What is wrong with Unitarian Universalism?

[Trevor_Stamm]

“Embrace uncertainty” = “Be certain of uncertainty”

Careful, the act of embracing is creedal. But how does one embrace something that opposes embracement? Very strange doctrine.

How would that creed go?

“I declare that whatever I declare is uncertain
That I am uncertain of everything, even uncertainty
Ergo, I disavow this declaration of uncertainty
… But I am uncertain if I should”

 

[PRmerger]

“Embrace uncertainty” = “Be certain of uncertainty”

Careful, the act of embracing is creedal. But how does one embrace something that opposes embracement? Very strange doctrine.

How would that creed go?

“I declare that whatever I declare is uncertain
That I am uncertain of everything, even uncertainty
Ergo, I disavow this declaration of uncertainty
… But I am uncertain if I should”

Tongue in cheek, to be sure, but true nonetheless. And funny, too.

What a twisted, mixed-up theology in which Uncertainty is elevated and adored.

 

[CMatt25]

I wonder how Catholics here would like it if UUs or anyone of another non Catholic faith called some aspect of the Catholic faith absurd, twisted, very strange, funny or mixed up.

 

[PRmerger]

I wonder how Catholics here would like it if UUs or anyone of another non Catholic faith called some aspect of the Catholic faith absurd, twisted, very strange, funny or mixed up.

Point taken. You are right. It would not be well received.

But I think I’ve made a very good argument that it’s clear that Uncertainty ought not be embraced and elevated and promoted as a good theological position.

And I think if someone actually made an accusation that some aspect of the Catholic faith was “absurd, twisted, very strange, funny or mixed up” they would be called to defend that accusation, and, of course, what would come to light is that they themselves were “absurd” in their understanding of said Catholic teaching. :sad_yes:

 

[seeker57]

Point taken. You are right. It would not be well received.

But I think I’ve made a very good argument that it’s clear that Uncertainty ought not be embraced and elevated and promoted as a good theological position.

And I think if someone actually made an accusation that some aspect of the Catholic faith was “absurd, twisted, very strange, funny or mixed up” they would be called to defend that accusation, and, of course, what would come to light is that they themselves were “absurd” in their understanding of said Catholic teaching. :sad_yes:

I don’t think you have made any kind of argument, certainly not a logical one. My faith is not absurd, nor twisted. I find your accusation insulting.

For the record, Unitarian Universalists don’t promote uncertainty as a theology. But we would certainly be willing to question all of the “answers” you claim to have with such certainty. Keep in mind, most your arguments are based your religious perception.

I believe the concept of the divine, or God if you wish, is too large to be contained by any one belief system.

I know you have trouble understanding our beliefs and the structure of our congregations. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t keep bringing the latter up.

But, to call another’s beliefs absurd opens the door to a less than amiable comparison of our two belief systems, which, I am sure, would not be a profitable path for either of us to take.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think you have made any kind of argument, certainly not a logical one. My faith is not absurd, nor twisted. I find your accusation insulting.

Well, this is odd. I don’t believe I ever accused your faith of being absurd or twisted.

This is what I said: “What a twisted, mixed-up theology in which Uncertainty is elevated and adored.”

Does your faith elevate and adore the Almighty Uncertainty?

Based on what you say below, clearly not. So one has to wonder what you’re all in a dither about. You don’t belong to that which I have been criticizing.

For the record, Unitarian Universalists don’t promote uncertainty as a theology.

Glad to hear that your version of UU does not promote uncertainty.

But there certainly was a person on this thread who professed to be a UU who claimed that he “embraced uncertainty.” And, one would think that his particular congregation embraced him in his embracing his uncertainty.

And, of course, you as a non-credal folks cannot claim that this version of UU is not true UU theology–because isn’t that exactly the antithesis of your non-credal paradigm? One can certainly claim that as a UU one can embrace uncertainty, right?

And that is indeed a twisted and absurd paradigm when Uncertainty is elevated.

(Now, of course, since you reject this “I embrace Uncertainty” paradigm, the above refers not to you in your UU practice.)

 

[Frantastick]

My problem with UU is that it has, at its core, created a new god, a god in one’s own image and likeness, rather than conforming its truth to the One True God.

When one is doubting one’s faith–as every thinker does–the best thing to do is to find what Church proclaims the Truth, and then conform one’s beliefs to this truth.

It is the height of arrogance, IMHO, to church shop and search for a church that conforms to one’s own beliefs.

Does it not stand to reason that if God exists, then he is calling us to a belief/understanding/faith that causes us to change our way of thinking?

If you are in a church that does not give you pause and make you say, “Wow. I wish my church did not proclaim this” then you are, I propose, in a church of your own making.

And that’s the problem with UU. I daresay that every person in that church is fine with all that UU professes–because it’s a church that allows all to create a god that is in one’s own image.

I dont usually post here, but this is well said!!!

 

[Publisher]

I understand where friend Seeker is coming from. I am finite…God is infinte…ineffable…beyone my comprehension.

I live in a “holy uncertainty”…I don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow.

I cannot comprehend the Incarnation…nor do I have the “certainty” that my view is “certain”.

I do not have the “certainty” that what is written in the scriptures is “infallible and without error”…too much of my intellect to suspend my God given reason.

I have no “certainty” that any ecclesial communtiy has God’s 100% “revelation” and understand God any better than I do.

I’m not sure how to “conform my beliefs” to “Truth”…when it’s the “jot and tittle” of Truth that so many seem to believe they posses. My experience shapes my understanding and faith…I’m not “certain” how to shape my experience to conform to beliefs I simply cannot hold as they are beyond “reason” to me…

What I do have is faith…Faith that God is at work in our lives, whether I understand the Wisdom of God in permitting some things to occur…to paraphrase a song…“I don’t know what the future holds…but I know Who holds the future”…

I have faith that the God I believe in was revealed in Jesus of Nazareth and confroming as best I can in faith to his teachings and seeking his face is enough…“Lord, I believe, help my unbelief”
That one passage in the NT to me is the most “honest” of any verse…I have much “uncertainty” about the dogmas and religious beliefs so many claim are “absolute truth”…Truth is experineced and lived…of this one thing I am certain…unless one’s faith…whatever that may be…is lived in the daily of our lives, the “truth” spoken is just so much “tinkling brass and clanging bells”…it’s just noise…I’ll keep my “uncertainty”…when I bring that before the Presence and lay it at His feet…I will trust Him to do what is right and good. Don’t need 'certainty" to place myself in the Hands of God in Faith.

 

[LEMAITRE]

I appreciate the effort and clarification on your part. However, these approaches are not compatible with each other. I’m not sure if you reconciled the dichotomy of your position. Having a principle that that is ultimately undermined by another does not sound reasonable or well conceived.

From a personal standpoint,** the Unitarian Universalism ideals of humanism and tolerance are quite laudable but seem to be merely buzz words to advance to what is basically a new age movement. It is a theology of “feel-goodism,” “universal tolerance,” and “moral relativism.” The Unitarian Universalism position moral of relativism or subjectivity as well as a lack of confirmed values seems to make this movement idiosyncratic and even self contradictory.**

I know my viewpoint may seem quite harsh and apologize for that impression.

 

[ffg]

I wonder how Catholics here would like it if UUs or anyone of another non Catholic faith called some aspect of the Catholic faith absurd, twisted, very strange, funny or mixed up.

I think it should be received in kind.

It’s very important and should not be a surprise for Catholics to understand that what we believe seems odd to someone on the outside.

The key is can we explain the explainable using reason and in turn showing how those reasonable things lead us to have faith in what can’t be reasoned.

Doing so in kind helps, but is not necessary as one’s tone doesn’t change the message.

 

[LEMAITRE]

I wonder how Catholics here would like it if UUs or anyone of another non Catholic faith called some aspect of the Catholic faith absurd, twisted, very strange, funny or mixed up.

You must be new here. Mate, Catholics have heard every accusation, descriptor, misconception about our faith. :newidea:

Every descriptor you have used has been used to describe either the Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, Male Priests, Celibacy, Anti-abortion, pretty much nearly every single Doctrine of the Church has been called and is still being called ‘absurd, old-fashioned or strange’.

Whether the individual Catholic is sufficiently equipped to defend their faith is another thing however, we are called to correct from a place of love. Catholics understand that others view their faith as something out of the ordinary and should use that opportunity to describe why we believe what we believe and not get easily offended or self-righteous because usually it is coming from a place of curiosity.

 

[kaneata]

I’m wondering what the UU religious education classes would look like for a child just starting out. Since a young child will believe unquestioningly what the teacher says, whose beliefs are taught to a class of say 12 children who come from 12 different faith backgrounds that may have opposing beliefs of what is truth. What does a teacher do when one child says there is a God and another argues that his parents say there isn’t. What type of instruction takes place? Does the child leave class being told that everyone is right even if their beliefs are polar opposites.

 

[seeker57]

I think it should be received in kind.

It’s very important and should not be a surprise for Catholics to understand that what we believe seems odd to someone on the outside.

The key is can we explain the explainable using reason and in turn showing how those reasonable things lead us to have faith in what can’t be reasoned.

Doing so in kind helps, but is not necessary as one’s tone doesn’t change the message.

The first sentence is an understatement for someone like myself who doesn’t believe in many of the core concepts of your religious tradition, such as sin, the trinity, transubstantiation, confession, or the need for an intermediary to access the divine.

The second sentence is unclear or, in fact, is not logical.

Peace,

Seeker