N
nmgauss
Guest
How does one determine what is fundamental to human nature?
- Status
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
However they want.
Remember, there is no such thing as a “typical” UU. There are Pagans, Buddhists, Christians, Agnostics, Atheists, and every point on the religious spectrum between them at a Sunday service. We gather to listen and learn and share our understandings of life and our insights.
S
stewstew03
Guest
The truth as they experience it does not make it any less truthful.
N
nmgauss
Guest
But if there is more than one truth, how does one know which one to believe?
In the case of the Magisterium, it tells you which one is the truth. But for Protestants, how are they supposed to know?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t think that all kinds of truths are the same qualitatively. From high to lower, I would say that there are mathematical truths, there are scientific truths, there are truths in sociology and there are truths in politics.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You ought to ask them.
P
PRmerger
Guest
All of them are true. Inconsistencies are not the same as contradictory.
Perhaps if you could proffer which verses in the Gospel you think constitute “inconsistencies” that would be helpful.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fides quaerens intellectum.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Through one’s reason.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep. That’s certainly a problem. Protestants have divorced themselves from the faith, given once for all, to the saints.
Now there are tens of thousands of different Christian denominations, each teaching their own, sometimes contradictory, versions of what is true.
The fruit of this is the chaos and confusion of not knowing what is true. To wit: look at this (non-exhaustive) list of what Protestants cannot agree about in doctrine:
*Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism (sprinkling? Immersion? Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?)
• Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Did Jesus use wine or grape juice at the Last Supper
• Divorce
• Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
• Head coverings or no head coverings
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Judge others, don’t judge others
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• What’s a sin, what is not a sin
• When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
• Women pastors, no women pastors
That is just what the devil ordered, isn’t it. :sad_yes:
N
nmgauss
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmgauss View Post
How does one determine what is fundamental to human nature?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
Originally Posted by nmgauss View Post
How does one determine what is fundamental to human nature?
For an appreciation of this complex issue, read the following:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature
N
nmgauss
Guest
It seems to me that a prime motive in politics is unity. Theologically it should matter little whether we believe differently. But if politics enters the issue, then it makes sense to encourage uniform beliefs. Then the masses can begin to live together harmoniously.
This was a primary purpose of Prophet Muhammad: First, unite the Arab tribes so that they stop killing each other. How do you do that? Preach that there is only one God, and there is only one way to please Him. For starters, doing his will requires that we stop killing each other. This worked, not perfectly, but afterwards, things became better between the tribes.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok.
Must. Not. Roll. Eyes.
sigh
It doesn’t matter, eh?
So you can profess that God hates an ethnic group and it doesn’t matter?
You can profess that Mary is part of the Trinity and it doesn’t matter?
You can profess that Paul’s writings are heresy and it doesn’t matter?
N
nmgauss
Guest
You are reactionary to a concept which has no connotation of professing anything. Believing is not professing. Theology is about beliefs, not about preaching.Ok.
Must. Not. Roll. Eyes.
sigh
It doesn’t matter, eh?
So you can profess that God hates an ethnic group and it doesn’t matter?
You can profess that Mary is part of the Trinity and it doesn’t matter?
You can profess that Paul’s writings are heresy and it doesn’t matter?
P
PRmerger
Guest
That is the most absurd thing I have read on this thread.
M
mafh
Guest
Well, that’s not quite the idea. The basic idea is that it’s non-dogmatic, apart from the seven principles. It’s more like a religious/philosophy explorers club, with a penchant for charitable activities. In a UU congregation, different people talk about what philosophies/spirituality they have found to have truth or meaning, and then others say “hmm, that’s interesting” and then share their own interpretation. In principle, any one with any religious notions could be a part of a UU congregation, with the caveat that their beliefs and behavior must be compatible with the 7 principles. At least, in theory, this is what it is supposed to be.
In practice, there is a particular ideological underpinning to most congregations, which aligns very closely with liberalism. UU is probably actually at the forefront of the liberal movement in the United States; for example, the denomination had one of the first openly gay pastors of any religious group, way back in 1979. So, UU people tend to support things like: a living wage, fair trade products, LGBT issues, environmental concerns, NOW issues, etc. However, there are a very few socially-conservative UU congregations as well.
I attended a UU church for about 6 months, and signed the book. But, I haven’t attended in a few years.
M
mafh
Guest
I apologize if this has been answered before, but to join a UU church, you merely sign the membership book. That’s it. There is no profession of faith or any formation, because there is almost nothing to profess in. If you are attending services, but haven’t signed, then I guess you could consider yourself ‘just visiting’.
M
mafh
Guest
This is a very interesting question, and it was astute of you to ask. In fact, the UU denomination grew out of two different protestant Christian denominations: The Unitarians (who didn’t believe in the trinity) and the Universalists (who believed in universal reconciliation, that all humans would ultimately reconcile with God and go to heaven). Both these groups (already quite liberal, compared to most protestant sects) ultimately became even more liberal in their theology, began embracing non-Christian religious perspectives, and finally merged.
M
mafh
Guest
Ok, for all you non-Catholics, I think there is a miscommunication here. Personal or Private revelations has a specific meaning in the Catholic church. Basically, they divide revelation into two categories: Public, which is the revelation as outlined in the Bible which all Catholics are required to believe in, and Private, which is revelation given in the post-Biblical period, and which Catholics are free to believe in or not. So, for example, the Marian apparitions are private revelations, and you will find some Catholics who believe in them and some who don’t. So, when a Catholic says that they aren’t required to believe in personal revelations, this is what they mean.
SteveVH, I think what the guy meant to say was that he is skeptical of Matthew/Mark/Luke/John in terms of the accuracy of the documents as reportage; in other words, as faithful and reliable accounts of historical events. One of the key ways historians access the accuracy of historical documents is a through duplication (I think they have a technical term for this, but I forget it.) Basically (if you have independent sources), then the historical events that are most likely to have, in fact, happened as described are those that can be found in the most independent sources. When you apply that to these four documents, the question becomes what events are present in all four? I think the birth is not, and the resurrection is not, though the crucifixion is (if I recall correctly). So, from this mode of analysis, you would say that we are more certain that the crucifixion is true than the other reported events, for example. Anyway, I think that is the point he is getting at. For Catholics, belief in the truth of the gospels is, I believe, an article of faith (implicit or not, not sure which).
M
mafh
Guest
Ok, this example is not quite fair or on target, and I’ll try to explain why.
There is general consensus that the chemical formula is H2O. You will find no reputable chemist or other expert who says otherwise. However, humanity has achieved no such consensus on religion, or even agreement upon what tools you are supposed to use in order to decide among competing religious truths. Being a non-dogmatic organization, UU keeps all possible religious sources in this hypothetical library, so long as they don’t violate the 7 principles. UU isn’t a truth-establishing organization at the institutional level, like the Catholic Church. What it does is offer tools for its members to seek the truth.
- Status