Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[Cuivienen]

So all religions have to agree for something to be "relevant"? Was Jesus the son of God? is irrelevant? (seems pretty relevant if he is). Whether we are saved by works or saved by faith is irrelevant? Some Muslims say their religions command them to kill "infidels". Is that irrelevant too?

also: what defines a religion to the UU? Obviously Flying Spaghetti Monsterism doesn't count. Does Scientology?

You're missing the point. UU believes that all religions have certain principles of human dignity and morality contained at their heart, before any sort of theism enters into the equation. UU then removes and all of the theistic aspects of religion with the idea of observing the original moral and philosophical basis of religions.

Christianity teaches important principles: love your fellow man, treat others as you would be treated, etc. The theistic aspects of Christianity don't matter; we don't need to say that God or Jesus or some higher power gives these commands to us. It is entirely irrelevant whether Jesus was the son of God, whether works or faith save. What are relevant are the core values of religion, and our understanding of them because they are what impact our lives and our society and our "souls", if you will.

You mistake the superficial aspects of religion, the religious codes and laws, the ordinances declared by scholars of the life of Mohammed or authors of the gospel, for the true meaning of religion, the love and celebration of humanity and human dignity.

I would say that even FSM has something to add: we must remember not to take ourselves too seriously. The theistic aspects of Scientology are just as ludicrous as those of other religions, but that doesn't mean it has nothing to say for the human condition. (Knowing very little about scientology, I couldn't say what that is.)

 

[ybbor]

Christianity teaches important principles: love your fellow man, treat others as you would be treated, etc. The theistic aspects of Christianity don't matter; we don't need to say that God or Jesus or some higher power gives these commands to us. It is entirely irrelevant whether Jesus was the son of God, whether works or faith save. What are relevant are the core values of religion, and our understanding of them because they are what impact our lives and our society and our "souls", if you will.

You mistake the superficial aspects of religion, the religious codes and laws, the ordinances declared by scholars of the life of Mohammed or authors of the gospel, for the true meaning of religion, the love and celebration of humanity and human dignity.

I find it hard to believe that worshipping God is irrelvent. UU's belive that religion's purpose is more in understanding man than in understanding God?

 

[Cuivienen]

I find it hard to believe that worshipping God is irrelvent. UU's belive that religion's purpose is more in understanding man than in understanding God?

Yes. 10char.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yeah, I would have to say that questions of the divinity of Christ are far more relevant and essential to Christianity than the moral principles, important as those are. So as far as I can see, UU attempts to keep the parts it likes and ignore what seems inconvenient, theologically speaking.

While this isn't a criticism per se, it seems to me that you are interpreting religions in a way vastly different from how the adherewnts interpret them.

 

[punkbass2000]

One could make the argument that many religious adherents commit the crimes of in-group/out-group social dynamics and in the process miss the point of their tradition.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I suppose that is true.

The issue I guess is that UU defines religion very differently from how I do, and interprets individual religions in a way very different from how the adherents do. Whether this is correct or not is probably well outside the scope of this thread. Suffice to say, I would define the religious beliefs of a UU member separately from their membership, instead to what they individually follow.

 

[punkbass2000]

As Cuivenen points out, there's a certain commanality to nearly every major religion. UU says, I believe, that if you choose to observe and revere your path by, say, abstaining from meat on Fridays then that's a fine way to demonstrate and even strengthen one's faith, even if it's not the only or best way. It probably acknowledges that there is no "best" way. One could argue that UU is more of a form of spiritualism than religion per se, though, I suppose.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yeah, that's more or less the impression I get. I would say that a Christian UU is religiously a Christian, not UU. Admittedly, I do have similar views on some issues (I would say that it can be beneficial to abstain from meat on Fridays, if that is what one believes) except I think that the absolute truth about God exists on earth. Like I said, I don't want to be seen as criticizing - plenty of people think that what I believe is weird, after all.

 

[Veritass]

I am a Religious Scientist, not a UU, but I see similarities in how our views are different from standard theism. Most of the problems that, say, a traditional Christian has in examining the God concept in UU or RS come from assumptions that are so deeply ingrained in the Christian concept that they are undistinguished as assumptions.

When you ask the question, "Surely the concept of the divinity of Jesus is not irrelevant!?" you are already assuming that God has characteristics of man: that God (not a "He") is a personality that would create such a system of right versus wrong, that God would set it up so that one part of humankind would be right in their beliefs and another part wrong in their beliefs, that God would judge the right and wrong, and that God would set up a system of exclusion so that only some people were in communication with God. Why would a truly Infinite Being do such a thing?

If you start instead from the belief that God encompasses everything, including what we label right and wrong, and look for that which is common instead of that which separates, many of these assumptions fall away. As the poet Rumi said, "Out past right-thinking and wrong-thinking, there is a meadow; I will meet you there."

For example, all religions from Christianity to Native American beliefs to Confucianism have some form of the Golden Rule in their beliefs. This to me would have more credence as a rule created by God. Rules such as eating meat on Fridays or not dancing are rules created by humans. The key is whether the practice is dividing or universal: if everyone can use it and benefit from it, it is more likely God-related, but if divides and only some people can use it and benefit from it, it is more likely human-created.

If you look to Jesus as a mechanism for communicating with the Divine and personally experiencing God (usually phrased as "...no one enters the Kingdom but through me..."), Jesus is a boon to humans. If you look to the same quote as a dividing of the "true believers" from the infidels, Jesus is a tragedy.

St. Augustine said, "The nature of God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere." God is within me, and the same God is within every one of you. Thus, we are all connected at all times to the Divine. Thus, we are connected to one another. Thus, when we help one another, we help God's incarnation, and when we harm one another, we harm God's incarnation.

 

[Cuivienen]

Yeah, I would have to say that questions of the divinity of Christ are far more relevant and essential to Christianity than the moral principles, important as those are. So as far as I can see, UU attempts to keep the parts it likes and ignore what seems inconvenient, theologically speaking.

Not what's inconvenient of the theology; UU ignores the theology itself.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That's kind of what I meant, actually.

At any rate, even if I personally could never really accept a lot of its claims, UU does seem interesting.

 

[punkbass2000]

I am a Religious Scientist, not a UU, but I see similarities in how our views are different from standard theism. Most of the problems that, say, a traditional Christian has in examining the God concept in UU or RS come from assumptions that are so deeply ingrained in the Christian concept that they are undistinguished as assumptions.

When you ask the question, "Surely the concept of the divinity of Jesus is not irrelevant!?" you are already assuming that God has characteristics of man: that God (not a "He") is a personality that would create such a system of right versus wrong, that God would set it up so that one part of humankind would be right in their beliefs and another part wrong in their beliefs, that God would judge the right and wrong, and that God would set up a system of exclusion so that only some people were in communication with God. Why would a truly Infinite Being do such a thing?

If you start instead from the belief that God encompasses everything, including what we label right and wrong, and look for that which is common instead of that which separates, many of these assumptions fall away. As the poet Rumi said, "Out past right-thinking and wrong-thinking, there is a meadow; I will meet you there."

For example, all religions from Christianity to Native American beliefs to Confucianism have some form of the Golden Rule in their beliefs. This to me would have more credence as a rule created by God. Rules such as eating meat on Fridays or not dancing are rules created by humans. The key is whether the practice is dividing or universal: if everyone can use it and benefit from it, it is more likely God-related, but if divides and only some people can use it and benefit from it, it is more likely human-created.

If you look to Jesus as a mechanism for communicating with the Divine and personally experiencing God (usually phrased as "...no one enters the Kingdom but through me..."), Jesus is a boon to humans. If you look to the same quote as a dividing of the "true believers" from the infidels, Jesus is a tragedy.

St. Augustine said, "The nature of God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere." God is within me, and the same God is within every one of you. Thus, we are all connected at all times to the Divine. Thus, we are connected to one another. Thus, when we help one another, we help God's incarnation, and when we harm one another, we harm God's incarnation.

 

[Cuivienen]

I hope you don't mind, Eran, but I've stolen part of your signature.

Also, Veritass, I didn't say this before, but very well-put. I definitely agree, and think most UUs would, as well. I wish I could have expressed it so clearly from the beginning.

 

[ybbor]

I am a Religious Scientist, not a UU, but I see similarities in how our views are different from standard theism. Most of the problems that, say, a traditional Christian has in examining the God concept in UU or RS come from assumptions that are so deeply ingrained in the Christian concept that they are undistinguished as assumptions.

When you ask the question, "Surely the concept of the divinity of Jesus is not irrelevant!?" you are already assuming that God has characteristics of man: that God (not a "He") is a personality that would create such a system of right versus wrong, that God would set it up so that one part of humankind would be right in their beliefs and another part wrong in their beliefs, that God would judge the right and wrong, and that God would set up a system of exclusion so that only some people were in communication with God. Why would a truly Infinite Being do such a thing?

I freely acknowledge that those are central issues of Christian theology which must be examined. But those seem like questions that deserve answers. surely the question of whether God would judge right and wrong is important? But UU seems to say the answer is no, which seems to be theology.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I hope you don't mind, Eran, but I've stolen part of your signature.

Hey, glad to be an inspiration. Have you actually joined with Lockesdonkey? That would make, like 10 of us in the entire forum.

 

[Ansar]

I have to admit, I see 'UU Church' and think 'Unique Unit?'

Too much Civ3 for you.

 

[bhsup]

Yes. 10char.

THen it's more a philosophy or creed, not a religion at all, like Buddhism?

 

[Turner]

Too much Civ3 for you.

What do you expect from a Civ3 moderator?

ontopic: I haven't given much thought to UU since I decided it wasn't for me, so it's nice to get more info on it. So please keep up the discussion, it's very informative.

 

[punkbass2000]

THen it's more a philosophy or creed, not a religion at all, like Buddhism?

I think you're heading into murky territories, here.

 

[Veritass]

I freely acknowledge that those are central issues of Christian theology which must be examined. But those seem like questions that deserve answers. surely the question of whether God would judge right and wrong is important? But UU seems to say the answer is no, which seems to be theology.

These are all fine questions for study. I was only trying to point out that by the time you get to the question of God being judgmental, you have already assumed that God is a distinct being with a personality, and you are just trying to figure out what that personality is.

I don't want to take this any further off topic, so I will return to the original topic and ask:

Is Unitarian Universalism related at all to the Unity Churches? If not, how do they compare?