Unitarian Universalism

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Of course, the innocent manner in which you write this strikes me. I do indeed know of the "claims" of those "Christians."

To reiterate my points, breifly:

• There is one God.
  []
• He always agrees with himself, he never says two opposing things to two opposing persons.
  []
• And the Bible contains his truth
• But some people cliam to follow him, but do not follow the bible
  []

Some people don't follow your interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

See, Tigress, we don't agree with eachother. One of us has to be right, and one of us has to be wrong. And if I were right, wouldn't it make sense for me to go about trying to ban abortions and homosexual unions and sex education and divorces and sex on TV? Because I really believe that I am doing the Lords work and fighting the devil. Why should you stop me?

You don't think I should be imposing my beliefs on others. But im going to get pretty mad when you "impose" that social security bill on me!

So I shouldn't impose my beliefs on others. Sorry! I have to! Its what God is telling me to do! And if you really agreed with me, you would be helping me.

1 Corinthians 5:12a

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?​

Romans 14:4-6,

Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.​

If, after making a concerted effort to reach out to a sinner within your own congregation you want to shun that person and the congregation agrees this is the appropriate decision, then you have some reasonable Scriptural backing, just keep Romans 14 in mind.

Imposing religious rules on those outside the church? There is precious little support for that within the N.T and a fair amount contradicting it.

 

[LibraryOwl]

You know, LibraryOwl, I would probably have guessed that you were previously a Unitarian even if you hadn't mentioned it. I find it interesting though that you port a United Church of Christ icon yet appear to be a rather Conservative Christian; my (very limited) understand of the UCC in the US was that it was one of the most liberal Christian denominations, where congregations are often linked to UUA congregations.

The UCC, which is an evil and non-christian "denomination," fell from grace with God as it surrendered to liberalism in the 1970's. It purports unbiblical doctrines and teaches falsities, ensnaring the innocent into the ways of satan.

The United Chruch of Christ is not a church, per see, as the Roman Catholic or United Methodist churches are, but really an alliance of fully independent congregational (democratically run) churches. Each individual church is responsible for purporting its own doctrines and teachings and hiring its own ministers. The UCC provides "conferrences, oversight, guidance, a larger voice in washington, (cheap) printed media"etc... for these churches. We also get cool nametags. My Church, the Dover First Parish Congregational church, which is also the seventh oldest church in North America, has never followed the UCC's decisions. I wrote my opinions of the UCC and my own church in a thread on the UCC, found Here.

Actually, I do not just attend the local congregational church. In addition to a weekday Catholic service and saturday service at First parish and the Catholic church, I also attend Catholic, Methodist, Episcopal and Orthodox Presbytarian Services on Sundays. I read the Qu'ran, The JW New World Bible, and the Book of Mormon, as well as cult manuscripts. I am very interested in religion, as you can probably tell. I am 16 and graduating high-school this year, and hope to recieve a BA in Minestrial arts or History, a MA in Theology and A PHD (Doctorate of Philosophy) and Go on to preach in the ministry and teach college courses. I am also interested in writing and have been published in the local newspapers a few times.

Some people don't follow your interpretation of the Bible.

Ah, but mine interperatation of the Bible is in fact not my own, but the traditional and Christian interperatation. It is the interperatation of The apostles and the saints, of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Wesly. And if you should try to raise your finger against it, so shall they raise their fingers against you on the day of judgement. For the same Bible may not be of two minds, and the mind my Bible is of is that mind which it has always been of.

Another reason I dissolved my membership in the UUA was indeed its affront to traditionalism. Liberal as they were, UU ministers would never have suggested Homosexual marriage in 1890, in fact, that homosexuality even existed would hardly have entered their minds.

I too was once a liberal, and I stood in the reception hall of the Kennebunk First Parish UU church. There were hung the portraits of our past ministers (all men, unlike our lesbian woman minister.) It then occured to me, "these men all condemned what I hold true. Everyone once condemned this. If God has been revealing himself to mankind throughout the ages, how can I now claim to have recieved a revalation which contradicts all previous revalations?" Then I imagined their faces sneering and jeering, appauled as they would have been to discover their portraits hung in a house of what they would have considered satanic worship. I imagined them jeering and booing, and rising up and spitting on the congregation.

The message of paul is like the message of Jesus: Judge not, lest you be Judged. What Jesus means by this is that we should not exalt ourselves, or think ourselves better than our fellow human beings. We should not say "woe to this man, for he is bound to hell, so I shall not sit next to him."

In fact, we are all sinners, we are all abominably bad, and bound for the same place, that being just and eternal suffering in hell. It is only Christ, who died in the place of that just judgement, who prevents it from falling on us, bad as we are. But we are called to spread the gospel to the nations, and a clear implication of that is revealing our common destination (hell) to other sinners who do not believe, and urging them to take upon the train ticket to salvation. So you see, I did not seperate myself from these people, which Paul calls the "World" and we call "Unitarians" but engaged them in conversation, speaking in fera and trembling of the greatness of the Lord, and the illness of themselves. I never judged them, I never said that I too, was not ill. Rather than judging them myself, I was simply revealing the just and true judgemnet which the Lord has passed on all men.

Imposing religious rules on those outside the church? There is precious little support for that within the N.T and a fair amount contradicting it.

You know for a fact, my friend, that the repeal of the witchcraft laws in England led to the rise of Wicca. You know for a fact that the judicial striking of abortion laws led to a rise in abortions. You know for a fact that the repeal of divorce laws, and the advent of social security, and the advent of alimony payments, made divorce easier and thereofre more common. And you know that all of these things led to the direct decline of church membership and the direct rise of church liberalism.

The way of God is for all people. Man is designed to run on God. People have always been happiest, and nations most successful, when the laws of God were the laws of the land. And if the law of God does not rule, then it is the law of the flesh, and people are more given to misery.

The laws of God were not designed to punish man, or make him jump through hoops to get into heaven. They are in fact a manual for living, which, if followed to the letter, shall avoid for you all error in your life.

But, I don't think that UUs are followers of Satan. Some of them are followers of Christ, and many other also follow God, they just view Him in a different way.

How many times need I reapeat it to you!? There is ONE God! ONE person cannot be of TWO minds. So one thing that is said about God will be true, and all other things will be false, or part-true. SO read the Bible! Read the Qu'ran! Read the Book of Mormon and the Watchtower! Be really sure that you are right about who God is, for what we speak of is no less than a matter of life and death. For if the Muslims were in the least correct, then I myself am actually bound for eternal suffering in Hell, and I know not the love and mercy and peace of God, but the hatred and sadness and depravity of a false idol! I could never live my life with a single doubt about that!

The Unitarian Christians I know read the heart of what the New testament was getting at. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

But they do not! If they deny the divinity of Christ, then they deny so much else! As C.S. Lewis says:

Christ cannot be veiwed as a 'wise spiritual teacher!' Just reading what he says, one realizes that if he is not the son of God, he is a lunatic.

And if you do not believe all those things he says and all those parable he tells, and all those miracles he performs, then the New Testament, much like an unscholorly book written today, is an unreliable authority for the truth, and methodology dictates that much of what even seems to be correct is probably wrong, or right for the wrong reasons.

 

[*Starlight*]

How many times need I reapeat it to you!? There is ONE God! ONE person cannot be of TWO minds. So one thing that is said about God will be true, and all other things will be false, or part-true. SO read the Bible! Read the Qu'ran! Read the Book of Mormon and the Watchtower! Be really sure that you are right about who God is, for what we speak of is no less than a matter of life and death. For if the Muslims were in the least correct, then I myself am actually bound for eternal suffering in Hell, and I know not the love and mercy and peace of God, but the hatred and sadness and depravity of a false idol! I could never live my life with a single doubt about that!

I know that there is one God, I never said anything else. I just meant that people have different beliefs about that one God. Some of these beliefs are true, and some of them are not. But, humans aren't perfect, and God is infinite, so no human can perfectly understand God. That's why I don't think anyone actually has the whole and only truth about Him. Some people are just closer to the truth, and some are further away from it.

Also, consider one thing... There are two people looking at a cylinder. One person is looking at it from one point of view, and sees a circle. The other one is looking from a different point of view, and sees a rectangle. A circle isn't a rectangle... They are very different. So, these two people can later argue about what they have seen, thinking that the other person is lying because they are describing something totally different. But, both of these people were looking at exactly the same object. When they accept each other's descriptions as also true, they can easily discover the true nature of the object they were looking at, and they will together find out the truth.

Isn't it possible that it's the same with different people perceiving God? I'm not saying that everyone who says different things about God is right, because, as I said, humans aren't perfect and, because of that, they often believe things which aren't true. But, maybe sometimes truth can be found in more than one view of God

 

[hartlandcat]

The UCC, which is an evil and non-christian "denomination," fell from grace with God as it surrendered to liberalism in the 1970's. It purports unbiblical doctrines and teaches falsities, ensnaring the innocent into the ways of satan.

The United Chruch of Christ is not a church, per see, as the Roman Catholic or United Methodist churches are, but really an alliance of fully independent congregational (democratically run) churches. Each individual church is responsible for purporting its own doctrines and teachings and hiring its own ministers. The UCC provides "conferrences, oversight, guidance, a larger voice in washington, (cheap) printed media"etc... for these churches. We also get cool nametags. My Church, the Dover First Parish Congregational church, which is also the seventh oldest church in North America, has never followed the UCC's decisions. I wrote my opinions of the UCC and my own church in a thread on the UCC, found Here.

Incidentally, after reading that thread, the idea of television adverts for churches really surprises me. It's illegal here.

Actually, I do not just attend the local congregational church. In addition to a weekday Catholic service and saturday service at First parish and the Catholic church, I also attend Catholic, Methodist, Episcopal and Orthodox Presbytarian Services on Sundays. I read the Qu'ran, The JW New World Bible, and the Book of Mormon, as well as cult manuscripts. I am very interested in religion, as you can probably tell. I am 16 and graduating high-school this year, and hope to recieve a BA in Minestrial arts or History, a MA in Theology and A PHD (Doctorate of Philosophy) and Go on to preach in the ministry and teach college courses. I am also interested in writing and have been published in the local newspapers a few times.

Good. Congratulations. I'm not quite sure why you're mentioning all this in this thread though — you think that it gives you more credibility, perhaps?

Ah, but mine interperatation of the Bible is in fact not my own, but the traditional and Christian interperatation. It is the interperatation of The apostles and the saints, of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Wesly.

It is a traditional Christian interpretation. The Arians did not agree, but they were more or less stamped out. I suppose it's ultimately a question of whether or not one accepts tradition as a source of authority.

Another reason I dissolved my membership in the UUA was indeed its affront to traditionalism. Liberal as they were, UU ministers would never have suggested Homosexual marriage in 1890, in fact, that homosexuality even existed would hardly have entered their minds.

You're right — they would not have suggested homosexual marriage in 1890. But I don't see how the fact that it was at an earlier time means automatically that they were right then and are wrong today.

I too was once a liberal, and I stood in the reception hall of the Kennebunk First Parish UU church. There were hung the portraits of our past ministers (all men, unlike our lesbian woman minister.) It then occured to me, "these men all condemned what I hold true. Everyone once condemned this. If God has been revealing himself to mankind throughout the ages, how can I now claim to have recieved a revalation which contradicts all previous revalations?" Then I imagined their faces sneering and jeering, appauled as they would have been to discover their portraits hung in a house of what they would have considered satanic worship. I imagined them jeering and booing, and rising up and spitting on the congregation.

And? I find it difficult to comprehend your worldview, which appears to state, if I understand what you say correctly, that older/earlier/before automatically supersedes newer/later/after.

How many times need I reapeat it to you!? There is ONE God! ONE person cannot be of TWO minds. So one thing that is said about God will be true, and all other things will be false, or part-true. SO read the Bible! Read the Qu'ran! Read the Book of Mormon and the Watchtower! Be really sure that you are right about who God is, for what we speak of is no less than a matter of life and death. For if the Muslims were in the least correct, then I myself am actually bound for eternal suffering in Hell, and I know not the love and mercy and peace of God, but the hatred and sadness and depravity of a false idol! I could never live my life with a single doubt about that!

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that people will be punished eternally for theological errors. Many of my friends are Muslims; I could not possibly live with any contentment if I had to believe that they would be punished eternally after death because of their different beliefs about God compared to mine. (Incidentally, since I'm a Unitarian, they often see me as someone who is essentially a Muslim within a Christian social and cultural context — that's not a position with which I would particularly agree though, but it's interesting to me that they think that).

But they do not! If they deny the divinity of Christ, then they deny so much else! As C.S. Lewis says:

Christ cannot be veiwed as a 'wise spiritual teacher!' Just reading what he says, one realizes that if he is not the son of God, he is a lunatic.

Genuine question: am I to assume that you believe that religious 'founders' from other faiths, such as Muhammad or Bahá'u'lláh, were 'lunatics'?

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Erm... did someone up there cite Augustine as a POSITIVE of the christian faith?

Jeebus would be turning in his grave...

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Ah, but mine interperatation of the Bible is in fact not my own, but the traditional and Christian interperatation. It is the interperatation of The apostles and the saints, of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Wesly.

<Snicker>
And you know what happens when you get Calvin and Luther in the same room?

Nevermind throwing Augustine or a good solid Eastern Orthodox into the mix.

The message of paul is like the message of Jesus: Judge not, lest you be Judged. What Jesus means by this is that we should not exalt ourselves, or think ourselves better than our fellow human beings. We should not say "woe to this man, for he is bound to hell, so I shall not sit next to him."

left in without explicit comment

You know for a fact, my friend, that the repeal of the witchcraft laws in England led to the rise of Wicca.

I know for a fact that Wiccans include people who were rejected from Christian churches and yet are loving caring people.

I also know for a fact that there is no secular reason justifying witchcraft laws.
[abortion snipped]

You know for a fact that the repeal of divorce laws, and the advent of social security, and the advent of alimony payments, made divorce easier and thereofre more common.

I know nothing of that sort with respect to Soc. Sec..
I do know for a fact that churches pretty much directly reflected society in ignoring wife beating and men drinking and womanizing while penalizing women for the same.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

HELLO???? DIVORCE????

Was invented by Henry the 8th as a way to get out of his Holy Union with his wives?

Blessed by God, apparently.

I should think christians... who invented the modern divorce... would be the last to be able to criticise its impact and use within society.

Jeez.

 

[KCDAD]

HELLO???? DIVORCE????

Was invented by Henry the 8th as a way to get out of his Holy Union with his wives?

Blessed by God, apparently.

I should think christians... who invented the modern divorce... would be the last to be able to criticise its impact and use within society.

Jeez.

Well, it's a heck of alot better than chopping their heads off... give old Hank a break, would ya?

 

[waterlily]

Wow, where to begin?

The UCC, which is an evil and non-christian "denomination," fell from grace with God as it surrendered to liberalism in the 1970's. It purports unbiblical doctrines and teaches falsities, ensnaring the innocent into the ways of satan.

Unless God has you on speed dial and just phoned you to say "LIek *** LibraryOwl, teh UCC IS EVIL AND NOT IN MY GRACE!!" then you really have no idea how God views the UCC. I wish I could remember this one quote correctly and who said it, but it was something like "As soon as God starts hating the same people as you, you can be sure you are shaping God in your own image."

Ah, but mine interperatation of the Bible is in fact not my own, but the traditional and Christian interperatation. It is the interperatation of The apostles and the saints, of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Wesly. And if you should try to raise your finger against it, so shall they raise their fingers against you on the day of judgement.

LOL, yeah, I guess they will be filling in just in case God has a cold or a round of golf or something on judgement day and can't make it.

Your interpretation is, in fact, your own. That you have adopted other people's perspectives doesn't change that.

For the same Bible may not be of two minds, and the mind my Bible is of is that mind which it has always been of.

I don't have any idea what you are trying to say here. Please clarify.

The message of paul is like the message of Jesus: Judge not, lest you be Judged. What Jesus means by this is that we should not exalt ourselves, or think ourselves better than our fellow human beings.

You're not doing a very good job of sounding like you aren't exalting yourself over everyone else. That bit about you envisioning ministers from over a century ago spitting on a modern congregation was a nice touch.

In fact, we are all sinners, we are all abominably bad, and bound for the same place, that being just and eternal suffering in hell. It is only Christ, who died in the place of that just judgement, who prevents it from falling on us, bad as we are.

Eternal suffering is not at all just. Infinite punishment for finite crimes? Please.

You have no idea where everyone is bound. NO IDEA.

Oh, wait, I forgot about the speed dial. Or maybe e-mail? Did God send you a spreadsheet showing you everyone's eternal fate?

Rather than judging them myself, I was simply revealing the just and true judgemnet which the Lord has passed on all men.

Again, you don't know. I believe you sincerely think you do to the point of arrogance. But you don't.

People have always been happiest, and nations most successful, when the laws of God were the laws of the land. And if the law of God does not rule, then it is the law of the flesh, and people are more given to misery.

WHAT? Can you please cite some sources here that can give me the happiness to unhappiness ratio in theocracies vs. every other government system in the world? What defines a "successful" nation, btw?

The laws of God were not designed to punish man

What about that eternal suffering bit? Is that some sort of reward or is that punishment?

They are in fact a manual for living, which, if followed to the letter, shall avoid for you all error in your life.

How many times need I reapeat it to you!? There is ONE God! ONE person cannot be of TWO minds. So one thing that is said about God will be true, and all other things will be false, or part-true.

Huh?

I really like Starlight's analogy here about the cylinder. It's similar to the blind men and the elephant: a group of blind men are in a room and reach out to perceive an elephant as best they can. They all touch different parts and describe different experiences. Everything they say is true, nothing is false, yet they have not individually perceived the whole thing since it is not in their power. They can share what knowledge they do have and get some idea of what the whole picture is, but not one knows or ever can know the whole thing based on the experience.

You may know some things about God. You do not know all things though. You are not right about other human beings and their ultimate fate just because you think you are right.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Was invented by Henry the 8th as a way to get out of his Holy Union with his wives?

Blessed by God, apparently.

I should think christians... who invented the modern divorce... would be the last to be able to criticise its impact and use within society.

Jeez.

I'm not sure I follow.

Just to clarify what I wrote earlier, I certainly don't applaud our current attitude toward divorce, but I note that conservative Christians have not been aggressively at the forefront of battling and ameliorating the circumstances that have often required at least the separation of couples for the safety of one or the other (most commonly the woman, but not always).

I don't see any good legal sol'n, certainly none of those that I have seen proposed by "pro-family" groups.

 

[Homie]

The differnece is, this 16-year old has Biblical backing for what he has been saying all along, all you guys are saying is your liberal attitudes with no basis in scripture. Basically the Bible says one thing, but it rubs you (the post-modern person) the wrong way, so you'll believe what feels comfortable to you. That is not a good way to go about things, hey I wish there was no well, I wish a lot of things the liberals says were true, but the fact is they aren't, and I most follow what is true, it is pointless to follow your own made-up beliefs.

And libraryOwl was not saying that what people believed in the past were true because whatever the past holds is true. By that logic, the agnostics of the 1st century were correct, but we know them as heretics, as Paul said they were. I think what libraryOwl meant was that throughout Christian history, the main prevailing views were such and such, and until the 1960-70s when people completely abondened them, so who is likely to be correct: Christians throughout hundreds and hundreds of years, or the people of the past 30!

 

[hartlandcat]

Homie, you might like to know that a large proportion of Unitarians today do not claim to be Christians. Whether or not we have 'Biblical backing' for what we believe is largely irrelevant &#8212; no more relevant to us than the fact that you don't have 'Koranic backing' for your beliefs is to you.

 

[Homie]

Hartlandchat, I'm talking to those of you that do consider yourselfs Christians, and btw - calling yourselfs Unitarian gives people the idea that you believe in one God, your name is misleading. As far as I know, that term actually did come into use by Christians to describe Christians that did not believe in the triune God, but rather God at the top and Jesus as a figure below Him, am I wrong?

On that note, how can those of you UUs that consider yourselfs Christians not attend a Christian church, but attend this kvasi-belief whatcha-ma-call-it?

 

[Tigress_86]

I think what libraryOwl meant was that throughout Christian history, the main prevailing views were such and such, and until the 1960-70s when people completely abondened them, so who is likely to be correct: Christians throughout hundreds and hundreds of years, or the people of the past 30!

Prevailing opinion does not necessarily reflect what is true. Also, Unitarians have existed for far longer than in the past 30 years, as have Quakers, etc.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The differnece is,

The difference between what and what?
Pleae try to include a little context (not the entire post you are responding to, but enough to know what you are talking to).

 

[zoziw]

MOD HAT ON

There are a few posts in this thread that are very close to violating the no flaming rules that we have.

Please review the following to make sure that your posts are respectful and within the rules of Christian Forums.

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"
1.1 You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within the site. This includes, but is not limited to:
a. Directly calling another member “cultist”, “heretic” or “bigot” as these are personal attacks and are not conducive to civil discussion.
b. Calling famous individuals derogatory names (unless it is a well-known nickname) as this may be considered defamation.
1.2 You will not directly call another member or his or her religious organization a “cult”, “heretic”, “demonic” or “satanic” but you may discuss doctrines, teachings, practices or writings of other religious organizations as long as evidence (including Scripture) is provided.
1.3 You will only post negative statements about another individual’s belief or religious organization (including non-Christian religions) with objective evidence provided. Members are allowed to say “The doctrines X church is false because of Y scriptures and Z other relevant evidence”.
1.4 You will not misquote another member regardless of context. You will not quote another member in your profile including your signature without permission - such quotes will be removed.
1.5You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[hartlandcat]

calling yourselfs Unitarian gives people the idea that you believe in one God, your name is misleading.

I'd say that we do generally believe in one God &#8212; at most, that is, lol. Anyway, I'm a Unitarian and I definitely believe in one God.

As far as I know, that term actually did come into use by Christians to describe Christians that did not believe in the triune God, but rather God at the top and Jesus as a figure below Him, am I wrong?

Yes, that's right. Some of us are still like that &#8212; more so in Europe (except Germany) than in North America.

On that note, how can those of you UUs that consider yourselfs Christians not attend a Christian church, but attend this kvasi-belief whatcha-ma-call-it?

We're back to the debate about what does and what doesn't constitutes a Christian again. You might like to know that different congregations vary considerably; it's also rather different in different parts of the world.

 

[Rae]

Names change meaning over time. Given the polytheist and atheist membership of UU churches, I'd say that Unitarian and Universalist are relics of our church's past heritage, not descriptors of its members' beliefs today. The modern UU churches did descend from Christian Unitarians and Christian Universalists.

 

[LibraryOwl]

Prevailing opinion does not necessarily reflect what is true. Also, Unitarians have existed for far longer than in the past 30 years, as have Quakers, etc.

Well, unlike the UU's, today's Quakers cannot really be lumped into a single category. Originally the Quakers, who were relatively grounded in scripture and Orthodoxy, broke from their respective churches mainly over issues of how God should be worshipped and how the sacraments sshould be administered (they have some pretty interesting weddings.)

Today's Quakers, and I say this including the Evangelical Quakers, could probably be evenly split along thirds between Heathens, Heretics and Christians. When I went to the local meeting of friends, I found some people who did not believe in God (Heathens) some people who didn't believe in Angels (Heretics) and some firm believers with strange methods of worshippping God (Christians.)

It doe's however hold true that, the Quakers were almost all Christians in the 1800's. Their method of governance simply left them specially open to the attacks of Satan and church liberals when the opportunity was presented.

I'd say that we do generally believe in one God — at most, that is, lol. Anyway, I'm a Unitarian and I definitely believe in one God.

I ask this out of curiosity more than anything else:
Proclaim your God to me. Proclaim him as Paul proclaimed mine to the greeks (Actst 17.) I want to know this God that you are worshipping, who I have never heard of.

Yes, that's right. Some of us are still like that — more so in Europe (except Germany) than in North America.

And this is what I was asking before. Why did the UU's change their beliefs so drastically? Did they cease being guided by God? Did they suddenly discover God's guidance? Did God change his mind and reveal that he was suddenly for all sorts of things he was formerly against? Or, did we never really know who God was, and simply place a new guess based on New infromation?

Homie, you might like to know that a large proportion of Unitarians today do not claim to be Christians. Whether or not we have 'Biblical backing' for what we believe is largely irrelevant — no more relevant to us than the fact that you don't have 'Koranic backing' for your beliefs is to you.

Listen to this:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
[/QUOTE

2 Peter 16-21, ESV.

And so, I impolre you, seek out this "God" whom I prclaim, and you shall find him. He is not far from you, but actually right there with you everywhere you go(Acts 17.) By reading the bible, you will not be reading the tibble of man, but actually the real and actual words of this unknown "God" who I worship. And through his words he shall become known to you, and you shall discover him that was always there with you. This I promise in Jesus' name.

You may think this is strage, but I tell you this: Our God is not like other Gods! He is not an idol worshipped in temples, nor does he dwell in a house in Mecca, nor does he take the form of an eagle and suduce little boys. Rather, he is perfect, all powerful, and mighty! He is merciful, forgiving and loving! He is REAL and LIVING! If you study nature and the scriptures carefully, you will not fail to notice this! That is not really miy promise, but God's promise, which is eternal.