no desire to do so. Someone earlier as I recall said an issue is important but there are many. But I’ll only say perhaps they do not believe homosexual acts are sinful as Catholics do. But believe pedophilia acts are? I mean there’s even a mainline Protestant denomination or two which over the yrs have come to a different understanding of homosexuality. And the Catholic Church to my knowledge still calls them Christian. In a sense there can be so much in life to think and rethink about I suppose Which ironically is what Unitarian Universalists seem to do.

These issues are being spoken of in the context of UU beliefs and are representative of the mindset prevalent within that organization. If you do not wish to discuss them you are certainly free to refrain. Your answer reveals the fact that objective truth does not have a home within the UU tradition, rather it is based upon relative morality. One is free to choose for themselves whether or not homosexual acts are sinful. One is also free to condemn others, such as pedophiles, based upon nothing other than one’s opinion. Rather than acknowledging both of these as intrinsically disordered acts and offering help in overcoming them, they are welcomed in along with their practices, as if they cannot be separated, that is if one happens to have an acceptable disorder.

The Catholic Church gives homosexuals the dignity due to all human beings. It does not give dignity to practices that, by their very nature, are undignified, to say the least.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s true that obedience to authority – conforming one’s beliefs to the authority of one’s church – is not a core value among Unitarians, as far as I can tell. They are “free thinkers”, in this respect.

On the other hand, what I don’t see evidence of is that they subordinate their understanding of what is true to what they desire to be true, or feel like being true. A few examples come to mind (which are not descriptive of all Unitarians, but of some of them):

—many Unitarians are not convinced that their consciousness will survive death; even if they would like this to be the case, they are not convinced that it actually is

—many Unitarians, I would take it, would prefer that God intervened in human affairs (“divine providence”), even if they see no evidence of it, and thus do not believe in it

–many Unitarians do not believe in a personal God; they may prefer that there is a personal God who loves them and who knew their name before they were born, lovingly keeping count even of the number of hairs on their hand; but not all Unitarians, as I understand it, believe in a personal God

So, I don’t think that Unitarianism – as I understand it – would be deserving of the label “feel-good” religion, subordinating what is true to one’s whims and desires; though some New Age beliefs probably *could *fit that description. Then again, even among New Agers, there is a belief in karma and karmic debts – for example, karmic debts incurred by murder. Also, certain actions may “impede” your evolution (lying, cheating, hardness of heart). Thus, you cannot simply do anything you want, without incurring consequences.

I am speaking specifically or moral sensibilities, Portofino.

That is, “I used to believe that {a} was moral. Now, the church has led me to believe that {a} is immoral.”

If you cannot say that you have been enlightened to a moral truth that differs from your previous moral truth, then you are following a creation of your own reflection.

 

[PRmerger]

The teachings may not be in error, but according to some Protestants, the general atmosphere of corruption was stifling and not conducive to leading a good Christian life. Therefore they looked to reform the church and doing away with the corruption which they found unattractive.

Would that they had reformed the Church without rebellion and pride! They would have been saints, as Catherine of Sienna and Ignatius Loyola are revered today.

When a Pope has seven children by who knows how many different mistresses and prostitutes, then there is something wrong.

Your error lies in saying that this indicates that “there is something wrong” with the Church, rather than “there is something wrong” with that man’s behavior.

 

[LeftyDisciple]

These issues are being spoken of in the context of UU beliefs and are representative of the mindset prevalent within that organization. If you do not wish to discuss them you are certainly free to refrain. Your answer reveals the fact that objective truth does not have a home within the UU tradition, rather it is based upon relative morality. One is free to choose for themselves whether or not homosexual acts are sinful. One is also free to condemn others, such as pedophiles, based upon nothing other than one’s opinion. Rather than acknowledging both of these as intrinsically disordered acts and offering help in overcoming them, they are welcomed in along with their practices, as if they cannot be separated, that is if one happens to have an acceptable disorder.

The Catholic Church gives homosexuals the dignity due to all human beings. It does not give dignity to practices that, by their very nature, are undignified, to say the least.

I think perhaps Portofino in post 208 explained it best. Some people of faith and religion want an “answer key” where answers are told them. Others are more wired to prefer to seek understanding and truth in their journeys even though they don’t believe they can as mere mortals ever be absolutely sure they are correct. Catholics and some other faith traditions have a need and desire for what they can believe is objective truth and may tend to fall into the former category. Unitarian Universalists and some other faith communities OTOH may fall into the latter category. It’s simply 2 different ways of looking at life, faith, and the human experience I suppose.

 

[SteveVH]

I think perhaps Portofino in post 208 explained it best. Some people of faith and religion want an “answer key” where answers are told them. Others are more wired to prefer to seek understanding and truth in their journeys even though they don’t believe they can as mere mortals ever be absolutely sure they are correct. Catholics and some other faith traditions have a need and desire for what they can believe is objective truth and may tend to fall into the former category. Unitarian Universalists and some other faith communities OTOH may fall into the latter category. It’s simply 2 different ways of looking at life, faith, and the human experience I suppose.

Let me explain as simply as I can why this argument fails. When we speak of objective truth we are speaking of a man who sincerely, with all of his heart, mind and soul, believes he can fly. However, when he jumps off of the 20 story building the objective truth that is gravity will make itself present. This happens regardless of one’s needs or desires or beliefs. The fact is that truth does not originate in the human mind. We discover truth, both through observing the world around us and through direct revelation from God. And we must conform ourselves to that truth, not conform the truth to our needs and desires.

 

[LeftyDisciple]

I am speaking specifically or moral sensibilities, Portofino.

That is, “I used to believe that {a} was moral. Now, the church has led me to believe that {a} is immoral.”

If you cannot say that you have been enlightened to a moral truth that differs from your previous moral truth, then you are following a creation of your own reflection.

Unless by chance a person’s own reflection of moral sensibilities already matched the Creator’s moral reflections before they joined a church. That wouldn’t mean to me a person has created God in their image though. God still would have done that. But would have created the person too.