Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[PRmerger]

Mathematics does not teach dogma from a Magisterium which decides what is the truth.

The Magisterium does not decide what is the truth, nmgauss. She discerns the truth.

Catholicism is a discipline based on questionable testimony of individual personal revelations, and thus subject to inconsistencies because of the many people testifying. If there is no hard evidence of anything, the professed truth becomes unprovable.

Then, sadly, nmgauss, you have no way to ever say what it is that Christ revealed.

For the only way you know anything at all about Christ and His message…

is through…

the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

So there are wide borders on what a Catholic may believe about Limbo?However, Limbo was mentioned in the Baltimore Catechism which was the way Catholics in the USA were taught before Vatican II.

“Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The point here is that UU may look at things similarly to how the RCC looks at limbo. Some things are theological speculations and the UU allows its members to have differing viewpoints on some issues, just as the RCC allows its members to take contradictory views on Limbo?

I understand your point.

However, it is a difference in quality and truth to only be able to define a handful of things we know to be true, vs these things, which we know to be true.

It’s like the difference between what a kindergartner knows to be true and what a PhD knows.

The kindergartner can only say: I know 7 shapes!

 

[JustaServant]

Unitarian Universalism is a diverse movement, so I can’t speak for everyone in it. But I will do my best to answer any questions you may have about Unitarian Universalism (as I see it).

My question,
I’ve always understood UUs as kind of a free-for-all. Belief in any one thing is discouraged.
May I ask, if there is no foundational understanding of God, what is the point of having a “worship” service? Why not just stay home and watch the football game?

 

[stewstew03]

…
Catholicism is a discipline based on questionable testimony of individual personal revelations, and thus subject to inconsistencies because of the many people testifying. If there is no hard evidence of anything, the professed truth becomes unprovable.
…

When throwing around terms like “questionable” and “inconsistent” and “[lack of] evidence” how about providing a few specifics?

 

[nmgauss]

My question,
I’ve always understood UUs as kind of a free-for-all. Belief in any one thing is discouraged.
May I ask, if there is no foundational understanding of God, what is the point of having a “worship” service? Why not just stay home and watch the football game?

Perhaps it is similar to the view of God in Judaism. In modern Judaism, as I understand it, there is no universally complete concept of the personality of God. God is immersed in each and every person. So the personal relationship a person has with God is what matters, and this is likely to differ from person to person.

 

[SteveVH]

Catholicism is a discipline based on questionable testimony of individual personal revelations

Wrong. Catholics have no obligation to believe in individual personal revelations. We believe in the public revelation of Jesus Christ as given to us by those who lived and walked with him; hardly questionable testimony.

 

[robsully]

Hello all: I seldom join in the many debates here on the forum. When I do I usually get reprimanded by the moderator. But at the risk of a finger shaking…

A comment, to the U.U. folk , your religion does sound very much like the Laws of Noah. Which pre-dates Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

A question, since I’m ignorant in matters of the Catholic church, Is your church (catholic), faith, beliefs, customs the same now as it was from the start.?

 

[Tomdstone]

Wrong. Catholics have no obligation to believe in individual personal revelations. We believe in the public revelation of Jesus Christ as given to us by those who lived and walked with him; hardly questionable testimony.

If it is certain testimony, how come the Jews, who are pretty smart people, do not accept it?

 

[cheese_sdc]

My question,
I’ve always understood UUs as kind of a free-for-all. Belief in any one thing is discouraged.
May I ask, if there is no foundational understanding of God, what is the point of having a “worship” service? Why not just stay home and watch the football game?

Because we feel the need to gather in community with others.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Human rights are not, and cannot be, arbitrary else they are not truly fundamental to human nature.

This is such a profound statement. I haven’t heard it put so well into words before.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Potential children, and it’s not murder because murder by definition is illegal and abortion is legal. There is a meaningful difference between “potential” and “actual”. Children are potential adults, but we don’t give them the right to vote, or the privileges of driving.

I understand the whole basis for you saying this is that one is legal and the other is not. In other words, legality determines truth. There was once a time when it was legal in the United States to own slaves. After the emancipation proclamation this ceased to be the case. So before the EP, by your own logic, blacks in the united states were not only not treated as unequal, but were intrinsically morally unequal to whites in the United States.

 

[RaiseMeUp]

Not to disrespect anyone’s personal views or beliefs, but such liberal religions such as these are prime examples of leaning only on one’s own understanding. So do the UU beliefs indicate that for the last 2,000 years the Church has been teaching false doctrine and is pretty much a fallible source of faith? I’m sorry, but it sounds to me like yet another reformation of a reformation of probably many other reformations. And this is exactly what happens when people break away from the Church and develop their own ideas and values - you get complete and total (forgive me) absurd justification for loose values and practices. Again I apologize if I have offended Universalist as that is not my intention, rather to just express my Catholic view on this topic.

 

[nmgauss]

When throwing around terms like “questionable” and “inconsistent” and “[lack of] evidence” how about providing a few specifics?

When there are four Gospels and inconsistencies among them, how does one know who is telling the truth, rather than the truth as they experienced it? In the movie “My Cousin Vinnie”, the defense exposed faulty reporting of the facts because each witness had a different experience, and their experiences were conditioned by limitations to accurately see the facts. Also, interpretation of the facts was different depending on who was interpreting them.

 

[nmgauss]

I understand the whole basis for you saying this is that one is legal and the other is not. In other words, legality determines truth. There was once a time when it was legal in the United States to own slaves. After the emancipation proclamation this ceased to be the case. So before the EP, by your own logic, blacks in the united states were not only not treated as unequal, but were intrinsically morally unequal to whites in the United States.

Are you talking about blacks or about slaves? Since the Bible tosses around terms like servants and slaves, especially in the OT, the impression is that having slaves was normal for people who could support them.

 

[JustaServant]

Because we feel the need to gather in community with others.

Maybe if I rephrase the question.
How do Unitarians worship God?

 

[CompSciGuy]

Are you talking about blacks or about slaves? Since the Bible tosses around terms like servants and slaves, especially in the OT, the impression is that having slaves was normal for people who could support them.

I don’t think the Bible can be interpreted to say that Paul was advocating slavery. But I am talking about the general attitude of the United States in a given time period. In the US it totally was a matter of race. People of Africa were captured like animals and brought to the United States and systematically enslaved. The law considered them 2/3 of a person in the census. It also denied them a great number of rights and privileges granted to other citizens.

 

[SteveVH]

If it is certain testimony, how come the Jews, who are pretty smart people, do not accept it?

The degree of truth within a testimony is not dependent upon who accepts or rejects that truth.

 

[nmgauss]

I don’t think the Bible can be interpreted to say that Paul was advocating slavery. But I am talking about the general attitude of the United States in a given time period. In the US it totally was a matter of race. People of Africa were captured like animals and brought to the United States and systematically enslaved. The law considered them 2/3 of a person in the census. It also denied them a great number of rights and privileges granted to other citizens.

How about north of the Mason-Dixon line after the North free its slaves?

 

[nmgauss]

The degree of truth within a testimony is not dependent upon who accepts or rejects that truth.

Then how does one know the truth? If the truth is a matter of opinion, then it is subject to acceptance or rejection.

 

[nmgauss]

I don’t think the Bible can be interpreted to say that Paul was advocating slavery. But I am talking about the general attitude of the United States in a given time period. In the US it totally was a matter of race. People of Africa were captured like animals and brought to the United States and systematically enslaved. The law considered them 2/3 of a person in the census. It also denied them a great number of rights and privileges granted to other citizens.

Are you saying that there were no Caucasian or Asian slaves?