Unitarians?

[cheddarsox]

Gerry Hunter:

From your first message, emphasis added:

See the emphasized text.

Can you think of a gentle way for me to tell you that it doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, because it’s a matter of definition, and has been for two thousand years?

Blessings,

Gerry

No need to be gentle Gerry. A forum is a place to speak your mind. I am not a Christian or a Trinitarian, and I am not a member of UUA either, so how you or they define those terms is for the folks involved to hash out. So you are correct, it does NOT matter whether I agree.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

Carl:

CHEDDARSOX

There are many things we like about it, but it is a bit cerebral and sterile, and can fall into the trap of trying to be all things to all people.

I was a UU for about three years and finally bolted pretty much for the reasons listed above. I think it is more of an ethical society than a religion … convenient for giving children some kind of training in ethics, though the ethics has to be questionable since they tolerate just about everything but intolerance. Likewise, Unitarianism gives non-creedal types a place to meet, get high on some old time hymns, and socialize with tofu and herbal tea.

When so many atheists and agnostics belong to the fold, there has to be something sterile about a religion that worships Nogod or Anygod rather than Almighty God.

Sorry, but this is a sentiment shared by most ex-UU’s I do believe.

While I do attend a UU church, I am not a member or a champion of the denomination. I think the fact that in 5 yrs they haven’t convinced me they “got” it, speaks for itself.

Nowhere are the failings of an organization more clear than to those on the “inside” so to speak. I know why many people leave, I know why many times I have almost left myself.

I have made my congregation more of a home for myself by creating services and groups that provide the kinds of spiritual experiences I am hungry for. People there are spiritual, but in bending over backwards not to offend anyone, often little is actually accomplished in a group setting.

I do believe UUA has good things to offer its members and the world, personally, I am still seeking a community that can be more cohesive in its beliefs, because that provides a more effective opportunity for group worship. But I have gained from my UU experience, as I did from my being raised Catholic.

cheddar

 

[ahimsaman72]

cheddarsox:

While I do attend a UU church, I am not a member or a champion of the denomination. I think the fact that in 5 yrs they haven’t convinced me they “got” it, speaks for itself.

Nowhere are the failings of an organization more clear than to those on the “inside” so to speak. I know why many people leave, I know why many times I have almost left myself.

I have made my congregation more of a home for myself by creating services and groups that provide the kinds of spiritual experiences I am hungry for. People there are spiritual, but in bending over backwards not to offend anyone, often little is actually accomplished in a group setting.

I do believe UUA has good things to offer its members and the world, personally, I am still seeking a community that can be more cohesive in its beliefs, because that provides a more effective opportunity for group worship. But I have gained from my UU experience, as I did from my being raised Catholic.

cheddar

Hello cheddar -

My family and I have thought about going to UU services and seeing what it is like. Although raised Southern Baptist, I’ve become a closet universalist over the past year. But it seems there are more political and social reasons to be a member than religious reasons, though.

I guess if I want to go to a church service I want to hear a religious sermon and not a social or political sermon. Although a religious liberal - I am a political conservative. Maybe I’m just messed up in the head to begin with .

What have you found in your experience as you have been involved with them for some time? Do you find a real religious atmosphere?
I ask because I am curious and open to the possibilities.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Gerry Hunter:

Careful now.

If you are a Christian, you are a Trinitarian. There is no such thing as a “Unitarian Christian.” Cease to believe in the Trinity, and you cease to be a Christian, even if you hang on to the label.

Blessings,

Gerry

This is entirely a subjective view - you do realize that?? It is based on what evidence? A papal document? Your church teaching? Realize not all believe this and your view isn’t necessarily the truth.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

ahimsaman72:

This is entirely a subjective view - you do realize that?? It is based on what evidence? A papal document? Your church teaching? Realize not all believe this and your view isn’t necessarily the truth.

As a Catholic Christian I vehemently deny and utterly reject that assertion. Christianity is rooted in history. It is not a contrivance, or a human intellectual construct.

There is nothing subjective about the view, as two thousand years of history attests. Part and parcel of Christianity is the realization that truth is truth independent of who acknowledges it.

To those who say “truth is subjective,” the Catholic and Christian has a one word answer: NO!

It is no sin to genuinely be in error. It is no virtue to deny the existance of truth.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Contarini]

Lisa,

Since you obviously mean what you said, it can’t be a joke. If a Protestant said Catholics were heathen idolators, I don’t think you’d take it kindly even if they said they were joking. (As a matter of fact, fundamentalists are very fond of grim jokes and claim the same sort of privilege you do.) And if they turned out to be an ex-Catholic, that would hardly help matters, right?

I know the West Coast is a different world whatever church you belong to. I hear tales of West Coast Catholics as well. . . . Many conservative UMC’s would like to cut the Western Jurisdiction off altogether.

At any rate, the fact is that the UMC has standards of doctrine, and is in no way comparable to the UU.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[ahimsaman72]

Gerry Hunter:

As a Catholic Christian I vehemently deny and utterly reject that assertion. Christianity is rooted in history. It is not a contrivance, or a human intellectual construct.

There is nothing subjective about the view, as two thousand years of history attests. Part and parcel of Christianity is the realization that truth is truth independent of who acknowledges it.

To those who say “truth is subjective,” the Catholic and Christian has a one word answer: NO!

It is no sin to genuinely be in error. It is no virtue to deny the existance of truth.

Blessings,

Gerry

Hinduism is much older than Christianity and asserts the truth of its religion. Realization of truth comes upon all - the difference is people in their groups think their group has the truth. Why should I believe yours over someone elses based on history when there are religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism and Paganism which are older than Christianity? Do you see the problem?

 

[Kielbasi]

The Unitarian faith is quite liberal and political. If you want to know of their faith, maybe you can take a look at the Democratic party platform.

From what I seen, the Unitarian faith is a blend of vaguely defined cultural religion and liberal politics.

 

[Brain]

why dont you anger a unitarian?
hey wil burn a question mark in your lawn

why do you get when you cross a JW with a unitarian?
someone who knocks on your door but they dont know why

 

[chrisb]

ahimsaman72:

Hinduism is much older than Christianity and asserts the truth of its religion. Realization of truth comes upon all - the difference is people in their groups think their group has the truth. Why should I believe yours over someone elses based on history when there are religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism and Paganism which are older than Christianity? Do you see the problem?

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace ahimsaman,

I think Gerry Hunter was pointing out a fact which is difficult to avoid regarding the early doctrinal claims of Christians. These early doctrines serve to identify who and what a “Christian” was. Clearly the term “Christian” continues to be claimed by those who no longer claim these same doctrines but an argument can be made that the term then merely loses its value to identify anyone.

With regards to Hinduism, I guess, you can see a primary example there. The word Hinduism merely identifies a non-cohesive group who claim the Vedas as their divine scripture but those who have read the majority of the four Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita find metaphysics which are all over the map and in different states of evolution, from ancient Vedic Sacrificial Fire Worship to the more modern Philosophic Liberation Theology. Hinduism is not a cohesive religious identity in the same sense that Christianity is but a vast group who derive their religious practices from a vast history of divergent religious treaties. Sure you can argue that much of their general practices share similarities but not enough to allow any cohesiveness to argue it to be one faith.

So I guess before I continue I should ask, which of the five main branches of Hinduism are your practices derived and what are their primary religious texts?

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Maccabees]

Calvin used to burn Unitarians and of course witches.

So much for the catholic church being the only inquisition.

They used to be like the Arians but now they rarely use the Bible.
They throw in a lot of eastern religion wisdom sayings and social activism. You could be totally atheist and attend their meetings err church. The definition of God is what you make it.
IF you like social activism without involving God they are your church.

 

[cheddarsox]

ahimsaman72:

Hello cheddar -

What have you found in your experience as you have been involved with them for some time? Do you find a real religious atmosphere?
I ask because I am curious and open to the possibilities.

Peace…

Ahimsaman,

Because there is no creed, different UU congregations have very different flavors (or so I am told, this is the only one I have attended) So, I will answer your questions, but be aware that the church in your area may be very different.

A lot depends on the minister, we have had 3 (settled, interim and new settled) since I have been here. And they each have a different approach. Some of them had very religious sermons, others more general ethics, others more political.

There are some very religious people in the congregation, and I find a great deal of my spiritual nourishment by getting involved in the classes, spiritual groups, activities etc outside of Sun svc.

One of the gifts of this congregation is that is brings like minded people together, and we have made many of our friends there. It has provided much needed community and was a great aid in helping us settle inthis area.

cheddar

 

[ahimsaman72]

chrisb:

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace ahimsaman,

I think Gerry Hunter was pointing out a fact which is difficult to avoid regarding the early doctrinal claims of Christians. These early doctrines serve to identify who and what a “Christian” was. Clearly the term “Christian” continues to be claimed by those who no longer claim these same doctrines but an argument can be made that the term then merely loses its value to identify anyone.

With regards to Hinduism, I guess, you can see a primary example there. The word Hinduism merely identifies a non-cohesive group who claim the Vedas as their divine scripture but those who have read the majority of the four Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita find metaphysics which are all over the map and in different states of evolution, from ancient Vedic Sacrificial Fire Worship to the more modern Philosophic Liberation Theology. Hinduism is not a cohesive religious identity in the same sense that Christianity is but a vast group who derive their religious practices from a vast history of divergent religious treaties. Sure you can argue that much of their general practices share similarities but not enough to allow any cohesiveness to argue it to be one faith.

So I guess before I continue I should ask, which of the five main branches of Hinduism are your practices derived and what are their primary religious texts?

Peace, Love and Blessings,

Peace to you my friend!

Yes, I can see your points you have made. Actually, I’ve only looked at Hinduism briefly in the past and not in-depth like I have others. So, I’m by no means an authority or expert on the religion.

I’ve studied Buddhism much more and enjoy learning more about it. There are at least 18 major schools of Buddhism. Of course originally there was Siddhartha and his bikkhu’s. After his death it took some 400 years for his suttas to be written down by those who heard his teachings. Theravada is the closest to the early teachings of Buddha among the schools. But there are many now, such as Pure Land that is rather recent in comparison. Still, they are all Buddhists - whether Theravada, Tibetan or Pure Land Buddhists.

Their teachings are all derived or attributed to Buddha himself. So, while their practices are totally different their root is in the same person who wrote many, many teachings. They are all Buddhists and rightfully so.

I see the same thing in Christianity. I would say Catholics are similar to the Theravadins and Pentecostals are similar to Pure Land Buddhists and Baptists are similar to Mahayana Buddhists. Whether Catholic or Baptist or Methodist - all have the same founder and leader in the person of Jesus Christ. All use teachings from the Bible. Each one focuses on a different part, though. Unfortunately, in Christianity there is not the ecumenism among groups as there appears to be in Buddhism.

That’s kind of where I’m coming from - being the oldest doesn’t equal the complete essence of the religious founder. I favor Mahayana Buddhism because I see it as a more complete form of the Buddha’s teachings. I see the same thing in my Baptist raised faith. I see it as more complete and capturing the essence or spirit of the founder of my faith - Jesus Christ.

Hope this helps…

Peace, joy and love to you this Holiday Season!!!

 

[ahimsaman72]

cheddarsox:

Ahimsaman,

Because there is no creed, different UU congregations have very different flavors (or so I am told, this is the only one I have attended) So, I will answer your questions, but be aware that the church in your area may be very different.

A lot depends on the minister, we have had 3 (settled, interim and new settled) since I have been here. And they each have a different approach. Some of them had very religious sermons, others more general ethics, others more political.

There are some very religious people in the congregation, and I find a great deal of my spiritual nourishment by getting involved in the classes, spiritual groups, activities etc outside of Sun svc.

One of the gifts of this congregation is that is brings like minded people together, and we have made many of our friends there. It has provided much needed community and was a great aid in helping us settle inthis area.

cheddar

Thank you cheddar.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

ahimsaman72:

Hinduism is much older than Christianity and asserts the truth of its religion. Realization of truth comes upon all - the difference is people in their groups think their group has the truth. Why should I believe yours over someone elses based on history when there are religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism and Paganism which are older than Christianity? Do you see the problem?

Hinduism, Buddhism, and Paganism were not revealed by the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, who became man, Jesus Christ.

This is reminiscent of the “many paths up the mountain” argument, with their being no basis for picking one built by one group of men over the others, since (supposedly) they all lead to the top. The Church denies that the Christian faith is a man made road up “the mountain.” It is a road built DOWN the mountain by God for man’s sake, and is therefore clearly the right road to follow.

What is pointed out in the quote is that man built roads on his own prior to Jesus Christ coming to complete the building of the road God built for man.

The “realization of truth” observation is also frought with problems. For instance, Hindism, and other pantheistic religions, postulate an impersonal god. Christianity bears witness to the revelation of God that He is a personal entity - three persons in one God, in fact. Both cannot be true; they are implicitly contradictory. It is logically fallacious to call them both “true.”

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Lisa_N]

Contarini:

Lisa,

Since you obviously mean what you said, it can’t be a joke. If a Protestant said Catholics were heathen idolators, I don’t think you’d take it kindly even if they said they were joking. (As a matter of fact, fundamentalists are very fond of grim jokes and claim the same sort of privilege you do.) And if they turned out to be an ex-Catholic, that would hardly help matters, right?

I know the West Coast is a different world whatever church you belong to. I hear tales of West Coast Catholics as well. . . . Many conservative UMC’s would like to cut the Western Jurisdiction off altogether.

At any rate, the fact is that the UMC has standards of doctrine, and is in no way comparable to the UU.

In Christ,

Edwin

Edwin, you are really taking this too seriously. I wasn’t the person who brought up the comparison or the joke but frankly it resonated with me because it DID absolutely mirror my experience attending first a UU church then a UMC church for a number of years. It’s obviously much different where you attend.

The reason I LEFT the UMC was due to the lack of grounding or underpinnings. We were in sort of a freefall, make it up as you go along. As I said, we had ministers championing gay marriage in the newspapers, ministers supporting PBA as a “woman’s right” other ministers rejecting the Creeds because they were “sexist and non-inclusive.” Frankly these are the same philosophies espoused by the UUs in this area. I realize this may not be characteristic of the UMC elsewhere but since I LIVE here I have little choice but to attend the church in my area. It just left me cold and as a result I left.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

Carl:

CHEDDARSOX

There are many things we like about it, but it is a bit cerebral and sterile, and can fall into the trap of trying to be all things to all people.

I was a UU for about three years and finally bolted pretty much for the reasons listed above. I think it is more of an ethical society than a religion … convenient for giving children some kind of training in ethics, though the ethics has to be questionable since they tolerate just about everything but intolerance. Likewise, Unitarianism gives non-creedal types a place to meet, get high on some old time hymns, and socialize with tofu and herbal tea.

When so many atheists and agnostics belong to the fold, there has to be something sterile about a religion that worships Nogod or Anygod rather than Almighty God.

Sorry, but this is a sentiment shared by most ex-UU’s I do believe.

This was definitely my experience being around Unitarians and attending one of their churches for several years. If you like “brainiacs” very cerebral and smart people, the UU church seems to attract them. If you want a social club of like minded folks politically, that’s where they seem to be very strong as well.

The thing I couldn’t figure out is why with the emphasis on ethics they didn’t use the Bible as a guide. Surely here is THE instruction manual on how to treat one another. But the Bible is totally suspect. They didn’t even seem to appreciate the beautiful poetry…at least not in my experience.

Good people, good works, good brains, just not much to the ‘heart’ portion.

Lisa N

 

[Ahimsa]

Gerry Hunter:

The “realization of truth” observation is also frought with problems. For instance, Hindism, and other pantheistic religions, postulate an impersonal god. Christianity bears witness to the revelation of God that He is a personal entity - three persons in one God, in fact. Both cannot be true; they are implicitly contradictory. It is logically fallacious to call them both “true.”

What is a “person”? Here is what one dictionary states:

  **1.**  A living human. Often used in combination: *chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.* **2.**  An individual of specified character: *a person of importance.* **3.**  The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.  **4.**The living body of a human: *searched the prisoner's person.* **5.**  Physique and general appearance.  **6.**  *Law*  A human or organization with legal rights and duties.  **7.**  *Christianity* Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.

So it seems – though I may be mistaken – that Christianity includes ideas of God that are both personal (the Three Persons of the Trinity) and impersonal (the unspeakable Essence of the Godhead). If that is an accurate description of Christianity, then something similar could be said of Hinduism: that it also includes both personal and impersonal descriptions of Divinity.

 Krishna speaks of the impersonal essence of Divinity in the Gita:
 
 "It cannot be cut or burned;
 it cannot be wet or withered;
 it is enduring, all-pervasive,
 fixed, immovable, and timeless." [II:24]

Arjuna, to whom Krishna is speaking, in turn later confesses that Krishna is actually God in human form, using very ‘personal’ language:

 "You are father of the world
 of animate and inanimate things,
 its venerable teacher,
 most worthy of worship,
 without equal.
 Where in all three worlds
 is another to match
 your extraordinary power?" [XI:43]

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Ahimsa:

What is a “person”?
…
So it seems – though I may be mistaken – that Christianity includes ideas of God that are both personal (the Three Persons of the Trinity) and impersonal (the unspeakable Essence of the Godhead). If that is an accurate description of Christianity, then something similar could be said of Hinduism: that it also includes both personal and impersonal descriptions of Divinity.

In theology, “person” designates an entity with a personality, as distinct from an impersonal entity. That’s what is meant when a Christian says he believes in a “personal” God, rather than meaning a god who he owns, or has made up (as some erroneously assert it does).

The revelation of God is as a person, not as a combination, so Christianity does not include that. We acknowledge that God could not have possibly fully revealed Himself to man, because man cannot comprehend that fullness. But God being truth, what he has revealed cannot contradict what has been left unrevealed to us in our temporal lives.

We are running into the irreconcilable differences between pantheism and theism. And you can’t be a pantheist and a Christian.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Ahimsa]

Gerry Hunter:

The revelation of God is as a person, not as a combination, so Christianity does not include that. We acknowledge that God could not have possibly fully revealed Himself to man, because man cannot comprehend that fullness. But God being truth, what he has revealed cannot contradict what has been left unrevealed to us in our temporal lives.

It seems that in Eastern Orthodoxy (I don’t know about in Roman Catholicism) you have the concept of God’s “energies”, which man is able to know, and God’s “essence”, which is unknowable. I was drawing a comparison between the energy/essence distinction and the person/impersonal distinction, given that “person” is from the Latin for ‘mask, role’, implying that part of a being which you can see and sense.

The Gita quote I gave was part of a larger quote where Krishna also says that Divinity is ultimately unknowable, which would seem similar to the Orthodox belief in God’s “essence”. But Arjuna also says in the Gita that God is knowable (in and as the person of Krishna); this statement would be similar to Orthodoxy’s “energy”.

I don’t see how someone can claim that Hinduism is simply “pantheism” or “impersonalism” when most Hindus venerate Divinity in the form of very knowable persons (such as Krishna, or Rama), while recognizing that there is a part of Divinity that is not captured by the human mind.

From Orthodoxy:

From this, Gregory [Palamas (1296-1359), Archbishop of Thessalonica] turned to the main problem: how to combine the two affirmations, that man knows God and that God is by nature unknowable. Gregory answered: we know the energies of God, but not His essence. This distinction between God’s essence (ousia) and His energies goes back to the Cappadocian Fathers. “We know our God from His energies”, wrote Saint Basil, “but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence.” … But however remote from us in His essence, yet in His energies God has revealed Himself to men.

These energies are not something that exists apart from God, not a gift which God confers upon men: they are God Himself in His action and revelation to the world. God exists complete and entire in each of His divine energies. The world, as Gerard Manley Hopkins said, is charged with the grandeur of God; all creation is a gigantic Burning Bush, permeated but not consumed by the ineffable and wondrous fire off God’s energies.