Unitarians on sin

[simpleas]

Talking love without striving for holiness is a deceit. It says in 1 Peter 1:16, “Be holy because I am holy.” It is not that the Catholics like to emphasize sin. It is that sin and holiness are opposite to each other; sin opposes love. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy (sin), it does not boast (sin), it is not proud(sin). It does not dishonor others (sin), it is not self-seeking (sin), it is not easily angered (sin), it keeps no record of wrongs (holding grudges, sin). Love does not delight in evil (sin) but rejoices with truth. When we talk about love, we could not ignore sin.

You seem to have emphasized sin very well here…

 

[InLight247]

You seem to have emphasized sin very well here…

By putting (sin) in the verses may look like emphasizing it, but actually I was just trying to make a “perspective”.

 

[simpleas]

Have you ever watched the movie “Oh brother, where art thou?”. In the movie, there is a character whose Christianity is definitely focused on correcting others. Empathy, unfortunately, and awareness, and definitely forgiveness are not part of this character’s spirituality. The movie is my all-time favorite, and it is for many of us who have experienced the Christianity of “finger-pointing”. I think the movie will go down in history as an icon of Americana. It is that good.

Sex outside of a life commitment is an error. Why doesn’t she get married? She may have a child, regardless of the birth control. Is her boyfriend willing to raise a child with her? If not, why would she rather raise a child without a Dad? Chances are, there is going to be at some point an irrational response (i.e. "everyone else is doing it, times have changed). But are these questions are being asked from a position of “What you are doing is wrong.” or from the position of “I am concerned for your wellbeing and happiness, is what you are doing making sense?”?. The first voice is of the compulsion to condemn what we see as wrongdoing, the conscience. The second voice is that of compassion and empathy. Be willing to accept the answer to “is what you are doing making sense?”. Moralizing goes nowhere unless someone buys into the authority. An appeal to reason goes straight to the conscience. Be open to the idea that some people have been brought up in the shadow of some extremely dysfunctional marriages.

My response is “everyone finds helpful some guidance in their own moral development”. I would grant that the challenge is valid for those who do not eventually find the freedom to think for themselves. Why do people fail to break free from the “control system”? Fear, I think. Some people say fear is the opposite of faith, but I think fear can play a role earlier in our development. Love, the development of empathy and growing in awareness of the presence of God in everyone, casts out all fear.

It sounds like God, as you know Him, gets offended. Makes sense. We all get offended sometimes. But we all, with the help of Abba, hopefully get over the offense and forgive, and the process is enhanced by really understanding the standpoint of the person who offended us. Does God, being omniscient, have to go through the same process of getting over offenses? To me, God knows that we are going to sin, and God knows when we are going to sin. If we know what is coming, do we take offense? God knew what was coming when He created us, and did so anyway.

Perhaps all the offense-taking was done well before He created any human. The rest is, well, living with His decision, which I perceive was a good one.

No I haven’t seen that film.

My friend has had a few short and long term relationships, maybe she hasn’t met the right person. I don’t really ask personal questions as I respect peoples privacy.
Times have changed is one that many people will say about how people choose to live now. Women aren’t thought of as mother/wife to a family only, they can choose to have a career, have relationships or remain single.
On a blog recently they touched on the idea that after ww2, when women were more involved as their help was needed in the preparation of war, after it was over, women and some men didn’t want to go back to the idea of marriage and family life, there was much of the world to be seen and to do in it. And after a war who could blame them.
So society changed from a family idea to more of an individual idea.

So when we are young we are controlled to believe in a certain way. I’m not saying this is wrong, just that there is always control to some degree. We have to have boundries etc, but I sometimes think why do I need someone to tell me how I should believe in God.

Yes well, i’m not sure if I offend God. I have been brought up to believe thats what I do when I sin…
God we are told never wanted us to hurt or hate each other, yet he allowed sin/freewill and thats what the human race does, it hates and destroys itself…

Yet there is much love and kindness too!

 

[simpleas]

Is a belief a control system? Before answering that, we must know the meaning of freedom.

Does freedom mean everyone can do whatever he wants? We know that’s not so; otherwise the world will be a total chaos. That’s why there are laws, regulations, and rules to follow. Would you say people live in a country with reasonable laws have no freedom?

Freedom is not without boundary. Proper boundary is for everyone’s protection. True freedom does not mean everyone can do whatever he likes, but everyone does the right thing without trespassing. That’s the way of a civilized society. Without boundary, no one has true freedom.

It is the same way for our belief system. The moral teachings of the Church help us to form proper conscience so everyone may follow God’s commandments and our community may have true freedom.

One of the best things of the Catholic Church is her teaching authority. This authority is from God. Following God’s commandments is not being controlled; it brings blessing and gives us true freedom.

Thanks.
Maybe its more, is our religion controlling. Faith is different from religion isn’t it. Someone can have faith in God, they can’t see him, but they know he is always there. Religion is a practise that is done over and over, but to lead a person to faith?

The unitarians aren’t a religion I don’t think, but like our church they welcome all, but don’t lead a person into thinking any one way about how they should think of the creator and what they need to do to earn salvation.
Maybe thats what is so attractive to some people as then they feel they have the freedom to make up their own mind about who God is for them…

 

[simpleas]

By putting (sin) in the verses may look like emphasizing it, but actually I was just trying to make a “perspective”.

Cool

 

[OneSheep]

So when we are young we are controlled to believe in a certain way. I’m not saying this is wrong, just that there is always control to some degree. We have to have boundries etc, but I sometimes think why do I need someone to tell me how I should believe in God.

That is called maturity. You are forming an image of God through your own relationship.

Yes well, i’m not sure if I offend God. I have been brought up to believe thats what I do when I sin…
God we are told never wanted us to hurt or hate each other, yet he allowed sin/freewill and thats what the human race does, it hates and destroys itself…

Yet there is much love and kindness too!

We are becoming increasingly aware, and with awareness we overcome our hate and and grow in empathy, and with growth in empathy we avoid hurting one another. Evidence: Civil Rights, growing acceptance of mixed marriages and growing relationships between people of all faiths.

 

[SinnersAnonymus]

Doesn’t sound like the Unitarians believe in much at all, really.

They sound, frankly, like a social club of some sort.

This is exactly it. I know a few from the Unitarians from the church near us. They are nice people but in the end they do not stand for anything while trying to stand for everything.

There is no mystical body to which they belong. It is just a feel good social club. No miracles, no mysteries, no real mystical union with God. It is a gathering of people to pat one another on the back for not believing in objective truth.

Again, they are really nice people. The ones I know are mostly fallen Christians or atheists seeking something to offer their children or belong to for community. But ultimately they have no Padre Pio’s to show their lukewarm ideals have a substantial connection to truth.

God Bless

 

[simpleas]

That is called maturity. You are forming an image of God through your own relationship.

We are becoming increasingly aware, and with awareness we overcome our hate and and grow in empathy, and with growth in empathy we avoid hurting one another. Evidence: Civil Rights, growing acceptance of mixed marriages and growing relationships between people of all faiths.

They say the greatest is Love.

I’m starting to think its Empathy.

Love can mean many different things, Empathy is being able to understand anothers situation/feelings…then forming a love of them regardless of their faults?

 

[OneSheep]

They say the greatest is Love.

I’m starting to think its Empathy.

Love can mean many different things, Empathy is being able to understand anothers situation/feelings…then forming a love of them regardless of their faults?

It’s all tied together, I think.

One main difference is that empathy is part of our nature. I think that we (with God’s help) can develop it, but it does come naturally too. Faith, Hope and Love are choices. Empathy comes naturally, I think, and can be extended to all (even those we despise) when we choose to love those we hold something against.

Empathy is a gift of our nature, but there is evidence (in studies of psychopathy) that some rare souls do not have the ability in their wiring. These people are not able to read cues that their actions cause pain to others, and of course do not have the ability to relate to those they find threatening or loathsome in any way. To me, that is one reason why it is so important to uphold the law. For those of us adults who have not developed the compassion and empathy to behave in loving ways regardless of rules, hopefully the law, and the threat of consequence, keeps those with compromised ability to empathize in order. Those of us who need the threat of hell in order to behave compassionately will be among greatest defenders of some concept of never-ending punishment, and how could anyone in their right mind argue against such defense?

On the other hand, the price of the “threat” is that notion that God only loves conditionally, which goes back to compromising our ability to empathize. It is a very real catch-22. “If God withholds forgiveness in certain conditions, then I certainly can do the same.” The person with such a mindset may never even attempt to understand the actions of others.

I still hope that even psychopaths can develop empathy. People can lose the ability to empathize after certain brain injuries. What is undone, perhaps, can be renewed, and what was essentially never there, perhaps, can be created.

 

[simpleas]

It’s all tied together, I think.

One main difference is that empathy is part of our nature. I think that we (with God’s help) can develop it, but it does come naturally too. Faith, Hope and Love are choices. Empathy comes naturally, I think, and can be extended to all (even those we despise) when we choose to love those we hold something against.

Empathy is a gift of our nature, but there is evidence (in studies of psychopathy) that some rare souls do not have the ability in their wiring. These people are not able to read cues that their actions cause pain to others, and of course do not have the ability to relate to those they find threatening or loathsome in any way. To me, that is one reason why it is so important to uphold the law. For those of us adults who have not developed the compassion and empathy to behave in loving ways regardless of rules, hopefully the law, and the threat of consequence, keeps those with compromised ability to empathize in order. Those of us who need the threat of hell in order to behave compassionately will be among greatest defenders of some concept of never-ending punishment, and how could anyone in their right mind argue against such defense?

On the other hand, the price of the “threat” is that notion that God only loves conditionally, which goes back to compromising our ability to empathize. It is a very real catch-22. “If God withholds forgiveness in certain conditions, then I certainly can do the same.” The person with such a mindset may never even attempt to understand the actions of others.

I still hope that even psychopaths can develop empathy. People can lose the ability to empathize after certain brain injuries. What is undone, perhaps, can be renewed, and what was essentially never there, perhaps, can be created.

Thanks.
Yeah it seems most of us can empathise and some can’t. What I’m trying to understand is people like you said that don’t have that wiring, are they on the same level as us that do have the empathy wires?
By level I mean sin being the same for us all. 2,000 years ago people with metal disorders were seen as posessed, and it seems some christians don’t believe people have a medical mental disorder, that only Bi-polar can be scientifically proven. So they basicially say that a mental disorder is a sin - disorder-is sin. Which can be turned around by counciling etc and to a point I might agree.

Is all down to choice? Can a person knowingly choose to have a metal disorder or not, bit like depression, years ago we would say just get on with things…now we reconise depression as medical condition and try to help people through it.

For people who are brought up in abusive families, there is different degrees of abuse, the child that knows only fear and pain can become someone who then acts the same with others as they mature, and then commit murder.
Another situation, a child experiences the same, but doesn’t grow up and repeat the same to others because they can see what fear and pain they would inflict upon another.
I wonder a some point in our development of our conscience do we make a decision that enables us to empathise or not? Maybe unconsciously?

I found a link that suggests that people with mental disorders have a on and off switch.
Pretty interesting.

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23431793

 

[vames]

Maybe its more, is our religion controlling. Faith is different from religion isn’t it. Someone can have faith in God, they can’t see him, but they know he is always there. Religion is a practise that is done over and over, but to lead a person to faith?

The unitarians aren’t a religion I don’t think, but like our church they welcome all, but don’t lead a person into thinking any one way about how they should think of the creator and what they need to do to earn salvation.
Maybe thats what is so attractive to some people as then they feel they have the freedom to make up their own mind about who God is for them…

I think it’s useful to remember what you said in the OS thread (Dec 8-10), because I guess this is the essence of your question:
“The Ten commandments seem pretty clear cut to me, yet the church seems to impose other things in with them, making it even harder…not that i’m saying we should have it easy…but that fear factor and control of the masses pops into my head.”

IMO when the Church defines a rule and says “even if you do that one time, you are doomed”, she always uses a preemptive approach: “if X is allowed once/partially/in exceptional circumstances, then people would end up by using X on a regular basis” or “if X is allowed, then people would end up by doing Y as a logical consequence”, so it’s better to prevent than to cure, so to speak, by instituting rules with no exceptions, because the basic assumption is that people are more or less like children - they can’t contain themselves and can’t resist to temptations.

This assumption was particularly obvious when the Church used to forbid people, under the pain of mortal sin, to read certain books or to attend non-Catholic religious ceremonies or when she said that newborn children should be baptized as soon as possible, because the souls of the unbaptized infants can’t attain heaven. Even today you’ll see people quite disoriented and even angered by the idea that the unbaptized and the non-Catholics can be saved, because they think: if a pagan or an atheist can be saved, why must I bother to submit to each and every rule of the Church and strive to be a good Catholic?

Examples of preemptive thinking. One can say: “what’s so bad if we use a condom only sometimes, since our marital life as a whole is unitive and open to life and we don’t think about our marriage as a succession of isolated, mechanical marital acts?”, while the Church says that each and every marital act should follow the same rules, with no exceptions, because if using condoms is allowed sometimes, the assumption is that people will end up by using them on a regular basis and then will add other means of contraception etc. I understood this 100% preemptive approach when I saw the comments on a thread about masturbation for providing semen samples for various medical diagnoses. I had no idea that the Church forbids this method and requires men to have intercourse with their wives using perforated condoms to obtain semen. Some objected and said: but in this case, masturbation isn’t for pleasure, it’s for a medical purpose! and then someone said: yes, but if a man does this once, he may discover that it’s pleasant and he may be tempted to repeat the experience in a non-medical context.

That’s why the bar is placed so high, as you said on the other thread. The Church says: even if you can’t understand (yet) a certain teaching, you must obey it, because the Church knows better, so the meaning of “informed conscience” is this: a conscience that knows and accepts every teaching of the Church. But what happens when rules change? There is the well-known question: what happened to the souls of thouse who did eat meat on Fridays when the Church said that eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin? An answer is that “mortal sin is committed not so much in regards of breaking a commandment or regulation, but by the motivation of the heart” (see here).

 

[simpleas]

I think it’s useful to remember what you said in the OS thread (Dec 8-10), because I guess this is the essence of your question:
“The Ten commandments seem pretty clear cut to me, yet the church seems to impose other things in with them, making it even harder…not that i’m saying we should have it easy…but that fear factor and control of the masses pops into my head.”

IMO when the Church defines a rule and says “even if you do that one time, you are doomed”, she always uses a preemptive approach: “if X is allowed once/partially/in exceptional circumstances, then people would end up by using X on a regular basis” or “if X is allowed, then people would end up by doing Y as a logical consequence”, so it’s better to prevent than to cure, so to speak, by instituting rules with no exceptions, because the basic assumption is that people are more or less like children - they can’t contain themselves and can’t resist to temptations.

This assumption was particularly obvious when the Church used to forbid people, under the pain of mortal sin, to read certain books or to attend non-Catholic religious ceremonies or when she said that newborn children should be baptized as soon as possible, because the souls of the unbaptized infants can’t attain heaven. Even today you’ll see people quite disoriented and even angered by the idea that the unbaptized and the non-Catholics can be saved, because they think: if a pagan or an atheist can be saved, why must I bother to submit to each and every rule of the Church and strive to be a good Catholic?

Examples of preemptive thinking. One can say: “what’s so bad if we use a condom only sometimes, since our marital life as a whole is unitive and open to life and we don’t think about our marriage as a succession of isolated, mechanical marital acts?”, while the Church says that each and every marital act should follow the same rules, with no exceptions, because if using condoms is allowed sometimes, the assumption is that people will end up by using them on a regular basis and then will add other means of contraception etc. I understood this 100% preemptive approach when I saw the comments on a thread about masturbation for providing semen samples for various medical diagnoses. I had no idea that the Church forbids this method and requires men to have intercourse with their wives using perforated condoms to obtain semen. Some objected and said: but in this case, masturbation isn’t for pleasure, it’s for a medical purpose! and then someone said: yes, but if a man does this once, he may discover that it’s pleasant and he may be tempted to repeat the experience in a non-medical context.

That’s why the bar is placed so high, as you said on the other thread. The Church says: even if you can’t understand (yet) a certain teaching, you must obey it, because the Church knows better, so the meaning of “informed conscience” is this: a conscience that knows and accepts every teaching of the Church. But what happens when rules change? There is the well-known question: what happened to the souls of thouse who did eat meat on Fridays when the Church said that eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin? An answer is that “mortal sin is committed not so much in regards of breaking a commandment or regulation, but by the motivation of the heart” (see here).

Thanks Vames,
The link to mortal sin question was very helpful to me. Although I’m just remembering when I asked my priest how I could relate to a certain sin being mortal (as I wasn’t aware I was separating myself from God or even sinning for that matter) he told me to pray for the grace to accept it.
He also reminds us about eating meat on fridays! (i’m a veggie, but I still observe it by giving up something else i’d usually eat). But many people don’t see mortal sin now as they once did.
I don’t see how the church can say that we only use the Ten commandments as a map when Jesus said to keep his commandments. He didn’t say and then add on other restrictions to cause mental and physical suffering…

The informed conscience is difficult, like you say, if you know and accept the churches rules you have the correct informed conscience.
If priests are or are not teaching some things that we need to observe how then can we ever achieve an informed conscience anyway.

 

[vames]

Thanks Vames,
The link to mortal sin question was very helpful to me. Although I’m just remembering when I asked my priest how I could relate to a certain sin being mortal (as I wasn’t aware I was separating myself from God or even sinning for that matter) he told me to pray for the grace to accept it.

I get very well what you’re saying. Many have the same problem: if Jesus didn’t say this or that, why are we required to do or not to do certain things? To which the answer of the Church is that she has the right to “bind and loose”, because only priests (not the laity) are successors of the apostles who were told by Jesus “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (John 20), so the Magisterium (pope + bishops) is free to define, redefine and change the rules regarding sins and punishments without being questioned.

That’s why, for example, we don’t have only the Ten Commandments, but also the current Five Commandments of the Church (CCC 2041-43; for a historical perspective, see here). That’s why the gravity of various sins and the penances prescribed did vary throughout history (an example here). Also, that’s why the approach of the Church towards sin and punishment did change, in that today she doesn’t issue anathemas anymore and doesn’t command laypeople to avoid any contact with the excommunicated persons once deemed “vitandi” (to be shunned).

Some say that nowadays the Church doesn’t insist so much on inflicting guilt and imposing burdensome punishments because of political correctness or because she lacks the secular (enforcing) power that she once had. Maybe. But IMO she realizes better the importance of God’s mercy, as shown by Jesus in His behavior towards sinners that were treated very badly by the Jewish clergy and laity, and the fact that no man should try to punish people in the name of God: today’s penances are symbolic and encourage personal responsibility and free, sincere repentance of the heart, instead of encouraging bare fear by public humiliations or even “putting sinners to death”, as the laws before Jesus demanded and as it happened in some cases in the history of the Church.

 

[simpleas]

I get very well what you’re saying. Many have the same problem: if Jesus didn’t say this or that, why are we required to do or not to do certain things? To which the answer of the Church is that she has the right to “bind and loose”, because only priests (not the laity) are successors of the apostles who were told by Jesus “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (John 20), so the Magisterium (pope + bishops) is free to define, redefine and change the rules regarding sins and punishments without being questioned.

That’s why, for example, we don’t have only the Ten Commandments, but also the current Five Commandments of the Church (CCC 2041-43; for a historical perspective, see here). That’s why the gravity of various sins and the penances prescribed did vary throughout history (an example here). Also, that’s why the approach of the Church towards sin and punishment did change, in that today she doesn’t issue anathemas anymore and doesn’t command laypeople to avoid any contact with the excommunicated persons once deemed “vitandi” (to be shunned).

Some say that nowadays the Church doesn’t insist so much on inflicting guilt and imposing burdensome punishments because of political correctness or because she lacks the secular (enforcing) power that she once had. Maybe. But IMO she realizes better the importance of God’s mercy, as shown by Jesus in His behavior towards sinners that were treated very badly by the Jewish clergy and laity, and the fact that no man should try to punish people in the name of God: today’s penances are symbolic and encourage personal responsibility and free, sincere repentance of the heart, instead of encouraging bare fear by public humiliations or even “putting sinners to death”, as the laws before Jesus demanded and as it happened in some cases in the history of the Church.

Thanks.
See I like to think that Jesus was saying “who’s sin’s you retain they are retained” as a warning not an authoritative command. Because he wanted forgiveness always, so why retain anyones sin…I’m probably wrong!
Yeah I know the precepts, we are an organised religion after all! Unlike the unitarians!

I had heard from a blog about a confession card, the poster was referring to the fact that a women had to confess if she hadn’t seen to her husbands martial rights! Can you imagine that now? lol… not sure if a man had something similar on his card though!
And that chart on the link…i was thinking its got to be a joke…but somehow I do believe it.

Seriously though, this is what I’m coming to learn and slowly understand that the church does in fact change, how could it not? It has to evolve when people and society change, not in the extreme, but when we progress in an understanding of ourselves as humans.

 

[vames]

Yeah I know the precepts, we are an organised religion after all! Unlike the unitarians!

LOL this is interesting to explore. I guess that at the beginning, in 16th century Central Europe, they were pretty organized, only that the power didn’t belong to the hierarchy, but to the community (see here). Each community had the right to keep or revoke its pastor/preacher, without being forced by any authority, and the authorities didn’t have the right to threaten or punish anyone for their beliefs. This principle was officially recognized in 1568 and it must have been very, very ahead of its time, since this unusual freedom was quite short-lived and was suppressed only a few years later.

This emphasis on freedom was a clear reaction against the rigidity and clericalism of the Catholicism of their time, but also of the first Reformers. If these religions saw the man as a childish and weak creature, born corrupted, unworthy to be trusted and educable only by the preemptive method (post #31), these first Unitarians had a very high idea about man, seen as a noble creature who was created good, with the capacity of becoming perfect and who deserves to live in freedom of conscience, following Jesus’ principle “Seek and you will find, knock and it the doors will open to you”, because faith is a gift from God.

The Hungarian Unitarians have a kind of catechism/booklet called “Unitárius Ösvény” (The Unitarian Way), who says this:

1. Is the man sinful?

• No, each child is born clean, with the possibility of growing up in goodness.

1. Then what is the original sin?

• An attempt of people from that time to explain the origin of evil and of other phenomena related to existence.

1. Who is man?

• The child of matter and spirit, bearer of a divine soul, collaborator of God.

1. Why do we sin?

• In the lengthy and difficult process of growing up, every child makes mistakes.

1. Can man/priest absolve us of sins?

• Only those whom we sin against can forgive our mistakes.

1. How do we know that God forgave us?

• By the fact that we don’t sin anymore.

1. What is our responsibility?

• We are responsible for our life, the neighbor’s life and the world’s life.

Seriously though, this is what I’m coming to learn and slowly understand that the church does in fact change, how could it not? It has to evolve when people and society change, not in the extreme, but when we progress in an understanding of ourselves as humans.

Exactly

 

[OneSheep]

I get very well what you’re saying. Many have the same problem: if Jesus didn’t say this or that, why are we required to do or not to do certain things? To which the answer of the Church is that she has the right to “bind and loose”, because only priests (not the laity) are successors of the apostles who were told by Jesus “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (John 20), so the Magisterium (pope + bishops) is free to define, redefine and change the rules regarding sins and punishments without being questioned.

That’s why, for example, we don’t have only the Ten Commandments, but also the current Five Commandments of the Church (CCC 2041-43; for a historical perspective, see here). That’s why the gravity of various sins and the penances prescribed did vary throughout history (an example here). Also, that’s why the approach of the Church towards sin and punishment did change, in that today she doesn’t issue anathemas anymore and doesn’t command laypeople to avoid any contact with the excommunicated persons once deemed “vitandi” (to be shunned).

Some say that nowadays the Church doesn’t insist so much on inflicting guilt and imposing burdensome punishments because of political correctness or because she lacks the secular (enforcing) power that she once had. Maybe. But IMO she realizes better the importance of God’s mercy, as shown by Jesus in His behavior towards sinners that were treated very badly by the Jewish clergy and laity, and the fact that no man should try to punish people in the name of God: today’s penances are symbolic and encourage personal responsibility and free, sincere repentance of the heart, instead of encouraging bare fear by public humiliations or even “putting sinners to death”, as the laws before Jesus demanded and as it happened in some cases in the history of the Church.

The links are an eye-opener, Vames.

Perhaps John Locke and the formation of the U.S of A did more for Church reform than the Church is willing to admit. Once the authoritarian oppression is removed, what is left? Jesus’ love. However, I am not looking at authoritarianism as unloving. The intent behind all of those laws and precepts was to protect people, to protect the flock. Institutions, whether private or public, turn to such measures because the most basic needs are those of safety, and we can certainly look at the mayhem in Africa and elsewhere to see where such needs are not being met. Sure, it is ridiculous to compare what is going on in Africa with what people do in their bedrooms, but the basic need (safety) is still there, it is perception that focuses which needs are to be addressed. Societies have a constant trade-off going on with needs for Safety vs. Freedom.

I looked and found that the “vitandus” designation was no longer part of canon law in a 1983 update. Yes, the Church takes a plodding path of learning how to love and forgive.

I remember as a teenager that there were changes in the mass, and I reacted negatively. If the Church can change, then faith is unstable, Church is unstable, there is nothing truly sacred and timeless. However, I was a product of my upbringing. Faith was about going to Church. God was about the God one encountered in Church. Of course, then, any change at all in the missal was catastrophic.

 

[simpleas]

LOL this is interesting to explore. I guess that at the beginning, in 16th century Central Europe, they were pretty organized, only that the power didn’t belong to the hierarchy, but to the community (see here). Each community had the right to keep or revoke its pastor/preacher, without being forced by any authority, and the authorities didn’t have the right to threaten or punish anyone for their beliefs. This principle was officially recognized in 1568 and it must have been very, very ahead of its time, since this unusual freedom was quite short-lived and was suppressed only a few years later.

This emphasis on freedom was a clear reaction against the rigidity and clericalism of the Catholicism of their time, but also of the first Reformers. If these religions saw the man as a childish and weak creature, born corrupted, unworthy to be trusted and educable only by the preemptive method (post #31), these first Unitarians had a very high idea about man, seen as a noble creature who was created good, with the capacity of becoming perfect and who deserves to live in freedom of conscience, following Jesus’ principle “Seek and you will find, knock and it the doors will open to you”, because faith is a gift from God.

The Hungarian Unitarians have a kind of catechism/booklet called “Unitárius Ösvény” (The Unitarian Way), who says this:

1. Is the man sinful?

• No, each child is born clean, with the possibility of growing up in goodness.

1. Then what is the original sin?

• An attempt of people from that time to explain the origin of evil and of other phenomena related to existence.

1. Who is man?

• The child of matter and spirit, bearer of a divine soul, collaborator of God.

1. Why do we sin?

• In the lengthy and difficult process of growing up, every child makes mistakes.

1. Can man/priest absolve us of sins?

• Only those whom we sin against can forgive our mistakes.

1. How do we know that God forgave us?

• By the fact that we don’t sin anymore.

1. What is our responsibility?

• We are responsible for our life, the neighbor’s life and the world’s life.

Exactly

The unitarians then sound like just free spirited people. Although I wonder how the pastor helps them find God when each person believes differently from each other.

Not sure how they answer no. 6 when they don’t really believe in sin or like to mention it.
Don’t sin anymore? They must be more spiritual than anyone!

“Seek and you will find, knock and it the doors will open to you”, because faith is a gift from God.

Indeed

 

[simpleas]

The links are an eye-opener, Vames.

Perhaps John Locke and the formation of the U.S of A did more for Church reform than the Church is willing to admit. Once the authoritarian oppression is removed, what is left? Jesus’ love. However, I am not looking at authoritarianism as unloving. The intent behind all of those laws and precepts was to protect people, to protect the flock. Institutions, whether private or public, turn to such measures because the most basic needs are those of safety, and we can certainly look at the mayhem in Africa and elsewhere to see where such needs are not being met. Sure, it is ridiculous to compare what is going on in Africa with what people do in their bedrooms, but the basic need (safety) is still there, it is perception that focuses which needs are to be addressed. Societies have a constant trade-off going on with needs for Safety vs. Freedom.

I looked and found that the “vitandus” designation was no longer part of canon law in a 1983 update. Yes, the Church takes a plodding path of learning how to love and forgive.

I remember as a teenager that there were changes in the mass, and I reacted negatively. If the Church can change, then faith is unstable, Church is unstable, there is nothing truly sacred and timeless. However, I was a product of my upbringing. Faith was about going to Church. God was about the God one encountered in Church. Of course, then, any change at all in the missal was catastrophic.

Hey OneSheep!

Was post 30 interesting? I was looking forward to your reply?

I agree with you to a point about authoritarianism not being unloving, but some of the leaders in times gone seem to have been over the top in how they treated people and told them how to live their lives for God. Most I think did it out of love, geninue love, others because they had that control, and saw people as less worthy than them.
Of course I was not there, but I’ve read how some children were treated by the church.
Also, I’m slowly accepting that some rules were for that time, because that is how they could relate to why humans did things, also people were afraid to question authority.

 

[vames]

The unitarians then sound like just free spirited people. Although I wonder how the pastor helps them find God when each person believes differently from each other.

I guess that in practice their beliefs were not that different (after all, they had the Bible as the base of their faith and their set of basic principles - believe in one God, follow Jesus, receive the Holy Spirit) and the insistence on freedom of belief was directed against the tendency of the state to impose a single official religion and to persecute the others. Plus, the diversity of faiths in that area at that time was very limited. In post #2 there was the question: so Satanism, Nazism, Charles Mansonism are equally welcomed? But by 1560, most people were believers - Catholics or Lutherans - and nobody thought about a society with thousands of denominations, atheists, pagans etc. As for the Unitarians of today, I don’t know anything about the adepts from UK and US, but I know that for the Hungarians from Hungary and Romania, sticking to this religion is a way to preserve their historical and ethnic identity - so, again, I don’t think there are major differences of beliefs amongst them.

About “By the fact that we don’t sin anymore”, I chuckled too Perhaps to sin is simply to do harm to others, and if their faith in the power of God to enlighten the conscience and to help man learn from mistakes is so strong, then the emphasis on sin logically disappears, because the focus is on the potential of man, not on his past or present bad behaviors. At least this is what I understood from reading their short catechism.

 

[vames]

However, I am not looking at authoritarianism as unloving. The intent behind all of those laws and precepts was to protect people, to protect the flock.

Hi, OneSheep

At the root of authoritarianism we can surely find the good intention - to preserve people from errors and bad behaviors and sometimes from wasting time to reinvent the wheel and to find the right way on their own: do as I tell you, even if you don’t understand why, because I want to spare you from costly mistakes. Especially when heresy was seen as a menace against the state, the flock had to be protected at all costs, and one thing lead to another, as we know.

On CAF there are countless threads where people seek above all safety: why didn’t the Church state a clear rule in this or that case? show me the official text where the Church rules that… how can the Church be infallible when rule X was changed etc. First I thought: what’s with all these questions, can’t anyone think for himself/herself? do they need the Church to have a rule for everything? Then I discovered some Traditionalist blogs and forums (where people are now officially terrified that Pope Francis = anarchy = anything goes = destruction of the Church) and I understood this deep need for safety.

I didn’t catch the changes of the mass (I grew up in the “Novus Ordo”), but I remember my shock when I discovered how they do the mass in Brazil. Previously I wasn’t conscious of my own need for safety regarding the form of the mass. But I continued to watch those masses online and to try to understand where these customs come from and what their style of worship means. Now I have a very soft spot for everything that has to do with them and I can’t tell you how grateful I am for their enlightening homilies, their uplifting songs and their great example of faith.