Language of Reverence Redux

[gatheringwater]

Many newcomers to Unitarian Universalist congregations say they felt like they were "coming home" when they first attended. For some long-term UUs, however, a shifting culture of belief gives them the unsettling feeling that someone has rearranged the furniture in their religious home. Just take a look at a news story about the General Assembly that is being published in newspapers around the country: Unitarian Universalists Debate God's Place in Church

In the article, a workshop speaker shared his concern about the decline of atheism and agnosticism in our religious community "'When I first joined our denomination, it was the faith of the skeptics, the nonconformists and the outsiders,' said Haught, editor of the Charleston Gazette in West Virginia. 'Now we are turning more churchy. Our national leaders throw in all this God talk. We are pretty sure it's not the Methodist-Presbyterian kind of God talk, but they won't say what they mean. Our current (UU) president advocates a 'language of reverence' but won't say what he's revering.'"

At the same time, other GA speakers were calling for increased use of a language of reverence in our congregations. One worship service acknowledged that this change may alienate some of our members, but that those who left would be replaced by newcomers.

A new publication, Engaging Our Theological Diversity addresses the anxieties related to theological change while articulating a common ground of shared beliefs and values. It is the current discussion topic at Coffee Hour, a group blog for Unitarian Universalists. I invite you to take a look and to share your own perspective on this issue. I am particularly interested to know, whatever your theological stripe, what it would take for you to feel you were no longer welcome in your religious home?

 

[michel]

Hi gatheringwater,


Since I notice this is your first post, I thought I would Welcome you to the forum -

You might like to have a look at :- Articles for New Members ; from there, there is a link to the forum rules, which you ought to see.

Perhaps you would like to post on Are you new to ReligiousForums.com? , on which you might tell us a little about yourself.

Enjoy the forum.

 

[lilithu]

Hi Matthew,

'Now we are turning more churchy. Our national leaders throw in all this God talk. We are pretty sure it's not the Methodist-Presbyterian kind of God talk, but they won't say what they mean. Our current (UU) president advocates a 'language of reverence' but won't say what he's revering.'"

This is what they mean: http://www.all-souls.org/sermons/20050327.htm

It's a transcript of the sermon Rob Hardies gave on Easter sunday. Personally, I thought it was a better than the sermon that he gave at GA.

 

[PantaRhea]

Two things would make me feel unwelcome, I think. The first would be a dogmatic atheism which censored my "language of reverence". The second would be the requirement that those of us who use a "language of reverence" come up with a specific articulation of what it is that is being revered.

 

[lilithu]

Two things would make me feel unwelcome, I think. The first would be a dogmatic atheism which censored my "language of reverence". The second would be the requirement that those of us who use a "language of reverence" come up with a specific articulation of what it is that is being revered.

Hey PantaRhea, namaste.

I just got online to follow up on my last post and your comments fit well with what I was thinking. The requirement that we specifically articulate what it is that is being revered assumes a worldview where everything "real" is articulatable. It is a materialist, reductionist worldview. The requirement itself demands that we conform to this view. And that is what I specifically reject in my spiritual life.

That is why I chose that particular sermon by our senior minister to answer the question of what is being revered... because it's all about the mystery. I have heard some people sneer at the idea of God as mystery, dismissing it as the last resort for theists whose God has otherwise been explained away by science. They don't understand that the mystery is not the last resort; it is the attraction in the first place. It is the belief that this universe and this life are infused with meaning, even if or especially if that meaning isn't always readily apparent to us.

As Einstein said, there are only two ways to live in this world: as if nothing is a miracle or as if everything is a miracle. I choose the latter.

 

[Davidium]

Wow...

I knew something was telling me I had to check over here....

I am currently finishing up "Engaging our Theological Diversity" which is the book listed by the original poster in this thread. It is acually not a book, but a report by the UUA commission on Apprasial, which is an organization charged by the General Assembly to look at issues of major importance within our faith.

Yes, I said faith. You see, I am one of those who think that Bill Sinkford is right. UU must change or it will no longer be relevant in the world of today. We are not a static faith, we are an ever changing one. I think it was Universalist minister Hosea Ballou who was once asked where the Universalists stood on a particular issue. His response was telling. "We dont stand.... we move.."

We are a dynamic faith... we move. Our history is one of change, of encompassing, not shrinking.

You see, I was at this years General Assembly, (as was Lilithu, whom I had the honor and pleasure of meeting and sharing with). What I saw was evidence that our faith keeps the dynamic nature that has made it unique among religious thought throughout its history... both histories, actually.

You see, the Commission on Apprasials report is not really about what you said. It does address that issue on the periphery, but its central focus is to address the one major issue that was left unresolved at the time of the merger of the Unitarian and the Universalist Churches... the issue of merging the theologies. Oh, we merged organizations, membership, leadership, principles, goals, etc... but theology was too much of a challenge at that time, and our denomination has suffered for not doing so.

You see, the more rational side of our faith has held pre-dominance for many years... Some call it the Unitarian side, but that is a bit of a misnomer, for Emerson also comes from that side. I prefer to think of it as the mind of our faith. When the merger occured, there were many more Unitarians than Universalists, and the more rational thought of the Unitarian side did take a pre-dominate position in many of our congregations.

But the effect of that was to, at least partially, marginalize those who identified more with the spiritual, emotional side of our faith, which some associate with our Universalist heritage. I prefer to think of this trend within us as the "heart" of our faith. It was always there, but did not have a pre-eminent place...

Now, we Unitarian Universalists have been at the forefront of ending the marginalization of peoples throughout our history... From racial segregation to acceptance of Homosexuality. Unitarians and Universalists were major forces in the Abolition movements, and in the fight for womans sufferage.

And yet, we have ignored a few places within our own faith where we have marginalized members of our own congregations and communities. Those of the "heart" or more spiritual side of our faith are one such group.... Liberal free-faith christians are another, and dare I say it.... UU military members and families are another such marganilized group. It is high time we cleaned our own closet a bit.

You cannot exist with only the mind. Just as to exist with only the heart serves no purpose. Reason without Faith is cold, but Faith without Reason is Blind! We must strike the balance between the two, and be a shining beacon in a world that the two are not exclusionary. We must do so, not just for the health of our Faith, or for the potential such a message has for us, but more because it is the right thing to do. We have been lax, and self-absorbed and self-satisfied in our own cerebral accomplishments that we have neglected the spiritual aspects of our Universalist Heritage.

Now, I probably sound like a Universalist.... and that is not the case. I am indeed a blend of the two. As a Deist in my Theology, Reason is my guide, and skepticism is my ally. Spirituality has always been my weakness, and in truth it was lack of such that led me away from my Southern Baptist past.

We as a denomination will never leave behind our reliance on Reason and skepticism... but we must strike a balance between that and faith... between the mind and the heart.... between the ego and the spirit. In fact, I were to try and encapsulate our mission and message in this world, it would be the most important word I learned in all my martial arts training... Balance.

We have been tipped one way for too long... we need the balance if we are to survive and grow in this world. If we are to change the world, we need the strength of both the mind and the heart.

YoUUrs in Faith..... and Reason,

David Pyle
Galveston Island, Texas

 

[gatheringwater]

LilithU,

Thanks for sharing the sermon link and your "tipping point."

I read the sermon and, frankly, I don't get it. What made the gastrolith wonderful wasn't mystery, it was understanding. The minister didn't think it was wonderful until he understood what it was when the scientist explained it to him. It was a kind of wonder that would be entirely lost upon the kind of religious person who believed in the other kind of story, the one of the resurrection of Jesus. Before the theory of evolution was articulated, it was geology that most challenged Christianity.

There is also the irony of claiming that God is a mystery and yet advancing positive values to God. How can God at once be unknowable and yet loving, connecting, generative, etc., as claimed by someone like Sinkford who says he is cradled in the loving hands of the universe?

Finally, isn't there a moral problem inherent within the charge to learn to live within the mystery? Isn't this really just another way of saying we are content with ignorance? I really do believe in reverence for the wonders of the world in which we live. I also think that the more we know about the world, the more we have to revere. I am not content to live within the mystery.

 

[lilithu]

Namaste, GW.

I read the sermon and, frankly, I don't get it. What made the gastrolith wonderful wasn't mystery, it was understanding. The minister didn't think it was wonderful until he understood what it was when the scientist explained it to him.

No, it was both. It was not simply understanding where the rock came from. I understand where the mug that I'm drinking out of right now came from and that by itself does not fill me with awe (unfortunately). As the scientist explained to the minister, the scientist himself felt awe at the mystery - the mystery of the spans of time that are incomprehensible to human brains and his own small place in the universe. His insignificance and yet his utter belonging.

It was a kind of wonder that would be entirely lost upon the kind of religious person who believed in the other kind of story, the one of the resurrection of Jesus. Before the theory of evolution was articulated, it was geology that most challenged Christianity.

I'm sorry but that statement is a bit presumptuous. You are in effect saying that anyone who would believe in the resurrection is incapable of understanding science. While there are certainly some who fit that bill it is untrue as a general statement. How is it that we can decry the intolerance of certain Christian fundamentalists and then turn around and in essence paint with the same broad strokes?

There is also the irony of claiming that God is a mystery and yet advancing positive values to God. How can God at once be unknowable and yet loving, connecting, generative, etc., as claimed by someone like Sinkford who says he is cradled in the loving hands of the universe?

Irony, or a better word for it would be paradox, is the crux of existence, and therefore religion.

Also, I am sure that you are aware that religion tends to speak metaphorically, not literally. Sinkford says that he is cradled in the loving hands of the universe. I say that the universe has meaning. I think that we are essentially saying the same thing, but that he can say it in a much more poetic way is one of the many reasons why he is president of the UUA and I am not.

Finally, isn't there a moral problem inherent within the charge to learn to live within the mystery? Isn't this really just another way of saying we are content with ignorance? I really do believe in reverence for the wonders of the world in which we live. I also think that the more we know about the world, the more we have to revere. I am not content to live within the mystery.

No, recognizing mystery is not the same thing as celebrating ignorance. It is the recognition of our own limitations but it is not resignation to them. As I said, the spiritual life is about paradox, imo. To be able two hold to conflicting beliefs in tension with each other. I believe that I am an insignificant nano-spec in the universe, a blip, nothing. I also believe that I am the center of the universe and that what I choose to do with my life is infinitely important. I believe both these things even tho, logically speaking, they can't both be true. That is the mystery. To realize that one is both nothing and everything when held up against the infinite. And I have met people of all sorts of labels, theist and atheist alike, who have had that experience.

Why is it that you have no problem with words like "reverence" and "wonder" but cannot accept "mystery"? What is it that you feel reverence for?

What I personally don't get is this linguistic gymnastics that liberals do. Constantly rejecting words that we feel have been "contaminated" and insisting that we use other, similar words instead, until those too get "contaminated." Constantly running away from our own baggage, or trying to anyway.

"I'm progessive but I'm not liberal."
"I'm spiritual but I'm not religious."
"I don't believe in God but I love the Spirit of Life."

(not saying that you have said any of these things.)

It becomes very difficult to keep up with what is "allowable" and what is not. Rather than run from a word, I chose to reclaim it. You say you don't believe in God. Fine (honestly!). What does "God" mean to you? More than likely your theistic UU brethren don't believe in that particular God either.

-lilith

 

[gatheringwater]

You are in effect saying that anyone who would believe in the resurrection is incapable of understanding science. While there are certainly some who fit that bill it is untrue as a general statement. How is it that we can decry the intolerance of certain Christian fundamentalists and then turn around and in essence paint with the same broad strokes?

lilithu,

Considering the whole point of my Coffee Hour post was that both Christians and Humanists have experienced marginalization due to rapid theological change and that this marginalization demands a pastoral response, I don't take very seriously the charge of intolerance. Why be so quick to judge?

It is not intolerant to point out that people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible's resurrection story also generally believe in the literal truth of the Bible's stories of creation--a creation story which cannot account for the gastrolith and, therefore, misses out on much that is wonderful about the actual world in which we live. Not all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and you will please notice that I didn't say they did. I'm not painting anyone with broad strokes, I'm merely pointing out that different ways of being religious call forth different responses to the same evidence. I belong to a religious tradition that has traditionally asserted the primacy of reason and the unity of truth. The wonder of the gastrolith is therefore available to me in a way that it would not be to a person who believes the earth was created in seven days, or the virgin birth, or the literal resurrection of Jesus. This is a distinction that the sermon you linked doesn't appear to appreciate: the discovery of the gastrolith and the discovery of the empty tomb are not equivalent religious experiences.

Differences in ways of being religious need not be so extreme as literalists compared to religious liberals. Within the Unitarian Universalist community itself there are significant differences in response to the same evidence. I believe the appropriate response to sincere differences is tolerance. While you place a high value on living in mystery and paradox, I don't see what is so admirable about maintaining two incompatible beliefs. In fact, the last time someone told me the spiritual life was about paradox they were trying to explain the doctrine of the Trinity to me. ("You don't have to understand it; you just have to believe it.") I feel reverence for the truth and that is why my religious response to mystery is curiosity, not incomprehension. After all, what made the gastrolith wonderful is not the fact we don't know what it is. It isn't imcomprehensible; it is quantifiable.

What does "God" mean to you? More than likely your theistic UU brethren don't believe in that particular God either.

I know this question has become something of a cliche in our community and I don't think you mean to give offense. To many atheists, however, this question is offensive because it implies that our convictions are simply a matter of unsophisticated labeling, and that we wouldn't be so picky were we aware of the "God" of process theology or Wieman or panentheism. So let me be clear: As an atheist, I don't believe in any of the Gods of my theistic friends. I can tolerate differences of belief without having to minimize the differences themselves.

 

[lilithu]

Considering the whole point of my Coffee Hour post was that both Christians and Humanists have experienced marginalization due to rapid theological change and that this marginalization demands a pastoral response, I don't take very seriously the charge of intolerance. Why be so quick to judge?

I did not go so far as to call you intolerant, however, just because someone is concerned with intolerance does not mean that they themselves are immune to it. I made the judgment based upon your statement - "It was a kind of wonder that would be entirely lost upon the kind of religious person who believed in the other kind of story, the one of the resurrection of Jesus." - and what you write below does not make me think that I judged incorrectly.

It is not intolerant to point out that people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible's resurrection story also generally believe in the literal truth of the Bible's stories of creation--a creation story which cannot account for the gastrolith and, therefore, misses out on much that is wonderful about the actual world in which we live.

On what basis do you make the claim that people who believe in the resurrection also generally believe in the literal truth of the Bible's creation stories? Most Christians that I know believe in the resurrection but have no problem with the idea of evolution; albeit they believe that it is directed. That is the stance of the Catholic church and of many mainstream Protestants. And I personally know several Christians who believe in the resurrection and who are scientists - who can perfectly well comprehend the meaning of a gastrolith. I stand by what I said - your claim is untrue as a general statement, and suggests a certain intellectual presumption.

I'm not painting anyone with broad strokes, I'm merely pointing out that different ways of being religious call forth different responses to the same evidence. I belong to a religious tradition that has traditionally asserted the primacy of reason and the unity of truth. The wonder of the gastrolith is therefore available to me in a way that it would not be to a person who believes the earth was created in seven days, or the virgin birth, or the literal resurrection of Jesus.

My understanding of our religious tradition is that while it was born of the Enlightenment and highly values reason as a tool, the primacy that it asserts is that of freedom of conscience. As for the "unity of truth," that sounds great but it directly violates freedom of conscience. Who's "one truth" are we talking about here?

To answer your original question, I would no longer feel welcome in UU if we were to abandon freedom of conscience.

This is a distinction that the sermon you linked doesn't appear to appreciate: the discovery of the gastrolith and the discovery of the empty tomb are not equivalent religious experiences.

Apparently the wonder of the gastrolith is available to people who are open to mystery in a way that it would not be to a person who only recognizes objective truth.

By focusing on the literal resurrection, you don't appear to appreciate the significance of choosing the Luke story over the accounts of the other gospels. The point of the sermon was the mystery and the possibility of wonder. It was not about the certainty of truth of the resurrection, just as it was not about the certainty of truth about how a gastrolith came to be where it was found. The equivalence was in the emotional response, not in the associated intellectual machinations. As Schleiermacher said, all religious experience starts with affect.

Differences in ways of being religious need not be so extreme as literalists compared to religious liberals. Within the Unitarian Universalist community itself there are significant differences in response to the same evidence. I believe the appropriate response to sincere differences is tolerance.

Hey, I have no problem with either Christians or Atheists within UU. In fact, I don't just tolerate them; I am glad they are there. But then again, I prefer diversity of perspectives over "unity of truth."

However, I have to say that while I was at GA, I tried to attend a diverse range of workshops - from Christian to Buddhist (very few of those) to Earth-based to Humanist/Atheist. I tried to attend to different Humanist/Atheist workshops and I had to walk out of both of them... because of the level of hostility that I felt there. I love the strong tradition of Humanism within UU. I love that we hold ourselves responsible for social justice instead of just calling it "God's will." I love that our focus always has been and always will be on this life and this world. I love our diversity. But I could not sit thru an hour of people talking about how they are rational, as opposed to the theists. How they believe in human agency, as opposed to the theists. etc, etc. Believe me, the Christian and Buddhist UUs did not spend their time talking about how they were better than others. I understand that the dramatic changes in the denomination can be unsettling, and I share your concern that no one feel marginalized, that everyone feel welcome. But the general circling of the wagons and hostility that I encountered is not the way to achieve inclusivity.

While you place a high value on living in mystery and paradox, I don't see what is so admirable about maintaining two incompatible beliefs.

It is not admirable so much as unavoidable, imo. Any thinking person sooner or later will run up against a paradox. The question then becomes how one responds to it.

I feel reverence for the truth and that is why my religious response to mystery is curiosity, not incomprehension. After all, what made the gastrolith wonderful is not the fact we don't know what it is. It isn't imcomprehensible; it is quantifiable.

My religious response to mystery is wonder and awe, not incomprehension. There is curiosity there too. Again, you seem to assume that being comfortable with religious ambiguity necessarily implies a lack of intellectual drive.

Do you truly believe that what makes the gastrolith wonderful is the fact that it is quantifiable? You say that you feel "reverence for the truth"; which truth? Do you feel reverence for 2+2=4? Do you feel reverence for there being 12 inches in a foot? I realize that my questions will come off as hostile. Believe it or not, I am a little incredulous but not hostile. If you were to answer yes, I'd have to say "ok" (freedom of conscience and all that). But for me personally the wonder of the gastrolith has nothing to do with what is quantifiable. It has nothing to do with understanding how it came to be. (As I said, I do not feel such wonder in response to my coffee mug.) It has everything to do with feeling a connection to something so much bigger than me that numbers don't mean anything anymore. Where the difference is qualitative, not quantitative. It has to do with meaning. Facts and figures can be "true," but they have no spiritual significance for me unless they have meaning attached to them.

I know this question has become something of a cliche in our community and I don't think you mean to give offense. To many atheists, however, this question is offensive because it implies that our convictions are simply a matter of unsophisticated labeling, and that we wouldn't be so picky were we aware of the "God" of process theology or Wieman or panentheism. So let me be clear: As an atheist, I don't believe in any of the Gods of my theistic friends. I can tolerate differences of belief without having to minimize the differences themselves.

I do understand how the question can be perceived as offensive, and how you may tire of having to reiterate your non-belief in the face of certain assumptions. However, as a theist, I also get tired of having to constantly fend off assumptions made with that label. Such is the nature of dialogue. It would not be productive to take offense.

I assure you that I made no assumptions about which god-concepts you reject but I was exploring possibilities. I asked the question to better understand where you are coming from, in order to avoid misunderstandings based on incorrect assumptions. As for considering the possibility that you may be unaware of alternative God concepts, that is the result of having met many atheists who are specifically reacting against the Judeo-Christian god-concept. I have also met many atheists who have no need for any type of God-concept. The only way to know who I am talking to is by asking.

 

[gatheringwater]

If I could just leave you with one observation: You seem to think that by "unity of truth" I am signifying "conformity of belief" as opposed to freedom of conscience. That is not the case and it is not what that term means in its historical context. Basically, the unity of truth requires that all claims, religious or not, be judged on the same standard and that religious claims don't get a free pass just because they are religious. It is part of the reason that liberal religion is a rigorous discipline and not a cafeteria of metaphysical comfort food.

You have an intelligent and forceful Web presence and I appreciate your responses. The truth is, however, I'm not really into this kind of point-by-point debate. I don't think it really promotes understanding or useful dialog. Furthermore, I just don't have the energy for it. I think our difference is an example in miniature of the problem facing our entire religious community, which is not one religion, but two, and two irreconcilable ones at that. There is so little common ground between us that fundamental concepts and vocabulary just don't translate. I don't have a clue about some of what seems obvious to you. I know it must mean a lot to you, but it means nothing to me or, worse, it seems antithetical to everything in which I believe.

 

[KirbyFan101]

On what basis do you make the claim that people who believe in the resurrection also generally believe in the literal truth of the Bible's creation stories?

Generally, no. But fundamentalists do, and there are plenty of them out there.

Most Christians that I know believe in the resurrection but have no problem with the idea of evolution; albeit they believe that it is directed.

I know many Christians who have a problem with Evolution on some level.

untrue as a general statement, and suggests a certain intellectual presumption.

Generalising, maybe. But there is a level of truth to his words.

My understanding of our religious tradition is that while it was born of the Enlightenment and highly values reason as a tool, the primacy that it asserts is that of freedom of conscience. As for the "unity of truth," that sounds great but it directly violates freedom of conscience. Who's "one truth" are we talking about here?

Why deal in extremes? Is it not possible to have a foundation of truth and opinions branching from that.

I tried to attend to different Humanist/Atheist workshops and I had to walk out of both of them... because of the level of hostility that I felt there.

Wow! I would have expected these people to be some of the most tolerant.

Again, you seem to assume that being comfortable with religious ambiguity necessarily implies a lack of intellectual drive.

I am suspicious of anyone who doesn't want "all the answers". I think its human nature to want such.

 

[lilithu]

If I could just leave you with one observation: You seem to think that by "unity of truth" I am signifying "conformity of belief" as opposed to freedom of conscience. That is not the case and it is not what that term means in its historical context. Basically, the unity of truth requires that all claims, religious or not, be judged on the same standard and that religious claims don't get a free pass just because they are religious. It is part of the reason that liberal religion is a rigorous discipline and not a cafeteria of metaphysical comfort food.

The external imposition of a standard automatically leads to conformity of belief. That is kind of the point of having a standard, to weed out those beliefs that do not conform. Who decides what the standard is by which all claims are judged? You seem to think that because you impose the same standard on all claims equally that there is no bias there. However, a biblical literalist also imposes the same standard on all claims; he or she just uses a different standard.

You have an intelligent and forceful Web presence and I appreciate your responses. The truth is, however, I'm not really into this kind of point-by-point debate. I don't think it really promotes understanding or useful dialog. Furthermore, I just don't have the energy for it. I think our difference is an example in miniature of the problem facing our entire religious community, which is not one religion, but two, and two irreconcilable ones at that. There is so little common ground between us that fundamental concepts and vocabulary just don't translate. I don't have a clue about some of what seems obvious to you. I know it must mean a lot to you, but it means nothing to me or, worse, it seems antithetical to everything in which I believe.

Believe it or not, I don't really care for debate either. But I respond in kind when that is what I am presented with. And perhaps I respond too forcefully.

Our differences may indeed be representative of the tensions facing UU, but not because we are atheist and theist. The way that I see it, the difference that may end up breaking us is between those of us who are comfortable with differences and ambiguity and those who prefer greater uniformity. If I could leave you with a question, it would be: why does the presence of theistic UUs bother you? You speak of tolerance but would clearly prefer that your fellow UUs quit it with the God-talk. How is my faith in what I call God antithetical to everything in which you believe?

 

[Davidium]

Lillithu,

I've been staying out of this one, on purpose, because I want to see where it goes...

I will offer this comment though.... You remember when we discussed your path at GA? You are on the right one, dear lady....

YoUUrs in Faith,

David

 

[lilithu]

I know many Christians who have a problem with Evolution on some level.

Almost every Christian I know has a problem with evolution on some level. Almost all of them believe in directed evolution, which specifically goes against natural selection. But the point of contention was not about intelligent design. The point of contention was the claim that a person who believed in the resurrection would not be able to appreciate the spiritual significance of a geological artifact. The assumption was that Christians generally believe that the world was created in six days and that the world is only a few thousand years old. That's what I was disputing.

Why deal in extremes? Is it not possible to have a foundation of truth and opinions branching from that.

Of course it's possible. It's done all the time. The question is whether that foundation of truth would be true for everyone. Christianity has a foundation of truth and opinions branching from that. The foundation is the belief that salvation is affected thru Jesus Christ, and different opinions about all sorts of things branch from that - the exact nature of Jesus, the relationship between him and God the Father, the role of baptism, the relationship of the church, etc, etc. But that foundation of truth is only true for Christians. It means nothing to a Hindu or (I imagine) a Satanist. So my question is, if you want to posit a "unity of truth," what foundation are you going to choose that doesn't do gross violence to somebody else? If you put God at your foundation, where does that leave the non-theists? If you reject God, where does that leave the theists? What could you choose that wouldn't just be an imposition of your version of the truth on someone else?

My "unity of truth" is freedom of conscience - each person decides of their own free will and agency what their truth is. The only constraints are necessity (you may believe you can fly but gravity will prove otherwise) and morality (you can't intentionally hurt others while you're at it). Theologically speaking, I believe that this (figuring out your own truth) is the purpose of life, if there is one at all. Practically speaking, it's the solution that seems most fair to everyone involved.

Wow! I would have expected these people to be some of the most tolerant.

I think the hostility is the result of our UU history, and not from any inherently greater lack of tolerance. GatheringWater is right; UU used to be much more secular humanist but its demographics are rapidly changing as Pagans, Buddhists, liberal Christians, and others have joined our ranks. Long time members who were prefectly happy with the way things were feel under siege by newer members who want to reintroduce things like ritual and God-talk. It's like the rules were changed without their permission, and I do feel a great deal of sympathy for them.

The thing is, liberals can talk about tolerance all we want, but it doesn't really mean anything until we actually have to live with diversity within our midst. We now have true diversity in UU, and some UUs are essentially saying 'we can be diverse as long as y'all think like me.' (And some are saying 'this is all very confusing but we'll work it out.')

I am suspicious of anyone who doesn't want "all the answers". I think its human nature to want such.

It's not a matter of wanting "all the answers" as opposed to wanting only a few. It's a matter of how one reacts to uncertainty. How do you react when you realize there's a possibility that you can't know all the answers irrespective of whether you want to or not? When you encounter someone who believes differently from you, do you decide that only one of you can be "right"? Or do you think that both could be right in your own ways, even if the beliefs are contradictory? When you encounter a question that cannot be answered, do you decide that the question itself must be non-sensical and stop asking it? Or do you hold it in your mind anyway, with the knowledge that it may never be answered?

 

[lilithu]

I've been staying out of this one, on purpose, because I want to see where it goes...

And has it gone in any way that you didn't expect?

I will offer this comment though.... You remember when we discussed your path at GA? You are on the right one, dear lady....

As you can see, I do not have the right personality to be a minister. I am an academic thru and thru.

 

[KirbyFan101]

The question is whether that foundation of truth would be true for everyone.

And herein lies the challenge. It sounds like you have a good idea of what that might be, though.

I believe that this (figuring out your own truth) is the purpose of life, if there is one at all.

Down with conformity? Most certainly. But no matter how broad a religious belief, I think there needs to be a form of cohesion between the members.

It's a matter of how one reacts to uncertainty. How do you react when you realize there's a possibility that you can't know all the answers irrespective of whether you want to or not?

Hmm. Never really crossed my mind. I believe it is probable that we will eventually learn enough to satisfy all curiosity.

When you encounter a question that cannot be answered, do you decide that the question itself must be non-sensical and stop asking it?

Generally speaking, in such a situation, a fault in the question is more likely than a fault with the multiple "correct" answers.

Or do you hold it in your mind anyway, with the knowledge that it may never be answered?

Dwelling on it seems painful.

 

[Davidium]

I said this in another thread, but I will comment here...

Many UU's think the purpose to life is finding your own truth....

I beleive it is to live in Right Relationship with each other, the earth, and all of creation...

YoUUrs in Faith,
David Pyle
Galveston Island, TX
www.uugalveston.org

 

[lilithu]

I said this in another thread, but I will comment here...

Many UU's think the purpose to life is finding your own truth....

I beleive it is to live in Right Relationship with each other, the earth, and all of creation...

Funny that you should say that. I just posted this earlier today:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=202844#post202844

It's not that I disagree with you; it's just that I couldn't tell someone else that's what the purpose of life is. Either they come to that conclusion or they don't.

 

[Davidium]

Someday Lillithu, you and I are going to write a book together....

YoUUrs in Faith,

David