Unitarian Christians- true or not true?

[adrift]

You are offended at a blunt explanation of my beliefs because friend Premenger is asking me questions about “ritual” and no matter how “Sensively” I try to “pus say floor” around the explanation as to NOT offend Catholic belief friend Premenger pursues the matter any way by seeking to convey my beliefs as inconsistent with Quaker life?

Seems like the “set up”. “tell us what you believe”. And when we do " I’m offended!!!" A set up?

I reread the conversation and you aren’t explaining your belief blunt or otherwise but attacking the Catholic faith. Premerger pursued your statement. She did nothing wrong and she did not provoke you. I think what annoyed you is what you said was inconsistent to what she found being practiced. Then you kind of changed what you stated as belief and attacked our faith.
EDITED

I did not insult your faith, I did not intend offense. You took offense where none was intended. I thought intention was an important aspect if Catholicima understanding of sin?

I had no intention of offense…why take it when none was offered nor intended?

You get to decide what is an insult? At least two others saw it as an insult. The response when you were told of it was not to apologize and you still aren’t but to say it was someone else’s fault which shows intent by you. If there weren’t intent you would have apologized for your insensitive comments about our Faith. Intention is conveyed by many ways and now you are trying to turn your insult as our fault that we aren’t good Catholics.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I did not insult your faith, I did not intend offense. You took offense where none was intended. I thought intention was an important aspect if Catholicima understanding of sin?

I had no intention of offense…why take it when none was offered nor intended?

I understood your point. You were explaining how you view sacraments and other religious rites in the context of your Quaker faith, and why they are unnecessary (again, in your own viewpoint). You weren’t making comment about Catholic belief or practice, but about your own [Quaker] views of sacraments and religious rites in general (no matter what the faith), presumably tied to your belief that there is no need for an ordained ministerial priesthood to offer said sacraments and rituals (correct me if I’m wrong). While I think you could have made this point without making reference to McDonalds, I do understand what you’re saying (even if, as a Catholic, I don’t agree, naturally), and I don’t think you were trying to be offensive.

 

[Publisher]

Very well.

As if there was any doubt where this was going.

 

[Publisher]

I reread the conversation and you aren’t explaining your belief blunt or otherwise but attacking the Catholic faith. Premerger pursued your statement. She did nothing wrong and she did not provoke you. I think what annoyed you is what you said was inconsistent to what she found being practiced. Then you kind of changed what you stated as belief and attacked our faith.
EDITED

You get to decide what is an insult? At least two others saw it as an insult. The response when you were told of it was not to apologize and you still aren’t but to say it was someone else’s fault which shows intent by you. If there weren’t intent you would have apologized for your insensitive comments about our Faith. Intention is conveyed by many ways and now you are trying to turn your insult as our fault that we aren’t good Catholics.

But aren’t you deciding what is an insult? Even though no insult was intended? Friend if you believe I insulted your faith you have my deepest apologies for the perceived insult. That was not my intention.

 

[Publisher]

I understood your point. You were explaining how you view sacraments and other religious rites in the context of your Quaker faith, and why they are unnecessary (again, in your own viewpoint). You weren’t making comment about Catholic belief or practice, but about your own [Quaker] views of sacraments and religious rites in general (no matter what the faith), presumably tied to your belief that there is no need for an ordained ministerial priesthood to offer said sacraments and rituals (correct me if I’m wrong). While I think you could have made this point without making reference to McDonalds, I do understand what you’re saying (even if, as a Catholic, I don’t agree, naturally), and I don’t think you were trying to be offensive.

Thank you friend , you are quite correct. Perhaps my reference to McDonalds was
Not the best choice of words those word did however did make the point I was seeking to convey…

Thank you again

 

[Publisher]

Correct. Eating bread and wine does not bring Christ into oneself. Eating the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, however, brings us into the most intimate relationship with Christ that is possible on this earth.

I am going to give you a chance to take back your words about our Eucharist and your analogy to McDonalds. If not, I am going to report you to the mods.

And thank you for giving me " a chance to take back" that is very magnanimous of you.

 

[adrift]

But aren’t you deciding what is an insult? Even though no insult was intended? Friend if you believe I insulted your faith you have my deepest apologies for the perceived insult. That was not my intention.

Of course it is the one who is insulted who is judge of it. How could you be a judge if another is offended?

I accept your apology. It surprises me that you wouldn’t know comparing our Eucharist which is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus to eating at a McDonald’s would be insulting. A simple I don’t believe that it is anymore sacramental than any other meal would have gotten your point across. Although such a view is shocking considering that Jesus commanded that it should be done. Of course, He also commanded baptism but this is about Unitarian’s sorry to the OP for interrupting.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Then why did you say this?

Originally Posted by cheese_sdc forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I couldn’t agree more.

I’m not sure I understand your question… Are you asking why I’d want to live a live in accordance with Reality (substituting that term for Truth)? I find that a strange question from a Catholic. Isn’t the point of life to live it based on Ultimate Reality as best we understand it?

It seems that if the UU possessed the fullness of truth that you would try to convince this person that in spite of his reservations he should stick with it anyway because Truth is more important. Instead you seem just fine with them leaving.

I think the primary difference here is that I don’t believe that any one religion possesses the “fullness of Truth”.

I refer you principle #4 of the Unitarian Church: Each person is encouraged to “A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” If their path leads them elsewhere, I will bid them well wishes on their journey.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m not sure I understand your question… Are you asking why I’d want to live a live in accordance with Reality (substituting that term for Truth)? I find that a strange question from a Catholic. Isn’t the point of life to live it based on Ultimate Reality as best we understand it?

I read back through our conversation and have no idea what you are asking. Can you be more specific? Thanks.

I think the primary difference here is that I don’t believe that any one religion possesses the “fullness of Truth”.

I refer you principle #4 of the Unitarian Church: Each person is encouraged to “A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” If their path leads them elsewhere, I will bid them well wishes on their journey.

May I ask what you think of the fact that Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth?

I also wonder how you would respond to someone who walks through your doors in search of the truth. Do you just tell them “Its every man for himself”? “No one is sure what the truth is”?

 

[PRmerger]

I wasn’t attempting to make jibes or assumptions about anyone’s faith or good will, which is what I was referring to, so perhaps a misunderstanding again, as in others not being clear what I was referring to.

And neither was I attempting to make jibes or assumptions about anyone’s faith or goodwill.

So with all that cleared up.

I have not created a false god that agrees with everything I do. Meaning I don’t fall into that particular rhetorical “you”.

Is there something in your church, then, to which you can say, “I personally do not believe in [A] (or the corollary: I believe that [A] is perfectly fine). If I were going to create a church I would say that [A] is fine/wrong. But since my church says [A] is fine/wrong, I submit to this church and say [A] is fine/wrong.”

Can you give an example of this, in case I should, in the future, have some assumptions about you that can be proven false now?

 

[cheese_sdc]

I read back through our conversation and have no idea what you are asking. Can you be more specific? Thanks.

I’m lost as well. I thought I was answering your question. lol No worries.

May I ask what you think of the fact that Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth?

I don’t believe that Jesus was divine, nor do I believe in the Holy spirit. So…

I also wonder how you would respond to someone who walks through your doors in search of the truth. Do you just tell them “Its every man for himself”? “No one is sure what the truth is”?

I probably would start where all discussions start - with the question “Define Truth”.

 

[Publisher]

Of course it is the one who is insulted who is judge of it. How could you be a judge if another is offended?

I accept your apology. It surprises me that you wouldn’t know comparing our Eucharist which is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus to eating at a McDonald’s would be insulting. A simple I don’t believe that it is anymore sacramental than any other meal would have gotten your point across. Although such a view is shocking considering that Jesus commanded that it should be done. Of course, He also commanded baptism but this is about Unitarian’s sorry to the OP for interrupting.

I was not comparing your sacrament to mcdonalds I was stating my understanding a Quaker under standing of my beliefs about the efficacy of ALL sacraments as conferring Gods grace. It is through the Finished Work of Jesus Christ that I can claim anything but His Righteousness as my own. It is a product of faith in Him and Him alone, not in the " washing of our bodies" but of our spirits…born anew…new creations in Him…each of us a new beginning, which is renewed in faith each day…not through rituals and rites. That is of the 9ld Law. He alone is a Priest for His People. He alone was worthy to even hold the book. Worthy is the Lamb that was Slain.

It was not about your beliefs friend, but mine.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m lost as well. I thought I was answering your question. lol No worries.

Okay.

I don’t believe that Jesus was divine, nor do I believe in the Holy spirit. So…

What do you believe?

I probably would start where all discussions start - with the question “Define Truth”.

Pilate asked this question right before he condemned Jesus.

Jesus said “I am the way, the TRUTH and the Life.” I believe him.

 

[adrift]

I was not comparing your sacrament to mcdonalds I was stating my understanding a Quaker under standing of my beliefs about the efficacy of ALL sacraments as conferring Gods grace. It is through the Finished Work of Jesus Christ that I can claim anything but His Righteousness as my own. It is a product of faith in Him and Him alone, not in the " washing of our bodies" but of our spirits…born anew…new creations in Him…each of us a new beginning, which is renewed in faith each day…not through rituals and rites. That is of the 9ld Law. He alone is a Priest for His People. He alone was worthy to even hold the book. Worthy is the Lamb that was Slain.

It was not about your beliefs friend, but mine.

Your beliefs are interesting and I am glad you took the time to explain. We all sometimes get foot in mouth disease and say (write) in a muddle way. You may not have intended to compare the Sacrament to McDonald’s but it is the way it came out to a few of us. Again thank you for the explanation it is difficult to convey things in writing that is so devoid of tone even with icons.

 

[PRmerger]

Ahh I must have misundernstood. Water baptism is of no assistance whatsoever to our salvation? Whew! That’s a load off my mind.

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Publisher.

I rarely use it.

And of course partaking the blessed sacrament in no way brings one closer to God than eating at McDonalda? While my choice of food establishments could improve…is that what you are saying by stating in misunderstand saramental theology?

You are getting close to being contemptuous of Catholicism, Publisher.

It is unbecoming of a Friend, from what I understand of your theology (despite one’s protest that one has no need for doctrines, when it comes down to it, all religions do) to disparage another’s beliefs and mock something that is regarded as most holy and sacred.

 

[PRmerger]

You are confusing. You want me to believe that you are posting about other posts of mine than the one you referred to.

Well, yeah. That’s what “any” means, right?

*Any *of your posts that are not consonant with the CC I grieve over, frobert.

 

[PRmerger]

I was stating my understanding a Quaker under standing of my beliefs about the efficacy of ALL sacraments as conferring Gods grace. It is through the Finished Work of Jesus Christ that I can claim anything but His Righteousness as my own. It is a product of faith in Him and Him alone, not in the " washing of our bodies" but of our spirits…born anew…new creations in Him…each of us a new beginning, which is renewed in faith each day…not through rituals and rites. That is of the 9ld Law. He alone is a Priest for His People. He alone was worthy to even hold the book. Worthy is the Lamb that was Slain.

The above is very Catholic of you to say.

 

[Publisher]

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Publisher.

I rarely use it.

You are getting close to being contemptuous of Catholicism, Publisher.

It is unbecoming of a Friend, from what I understand of your theology (despite one’s protest that one has no need for doctrines, when it comes down to it, all religions do) to disparage another’s beliefs and mock something that is regarded as most holy and sacred.

Again you mischaracterize my beliefs. No where have I stated that there is no need for doctrines . Nor do I believe you will find such a statement of any official Yearly Meeting or quarterly Meeting. And again I sought not to disparage another’s beliefs , but to explain mine as to me you seemed having difficulty understanding Quaker beliefs concerning the efficacy of rituals gestures and certabn words. It is the answer you didn’t llike or more to it to the friend who did understand, I could have more sensitive , but it appeared to me the concepts I was trying to coney were somehow not being understood using a more gentle language…it appears I was successful to an extent but instead of focus on what I was seeking to covey, my “insult” now became the focus. However my thanks to the friend who did understand. Perhaps her/his elegance in writing would be more to your taste.

As the other friend , you know where the report button is. Uses it friend at your discretion. which of course is or would not be surprising.

Good day friend

 

[cheese_sdc]

What do you believe?

I’m still working it out. I used to have lots of answers. As I get older, I find that I have fewer answers, more grey areas, and much less certainty.

If someone presses me for an answer, I’d have to say that “I believe in Reality, and I’m still trying to figure out what’s Real.”

Pilate asked this question right before he condemned Jesus.

He did. And it is a question that everyone must face. It sounds like we both have faced it.

Jesus said “I am the way, the TRUTH and the Life.” I believe him.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread pruned
Return to the OP topic