I’m not sure EVERYTHING that Unitarians believe is relative. There are, after all, certain ethical human values, such as the ones you mention: service to others and world peace. Also, isn’t there a distinction between Christian Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists? Maybe Roy can best answer this question.
The Unitarian and the Universalists were once two seperate denominations, but they combined a few decades back. Both were originally Christian, but now seem to be more atheist, or agnostic.
**The original Unitarians (in the USA) began in the Boston area, and as I remember most of the oldest churches in Massachusetts became Unitarian, including the one in Plymouth and 'First Church' in Boston. **Unitaranism was embraced by many transcendentalists - authors and philosophers like Emerson, Thoreau, etc. John Adams, our second president, was a Unitarian. The original leaders like Channing and Parker were liberal Christians who (as the name suggests) denied the Trinity. However, they sought to be followers of Jesus as they understood Jesus. Harvard Seminary became Unitarianish, and Yale was started in part because Harvard was regarded as having moved too far in that direction.
I believe one poster was referring to that formerly Anglican Church in Boston - King's Chapel - which kept some of its liturgy but struck out references to the Trinity. I have visited the church many times. An unusual combination.
… very funny; although I am trying not to be judgemental
Roy my friend,
To make it sound as though we who think independently go to hell - what would you call that? Many of us raise the obvious contradiction between God's love, forgiving nature, and justice and the old threat that somehow Catholics get to heaven while the rest probably won't. Of course, I thought that changed, and it became 'heresy' to say that 'outside the Church there is no salvation'.
But this arrogant and judgemental attitude of some Catholics (I like to think that they are a minority of Catholics today and I actually believe they are) - but such arrogance is one reason Catholicism is so unpopular with and frequently feared by many people. It makes the church appear to be narrow-minded, prejudiced, backward, and out of step with most thinking people. The fear is that if Catholicism were to become dominant the hierarchy could seek to exercise far too much control and undermine our free society. I know Catholics who are embarrassed by such hubris.
God is far too big and unfathomable to be contained in ancient creeds and manucripts. Any effort to limit God by confining the Lord in such a way is, to me, degrading to our Creator and Sustainer.
Most Catholics I know, including kinfolk, practice their faith without insisting that they alone have the truth. They are very sympathetic to efforts to achieve ecumenial and even interfaith cooperation and mutual respect.i have a whole pie and you have two pieces you call me arrogant for saying i have a whole pie when i have the whole pie.
i have a whole pie and you have two pieces you call me arrogant for saying i have a whole pie when i have the whole pie.
Problem is, those other churches do not believe that you have the whole pie. That is where the percepion of arrogance surfaces.
Yes, but it doesn’t make sense to call theological claims “arrogant.” Arrogance is a quality of people, not of theological claims. There are some claims that mark the person as arrogant, or maybe insane, if they are not true. The obvious example would be “I am the Son of God.”
If your kinfolk do not understand or share that the CC alone DOES have the singular truth; they are in need of further faith training [not unusual in the post VAtican II times].
=fbl9;8710566]i have a whole pie and you have two pieces you call me arrogant for saying i have a whole pie when i have the whole pie.
HERE’S A DEAL FOR YOU DEAR FREIND;
Mt 16:18. Christ gave Peter the authority and identified him as the one to build up the Church on earth.
Birthdays are founded on the “idea” that one should pause to celebrate the day on which loved ones were born. That concept crosses all cultural boundaries and there is nothing inherently “pagan” about such an idea. The Paschal celebration (called Easter in English-speaking countries) has nothing to do with the pagan fertility goddess Eoster. “Easter” is the celebration of Christ’s resurrection, and there certainly is nothing pagan about that. Although cultures have celebrated the day in different ways, nothing about easter eggs, or bunnies, is connected with the Catholic celebration. Similarly, Christmas is the celebration of Christ’s birth, the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. Christmas trees, yule logs, Santa Claus, reindeer, and other such trappings are quaint cultural practices with absolutely NO PLACE in Catholic doctrine.
Slight correction… The Catholic Church does not incorporate pagan beliefs into its doctrines. On occasion, Catholic communities have adopted certain local customs to support the holy days celebrated by the Church, But whatever pagan meanings were attached to such customs are washed away; “baptised” in a sense, so that the christian meaning is made clear. For example, decorating a Christmas tree was once associated with a non-christian solstice celebration. But for Catholics who keep this cultural tradition, the symbolism of the evergreen tree is entirely Christian, and any pagan meanings have long-since been discarded.
Again, the distinction must be made that the Catholic Church does not incorporate the ancient pagan beliefs into its doctrines and beliefs. Where Catholics communiteis have adopted local cultural practices - like Christmas trees, easter eggs, wedding rings, etc., it is likely because the practice supports christian-oriented themes and concepts.
Catholics are not asked to “hand their minds over” to the Church. We are called to a life of faith and reason. These two concepts do not conflict. To the extent your remark suggests Catholics do not think - you are more than a little bit condescending. I do not think Thomas Aquinas would agree with you.
I think the operative word in your comment is “seem.” These doctrines may “seem” borrowed from one who grew up in a culture that suggested such things. I grew up Catholic, left the Church, and returned years later. I see that such claims are baseless.
That’s like saying there are parts of the human body that are alien to the body? The bible is Christian from Genesis to Revelation. You have to take it as it is. You can’t just start cutting out passages that you personally disagree with?
I’m highly educated, well-read, and open-minded. I am also Catholic. I think you’re reasoning from analogy here. Maybe you know a lot of educated, well-read, open-minded non-Catholics, so you assume Catholics are different. Well, please let me enlighten you about the fact that there are well educated, well read, open minded Catholics. There are also ignorant, uninformed, poorly educated, closed-minded non-Catholics. So what. If something is true, it is true whether everyone believes it or no one does.
It tells me that Catechesis in the USA sucks. If these 30 million ex Catholics knew and felt as I do, they would cease to be “ex-Catholics.”
I prefer truth over diversity, even if that is the harder road. And no Catholic should say that ONLY the Catholic Church has the truth. All religions have some truth. But we should strive to know as much of the truth that is revealed. We may see but darkly on this side of the veil, but that does not give us the right to close our eyes to what we can see. Don’t you think that’s true? Are we not called to reason together?
The problem here is not what the Scriptures are teaching. It’s the manner in which you are interpreting (or misinterpreting) these Scriptures. And if you are suggesting that the Church ignores the sermon on the mount, I’m sorry but that’s just a ridiculous claim. Find a Catholic Church, contact the priest, and make an appointment to come in and see him. Tell him you think the Church ignores the sermon on the mount and then when he’s finished laughing, ask him to explain what’s so funny. And if the Catholic Church is oppressing women, why are there such saints as Therese of Lisieux, St. Catherine of Sienna, Catherine the Great, and many, many others. And how could a Church that suppresses women create such holy women as Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta? All of these women taught men. There must be something about your interpretation of the bible that’s off, if you think it requires the suppression of women. Don’t you think?
I’m not sure if you’ve ever been into a Catholic Church, or spent time working in a Catholic charity, hospital, school, orphanage, or even a local community parish? What you’re describing is not the Catholic Church I know from experience, and from history. Christian faith is about speaking the truth in love. We are not called to act with hubris. While the Church certainly does have it’s blowhards (like every other group) the hubris that I see is usually directed *towards *the Church by those who simply don’t want to hear the truths that it proclaims… i.e. abortion is an objective moral evil; marriage is between one man and one woman; divorce is not an option; sex is reserved to married couples only; artificial contraception is contrary to nature and morally illicit. These are hard truths for some to hear. But that does not make them untrue. Nor does it make the Church that speaks the truth arrogant or hostile.
ROBERT from SD has done an excellent job replying to you. I just wanted to add one point on your comment above:
It may sound like a contradiction, but I’m no longer a “Catholic” as in “Roman,” and yet I put forth that I am more Catholic than ever in a larger and truer way. I sadly left the Church after a period of seeking a reasonable, cogent, and practical answer to a number of experiences I had had that might be termed “spiritual.” What was revealed to me in those experiences was not dealt with by Church doctrine as I knew it, and knew it rather well, and neither were my questions resolved by the substantial number of religious and lay people I consulted. However, after some years of simply wandering around looking, I came upon a full, complete, and competent explication which also had the added dimensions of practical consistency, universal application, and predictable accuracy. So I never “went back” as much as I sympathize with those who are in that paradigm, being quite sure that eventually they too will see more clearly who and what they in actuality are.Why are you not a Catholic?
***My dear Friend in Christ,
