Unitarian Universalism

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

I say it stays.

Hi
I would like to direct a question to a UU. Has anyone considered that this is a religion without a "God"? If believing in diety is optional, isnt this removing god from church in the same way we have been removing Him from other aspects of society?

I dont mean to offend but if prophecy is true isnt this part of the apostacy? the departure from truth?

 

[Soul Searcher]

Unitarian Universalism affirms the following:

- The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
- Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
- Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
- A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
- The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
- The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
- Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

These are our main principles of belief. Details, such as belief in deity, are left up to the individual.

Sounds good to me

 

[outlaw]

From the Unitarian Universalist Association:

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote...

I guess my problem with morality based on nothing other than good wishes doesn't have much "gravitas". On what basis do we declare human interactions intrinsically "special". Where does this "dignity and worth" come from?
Using Jewish and Christian teachings with no basis to their authority is kinda wishful thinking to me...

Why is a morality based on “good wishes” inferior to a morality based on an afterlife reward and punishment system?

 

[outlaw]

Hi
I would like to direct a question to a UU. Has anyone considered that this is a religion without a "God"? If believing in diety is optional, isnt this removing god from church in the same way we have been removing Him from other aspects of society?

I dont mean to offend but if prophecy is true isnt this part of the apostacy? the departure from truth?

You have confused the concept of everyone having a unique and personal relationship with God (and as it is unique there are no dogmatic boundaries placed on that relationship) and God being optional.


What it does is it removes the church as an intermediary between the individual and the Divine.

 

[Tigress_86]

Thanks, outlaw.

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

Does anyone really think God cares what sign is front a building when a person goes to worship?Will God get lost and not find someone seeking him because their butt is sitting in the wrong pew?

 

[mark53]

Does anyone really think God cares what sign is front a building when a person goes to worship?Will God get lost and not find someone seeking him because their butt is sitting in the wrong pew?

It seems that many people are back in the early O T times when (they believed that) God lived in a literal box! (the Ark of the Covenant) He was only where the leaders wanted Him to be!

It is much easier to have God confined to a box - we can control Him then!

 

[B®ent]

CC, perhaps I might answer your question by asking yet another question. Does anyone in here believe Christ was speaking literally when He said:

[bible]John 14:6[/bible]

Or was He just "kidding around"?

 

[KCDAD]

Why is a morality based on “good wishes” inferior to a morality based on an afterlife reward and punishment system?

I wouldn't argue that the after life reward/punishment is a good alternative. What I am suggesting is that on what basis is human life MORE significant than any other? You may think humanity is worthy of "sacred" contemplation, and I may think only Aryans, or Armenians, or Muslims ... or even cetacians are worthy of this "sacred" status. What is our ultimate justification for our ideas of "sacredness"?

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

CC, perhaps I might answer your question by asking yet another question. Does anyone in here believe Christ was speaking literally when He said:

[bible]John 14:6[/bible]

Or was He just "kidding around"?

Sure we can answer questions with questions instead of answers and scriptures with scriptures if you want.
Do you think the below is on the level or just kidding around?
"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord".

If these things cannot separate us from Christ Jesus then you really think the sign in front of a building is going to do it???

 

[Soul Searcher]

CC, perhaps I might answer your question by asking yet another question. Does anyone in here believe Christ was speaking literally when He said:

[bible]John 14:6[/bible]

Or was He just "kidding around"?

It is hard to even understand what literally would mean in this statement. Must one literaly go through his body? Must he literally take you by the hand and lead you through the gates of heaven? Or is he what he taught and the way is his teachings,e.g. sermon on the mount. He said he who hears and obeys is wise while he who hears and obeys not is foolish.

John refers to Jesus as "The Word" and I think it is John who also says that Jesus said he who keepeth the commandments is he who loves me... he who says he loves me and keepeth not the commandments is a liar.

My take on it is the way is that of following the teachings of Jesus, the wise man is on the narrow way, the foolish man is on the broad way.

 

[outlaw]

CC, perhaps I might answer your question by asking yet another question. Does anyone in here believe Christ was speaking literally when He said:

[bible]John 14:6[/bible]

Or was He just "kidding around"?

Finding a Unitarian literalist would be a difficult chore. Of course I believe that finding a true literalist in any denomination would be a chore. In reality, there are no biblical literalists, only selective literalists. By abolishing slavery Christians have gone far beyond biblical literalism.

That said you would find that many Unitarians accept that verse as simple truth. If one accepts the mission of Jesus of Nazareth, to be a bridge between the divine and the humanity then he accomplished that task. Because of Jesus of Nazareth all people, are provided grace and that grace like the love of the Divine is unconditional and universal.

 

[outlaw]

I wouldn't argue that the after life reward/punishment is a good alternative. What I am suggesting is that on what basis is human life MORE significant than any other? You may think humanity is worthy of "sacred" contemplation, and I may think only Aryans, or Armenians, or Muslims ... or even cetacians are worthy of this "sacred" status. What is our ultimate justification for our ideas of "sacredness"?

John 3:16 speaks of why God sent Jesus of Nazaruth. Because he loved the world, not just Aryans, or Jews or Muslims or even humans…the world.
And isn’t the love of the Divine enough to make something sacred?

 

[KCDAD]

John 3:16 speaks of why God sent Jesus of Nazaruth. Because he loved the world, not just Aryans, or Jews or Muslims or even humans…the world.
And isn’t the love of the Divine enough to make something sacred?

ABSOLUTELY! But if one doesn't believe in God, or think God is necessary for morality... then what?

As Dostoyevsky asked... If God is dead, are not all things permissible?

 

[Maize]

Hello Tigress_86! Just dropping in to say hello to a fellow UU!

 

[Tigress_86]

CC, perhaps I might answer your question by asking yet another question. Does anyone in here believe Christ was speaking literally when He said:

[bible]John 14:6[/bible]

Or was He just "kidding around"?

I have always understood this verse as Soul Searcher has, in that I believe Jesus was not referring to himself as a person or mediator, but as an expression or example of the 'divine logos;' an example of how to live or 'conduct ourselves.'

ABSOLUTELY! But if one doesn't believe in God, or think God is necessary for morality... then what?

Love thy neighbour as thyself, and the rest will follow.

Hello Tigress_86! Just dropping in to say hello to a fellow UU!

Hello Maize! Nice to meet you!

 

[outlaw]

ABSOLUTELY! But if one doesn't believe in God, or think God is necessary for morality... then what?

As Dostoyevsky asked... If God is dead, are not all things permissible?

"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive.
1 Corinthians 10:23

 

[B®ent]

I have always understood this verse as Soul Searcher has, in that I believe Jesus was not referring to himself as a person or mediator, but as an expression or example of the 'divine logos;' an example of how to live or 'conduct ourselves.'

[bible]Mark 16:16[/bible]

 

[Homie]

I have been reading through this thread, and I am left with a bad impression of this faith/no faith belief system you call unitarian universalism.

Like already pointed out: No god = No reason to consider these messages of love and such as authoritative. It is just something man has made up (in that view). So what's the big deal in breaking it.

Secondly, it sounds very feel-good and nice and all, but it can hardly be called a religion or even faith system, because you don't have to have faith in anything.

Thirdly, excluding God as a necessity to your philosophy, all you are left with is a man-centered philosophy, all you are left with is the belief that man can overcome the evil in the world by himself, all you are left with is Humanism. A wretched philosphy (no religion) that utterly fails to make the world even slightly better, in fact it makes it worse because it will evolve toward hatred, like the modern humanists have. And your philosophy is like theirs, so the same will happen to your organization.

 

[Homie]

And I second Brennin. This is obviously not a unitarian thread, so it doesn't belong in this sub-forum. By unitarian I mean someone who believes in God but not the trinity, and someone who belives in the Bible.