Ask a Unitarian Universalist

  • Thread starter Thread starter NowHereThis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
I don’t know what verses were mistranslated.

But suffice it to say that the doctrines of the Albingensians were something that you would not submit to, so the verses that were mistranslated that support their heresies would be mistranslations to you as well.
Click to expand...
What it boils down to is that you don’t know what passages were “mistranslated” and the fact that canon 14 of the Council of Toulouse does not mention specifically anything about a mistranslated Bible. However, in the case of Tyndale who was burned at the stake for translating the Bible, it is known what some of the objections to his translation were. For example, he mistranslated charity as love, and he mistranslated do penance as repentance. There were others also. But to burn a man at the stake because he translates charity as love, seems a bit harsh to me. Suppose in your writings you wrote love instead of charity. Do you believe that this deserves the death penalty by burning at the stake?
 
Pardon me if I misunderstand what you believe.

So Unitarian Universalists believe all religions are true, right? If so, how do you justify that with each religion’s claim that only they are right?
 
Razanir said:
So Unitarian Universalists believe all religions are true, right? If so, how do you justify that with each religion’s claim that only they are right?
Click to expand...
I suppose the degree to which this is important depends on evangelism. For faiths that place little or no emphasis on evangelism, it seems to me that the adherents are not likely to argue with people of other faiths about who is right and who is wrong. For example, modern Judaism has little interest in competing with other religions. Judaism is for Jews, and if you are not a Jew, they have little interest in telling you that they are right and you are wrong.

In Sikhism, Sikhs freely share their faith with others, and offending other religions is against the tenets of Sikhism. However, Sikhism does accept voluntary converts.

This contrasts with evangelistic Christianity where major efforts are made to win converts. For this to be successful, superiority of the evangelizing faith has to be emphasized. Turf building seems to be a major concern. The more adherents that a religious organization can claim for itself, the richer it becomes, and the pride of self importance and political power is enhanced. It is this aspect of organized religion that turns many people off.

In much of the world, one cannot be a Catholic and a Muslim at the same time. However, in East Asia, practicing a religion does not mean that you must be a member of that religious group. One can practice portions of another religion at the same time. Thus practicing Taoism and Confucianism in China is common. A Japanese friend of mind told me that in Japan, people practice those aspects of Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, and Christianity that appeals to them without the need to exclude any.
 
At the risk of asking a silly question, could someone expand on the Eastern practice of blending religions?
 
nmgauss said:
If the Magisterium is fallible, then a Catholic cannot trust it to determine the Word of God.
Click to expand...
Nor can you, because it did determine what was and what was not the word of God. Its called the Bible. You had better hope it is infallible.
nmgauss said:
If there is no trust there, how is a Catholic supposed to known when the Magisterium is correct?
Click to expand...
But there is trust there. The trust lies in the words of Jesus; in the promises he made concerning his Church. We believe he kept those promises and did not leave us orphans, and that he remains with us until the end of time. We believe that he kept his promise to send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. If this is true then the Church must be protected from error, just as the Holy Spirit protected those who wrote the Scriptures and just as he protected the Church in determining the canon of the Bible. Why are we to believe that God has withdrawn this protection? He promised that he would not.
 
nmgauss said:
How else are they going to know the Word of God?
Click to expand...
The same way you do, nmgauss: through the Catholic Church.

Again, you would not know what* is* the Word of God–whether Barnabas’ writings are inspired or whether Mark’s writings are inspired–except through the Catholic Church.
If the Magisterium is fallible, then a Catholic cannot trust it to determine the Word of God. If there is no trust there, how is a Catholic supposed to known when the Magisterium is correct?
Click to expand...
I suggest you substitute “parent” for “Magisterium” in the above response, and see how it works when ycour hild asks you why he needs to obey you if you’re not infallible.

If you are fallible, then a child cannot trust you to determine the rules of the family. If there is no trust there, how is a child supposed to known when the parent is correct?

What would your response be to that question, posed by your child?
 
]Nor can you, because it did determine what was and what was not the word of God. Its called the Bible. You had better hope it is infallible.
Click to expand...
But if only 7 % of Catholics read the Bible, what other source do the remaining 93% have readily available?
But there is trust there. The trust lies in the words of Jesus; in the promises he made concerning his Church. We believe he kept those promises and did not leave us orphans, and that he remains with us until the end of time. We believe that he kept his promise to send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. If this is true then the Church must be protected from error, just as the Holy Spirit protected those who wrote the Scriptures and just as he protected the Church in determining the canon of the Bible. Why are we to believe that God has withdrawn this protection? He promised that he would not.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium, when in reality their trust is misplaced, because not all of the Magisterium is infallible?
 
PRmerger said:
I suggest you substitute “parent” for “Magisterium” in the above response, and see how it works when ycour hild asks you why he needs to obey you if you’re not infallible.

If you are fallible, then a child cannot trust you to determine the rules of the family. If there is no trust there, how is a child supposed to known when the parent is correct?

What would your response be to that question, posed by your child?
Click to expand...
Children soon learn not to trust their parents when they discover that Santa Claus can’t come down the chimney. As soon as adult Catholics learn that the Church is not perfect, then healthy skepticism arises. This is where blind faith is shown to be risky.
 
nmgauss said:
Children soon learn not to trust their parents when they discover that Santa Claus can’t come down the chimney. As soon as adult Catholics learn that the Church is not perfect, then healthy skepticism arises. This is where blind faith is shown to be risky.
Click to expand...
Kind of life when you found out the catholic church wrote the bible and sola scriptora isn’t in the bible
 
NowHereThis;10934683] Potential children, and it’s not murder because murder by definition is illegal and abortion is legal.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but is it morally acceptible?
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.
Click to expand...
One of Unitarian Universal’s seven guiding principles is,
•The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all (Principle 6);
Click to expand...
, so I ask,"Where is the justice for the child in the womb? To say that the fetus at certain stages can only continue to exist and develop into an “actual” child if connected in the womb is like saying that a person connected to an iron lung is really only a “potential” person and has no rights, excepting perhaps the right to die if disconnected from the iron lung.

Protector.
 
nmgauss said:
But if only 7 % of Catholics read the Bible, what other source do the remaining 93% have readily available?
Click to expand...
The Mass.
Are you saying that Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium, when in reality their trust is misplaced, because not all of the Magisterium is infallible?
Click to expand...
No.

We obey the Magisterium whether she is infallible or not. Infallibility is a bonus. 🙂
 
nmgauss said:
Children soon learn not to trust their parents when they discover that Santa Claus can’t come down the chimney.
Click to expand...
Oh my.

I can tell you as a child who believed in Santa Claus, and as a parent of 4 whose children believed in SC, that the realization of the truth about him did in no way compromise trust in one’s parents.

As there are literally billions of children who have believed in SC, what you are proposing is that the entire society of SC believers has wreaked havoc and mayhem upon us and our trust in our parents.

That, frankly, is the most absurd thing I have read on this thread.
As soon as adult Catholics learn that the Church is not perfect, then healthy skepticism arises. This is where blind faith is shown to be risky.
Click to expand...
Were you aware that all Catholics are taught that the Church is imperfect? And that healthy skepticism is encouraged?

“The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect.” In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: “Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state - though each in his own way - are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect.” CCC 825

As far as “blind faith”, well, that is a heresy. Were you aware of that?
 
Fideism: Blind Faith as Heresy

(from the Catholic Encyclopedia)
(Latin fides, faith)A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority.

As against these views, it must be noted that authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.
 
nmgauss said:
Fideism: Blind Faith as Heresy

(from the Catholic Encyclopedia)
(Latin fides, faith)A philosophical term meaning a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority.

As against these views, it must be noted that authority, even the authority of God, cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the primary form of knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

And that’s why Catholicism venerates and elevates reason.

Blind faith is apparently a Baptist thing. Not a Catholic thing, to be sure.
 
Tomdstone said:
What it boils down to is that you don’t know what passages were “mistranslated” and the fact that canon 14 of the Council of Toulouse does not mention specifically anything about a mistranslated Bible.
Click to expand...
That’s why we don’t just take things out of context.

The context tells us why in that particular time reading of that particular Bible was forbidden: because it contained heretical mistranslations.
However, in the case of Tyndale who was burned at the stake for translating the Bible, it is known what some of the objections to his translation were. For example, he mistranslated charity as love, and he mistranslated do penance as repentance. There were others also. But to burn a man at the stake because he translates charity as love, seems a bit harsh to me. Suppose in your writings you wrote love instead of charity. Do you believe that this deserves the death penalty by burning at the stake?
Click to expand...
It does indeed seem a bit harsh to me, too.

That members of the Church burned a man for mistranslating a passage (a dubious charge against these men, but for the sake of this discussion I will concede that this was the reason they sentenced Tyndale to death) ought not be confused with the Church teaches erroneous doctrines.
 
nmgauss said:
What are the pros and cons of organized religion?
Click to expand...
Pros: without organized religion you would not know anything about Christ and his revelation.

Without organized religion you would not know what’s the inspired Word of God and what’s not.

Without organized religion you would not have the sacraments, which are a profound source of grace.

Cons: organized religion makes outsiders see hypocrisy more easily in those who appear to be proponents of said religion.
 
PRmerger said:
Pros: without organized religion you would not know anything about Christ and his revelation.

Without organized religion you would not know what’s the inspired Word of God and what’s not.

Without organized religion you would not have the sacraments, which are a profound source of grace.

Cons: organized religion makes outsiders see hypocrisy more easily in those who appear to be proponents of said religion.
Click to expand...
If one’s religion is non-Christian, then Christ is irrelevant.

If one’s religion does not recognize the God of Abraham, then the inspired Word of God is irrelevant.

If sacraments are part of an organized church ceremonies, then I agree it is almost impossible to take part in them if you do not participate in the services.

I agree that the hypocrisy element is more difficult to spot when one is part of the organization.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top