What is wrong with Unitarian Universalism?

[CMatt25]

I am awaiting an answer from someone who knows.

Are you certain about this, Matt? Or are you speaking on faith here?

It certainly sounds like you believe what you type. But maybe I’m wrong and you really don’t believe everything that you’ve professed here?

And this? Here it also sound like you believe what you’re professing. It sounds like a belief to me.

I don’t understand why you get to profess your beliefs, but Catholics can’t.

I believe it is good PR that you wait.

I am certain both you and UUs are seeking truth. But I spoke only on faith, believing that you believe you know the Catholic Church is that truth. If you don’t believe this, you can correct me as to what you truly believe.

PR, Catholics can profess their beliefs. No one said they couldn’t. But instead of Catholics saying they know for certain, it would just be helpful to me, I believe, if they said they believe they know. Or something to that effect. It’s not only Catholics. I have the same confusion with other faiths that say they know with absolute certainty without distinguishing the belief involved.

I hope that helps too but now back to UU. And I hope a UU will come along to help with your question about white supremists. God bless you PR! Peace.

 

[seeker57]

I am still unclear *who *gets to decide these things. Who gets to decide if a white supremacist can preach in a UU church? What about a transvestite?

And, what if it was a gay, transvestite white supremacist? “Would” he be allowed “to” preach there?

:ehh:

The answer to your questions are two-fold.

First, many UUs would bristle at the idea of anyone “preaching” in one of our churches. Preaching conjures up images of dictating, which we don’t allow.

Which brings me to the second part of the answer. Could a Gay, transvestite, white supremacist “preach” in one of our churches?

I don’t think there would be any real problems with the Gay or the transvestite, but there would probably be an issue with the white supremacist. Such as person would, by his or her own definition, consider himself superior to someone of color. This would not uphold our first principle of believing in the inherent worth of all people.

Regarding an earlier question about dumping oil in the ocean, our seventh principle states we respect the interdependent web of life, of which we are all a part. So, by extrapolation, by defacing the planet, damaging the ecosystem or dumping oil in the ocean, we are damaging the planet and the interdependent web of life.

Regardless of whether the white supremacist would be asked to present a sermon or a program to the congregation, he or she would be welcome to attend our services.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[CMatt25]

The answer to your questions are two-fold.

First, many UUs would bristle at the idea of anyone “preaching” in one of our churches. Preaching conjures up images of dictating, which we don’t allow.

Which brings me to the second part of the answer. Could a Gay, transvestite, white supremacist “preach” in one of our churches?

I don’t think there would be any real problems with the Gay or the transvestite, but there would probably be an issue with the white supremacist. Such as person would, by his or her own definition, consider himself superior to someone of color. This would not uphold our first principle of believing in the inherent worth of all people.

Regarding an earlier question about dumping oil in the ocean, our seventh principle states we respect the interdependent web of life, of which we are all a part. So, by extrapolation, by defacing the planet, damaging the ecosystem or dumping oil in the ocean, we are damaging the planet and the interdependent web of life.

Regardless of whether the white supremacist would be asked to present a sermon or a program to the congregation, he or she would be welcome to attend our services.

Peace,

Seeker

Thanks Seeker. The principles clear it up. But while I might be wrong, I have this hunch PR is still going to want to know who decides “preaching” or dictating is not allowed. And who decided upon the principles you referenced. And then she might want to know on whose authority they were given the mission to decide.

 

[cheese_sdc]

And I’m trying to figure out who decides what’s fine and what’s not in the UU church.

One thing that is difficult for Catholics to grasp about the UU Church is that there is little centralized authority. The authority comes from the congregation as a whole. If the pastor started preaching that “we need to only worship Buddha, and salvation is from Buddha only”, the congregation (through a committee, I’m sure) would remove him or her, and start looking for another pastor.

But there is no Central Committee for UU Orthodoxy.

 

[cheese_sdc]

I don’t think there would be any real problems with the Gay or the transvestite, but there would probably be an issue with the white supremacist. Such as person would, by his or her own definition, consider himself superior to someone of color. This would not uphold our first principle of believing in the inherent worth of all people.

Good answer.
It seems that those who attack UUism use the argument “If you’re tolerant of everything, why don’t you tolerate intolerance!” And then they laugh as if they’ve been able to undo our whole philosophy with a bit of sophistry.

But the thing to remember is that UU’s are NOT just “tolerant” - we accept Truth where ever we find it. And we reject those that would not uphold our principles - racism, wanton destruction of the environment, violence against innocents, and giving each person the freedom to search for Truth as they see fit.

 

[PRmerger]

OMs needed in the above too PR because having faith and belief in the one truth does not equate to “knowing” it with absolute 100% certainty.

Not sure what OM means. I did a search and found this:

acronymfinder.com/Slang/OM.html

???

 

[PRmerger]

Non practicing can define the Catholicity you spoke of PR. But QMs can appear to question whether one is a Catholic when they are. They might be non practicing as a bishop once told me and as Michelle Arnold attests to. But their Baptism made them members of the Catholic Church with an indelible mark and they are Catholic.

Indeed.

So perhaps when people use QMs around “Catholic” it’s a way of saying “non-practicing Catholic”. That’s how I read it anyway, in certain contexts.

However, the way you seem to read it is that the writer is saying, “I’m a superior Catholic and you’re an inferior Catholic.”

If that’s what they’re saying, then that is, of course, obnoxious.

However, I gather that most of the time when someone uses Catholic in QM what they mean is CINO or non-practicing Catholics, and the truth of this nomenclature ought not offend you.

CCC 1267 “Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ”

CCC 830: Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church. In her subsists **the fullness of Christ’s body **"

So PR if one is made a member of Christ’s body, the Church, and this character can never be lost, and if the Catholic Church is the Church Christ instituted and is the fullness of that body, then such a person is a Catholic.

I hope that helps!

Right. And they are “Catholic” in that they are “Catholic in name only” or a “non-practicing Catholic”.

But you are correct that this is veering off topic and I will say no more on this…except to say that this is pertinent to this thread on UU in that what’s wrong with the UU theology is that there is no such thing as a “UU”, meaning a UU in name only.

 

[PRmerger]

But instead of Catholics saying they know for certain, it would just be helpful to me, I believe, if they said they believe they know.

On certain things that require faith and are knowable to us only through God’s Revelation, such as the Trinity, I would have no problem saying, “I believe I know that God is 3 persons in 1.”

However, on matters of morality, and certain concepts in theology (such as the Resurrection), in which we have cold, hard, data, then there is no need to preface each doctrine with “I believe I know.”

That would be as ridiculous as a Math prof prefacing each tutorial with, “I believe I know that 2 + 2 = 4, but I could be wrong of course!” :whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

The answer to your questions are two-fold.

First, many UUs would bristle at the idea of anyone “preaching” in one of our churches. Preaching conjures up images of dictating, which we don’t allow.

But could someone be a UU (practicing, and not in name only of course! ) and call himself a preacher (provided that he did indeed lecture/speak at your services)?

Would someone in authority in your congregation correct him if he did say he preached there?

And if he insisted that he had preached, would he be allowed to continue to lecture/speak at your services?

I don’t think there would be any real problems with the Gay or the transvestite, but there would probably be an issue with the white supremacist. Such as person would, by his or her own definition, consider himself superior to someone of color. This would not uphold our first principle of believing in the inherent worth of all people.

I am heartened by this, seeker!

Regarding an earlier question about dumping oil in the ocean, our seventh principle states we respect the interdependent web of life, of which we are all a part. So, by extrapolation, by defacing the planet, damaging the ecosystem or dumping oil in the ocean, we are damaging the planet and the interdependent web of life.

And by this, too.

Regardless of whether the white supremacist would be asked to present a sermon or a program to the congregation, he or she would be welcome to attend our services.

Peace,

Seeker

As with the Catholic Church. And it would be incumbent upon us to evangelize him to the truth of his sin.

Would the UU congregants attempt to show this white supremacist he is ingrained in his sin?

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks Seeker. The principles clear it up. But while I might be wrong, I have this hunch PR is still going to want to know who decides “preaching” or dictating is not allowed. And who decided upon the principles you referenced. And then she might want to know on whose authority they were given the mission to decide.

Exactly.

And the answer that the congregation “votes on this” is, frankly, absurd.

Truth is determined by a vote?

Does that mean that if everyone votes that I cannot be in an inter-racial marriage that I must divorce my guy?

Does that mean that if everyone votes that Buddha is a woman that now he is?

I am simply astonished that this paradigm is embraced and preached–and swallowed.

 

[PRmerger]

But the thing to remember is that UU’s are NOT just “tolerant” - we accept Truth where ever we find it. And we reject those that would not uphold our principles - racism, wanton destruction of the environment, violence against innocents, and giving each person the freedom to search for Truth as they see fit.

Well, then, cheese, you are very Catholic when you profess the above. Truth is found wherever Truth is professed.

Except we wouldn’t say that “we reject those that would not uphold our principles”. We Catholics are taught to love them, not reject them, but bring them to the Truth.

 

[CMatt25]

what’s wrong with the UU theology is that there is no such thing as a “UU”, meaning a UU in name only.

Since the truth is we’re discussing faith, it truthfully might not be such a bad thing that there are no “UU”.

 

[PRmerger]

Since the truth is we’re discussing faith, it truthfully might not be such a bad thing that there are no “UU”.

Huh?

And we’re not discussing faith; we’re discussing Truth, aren’t we?

 

[CMatt25]

(such as the Resurrection), in which we have cold, hard, data, then there is no need to preface each doctrine with “I believe I know.”

PR, are you talking about the Resurrection of Jesus from the tomb on the 3rd day after He was crucified as you and I believe? And do you mean cold, hard data in the sense of absolute proof? I assume so since you say you do not need to preface somthing with cold, hard data such as the Resurrection with “I believe”. So if there is such perfectly clear hard data of absolute proof, wouldn’t all UU (and everyone else) believe it too?

 

[CMatt25]

One thing that is difficult for Catholics to grasp about the UU Church is that there is little centralized authority.

At least for Catholics without " ", I would tend to think you’re onto some truth.

 

[Holly3278]

Hey Holly…a note of thanks to you. After seeing your post, I checked out “UU” online and was intrigued. Today, I found a UU church just up the street from where I live that has apparently been there since 1932 (who knew?). Anyway, I was so spurred on by your question that I went to a service this morning…and it was wonderful, it really was. I plan to go back next week and if i feel the same way, I want to join their bible study group and some of the other very interesting fellowship/social stuff they’ve got going…and maybe even the choir (the lead singer sounded like an opera singer, she was so great).
So just wanted to say thanks.
I had been looking for a place to go and this might be the right fit for me and it’s thanks to you

Frankly, I’d prefer that you not thank me for me being the inspiration for you to go to a UU church. It saddens me that my post was the inspiration for you to go to a false religion instead of the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, are you talking about the Resurrection of Jesus from the tomb on the 3rd day after He was crucified as you and I believe? And do you mean cold, hard data in the sense of absolute proof? I assume so since you say you do not need to preface somthing with cold, hard data such as the Resurrection with “I believe”. So if there is such perfectly clear hard data of absolute proof, wouldn’t all UU (and everyone else) believe it too?

I mean the same kind of cold, hard, data that we have that, say, Caesar existed. No one doubts that Caesar existed, or that he crossed the Rubicon and we have even less evidence of that than we do for Jesus’ resurrection.

 

[CMatt25]

the answer that the congregation “votes on this” is, frankly, absurd.

Truth is determined by a vote?

Does that mean that if everyone votes that I cannot be in an inter-racial marriage that I must divorce my guy?

Does that mean that if everyone votes that Buddha is a woman that now he is?

I am simply astonished that this paradigm is embraced and preached–and swallowed.

PR, I fail to see why this is so absurd to you. Cheese explained they accept truth where they find it. If they’ve found it, they’ve found it. I’m wondering if you have difficulty with this because you need to have it centralized and spelled out for yourself by a centralized authority. But that’s fine. You seek truth in that case from a centralized authority. And UU seek truth too. Eventually we’ll all know PR.

Something tells me PR, your marriage is truthfullly fine with UU. I’d be astonished if a UU congregation voted otherwise. Their principles include the worth and dignity of every person, equity in human relations, acceptance, liberty for all, and respect for the interdependence of all existence.

 

[PRmerger]

Something tells me PR, your marriage is truthfullly fine with UU. I’d be astonished if a UU congregation voted otherwise. Their principles include the worth and dignity of every person, equity in human relations, acceptance, liberty for all, and respect for the interdependence of all existence.

Please don’t read too much into my examples. They were examples only. And made to give a bigger picture.

If a congregation decides “A is true” does that make it true?

So, for example, if a congregation decides that homosexual unions are sacred, does that make it true?

What if a congregation decides that women cannot be physicians, does that make it true?

See how absurd it is that truth is discerned by majority vote?

 

[cheese_sdc]

Well, then, cheese, you are very Catholic when you profess the above. Truth is found wherever Truth is professed.

Except we wouldn’t say that “we reject those that would not uphold our principles”. We Catholics are taught to love them, not reject them, but bring them to the Truth.

I tried to go back and edit that, but the time limit had been passed.

But the truth is, Catholic’s reject people all the time. Bishops and pastors regularly deny the Eucharist to politicians and gay people. Baptism is denied to children because of their parent’s perceived sins. As a matter of everyday life, Eucharist is denied to people who have divorced and remarried.

One must assent to a Creed to be Catholic, or else, while you may be welcome in building, you are excluded from the sacraments.

So you’ll excuse me if I take your protestations of “tolerance” with a few grains of salt.

Just a few.