[UU only!] Age and Humanism/Theism

[Trey of Diamonds]

From what I can tell, we're looking at language that is traditionally associated with more mainstream religious beliefs, such as "the sacred", "the divine", and reference to actions such as prayer. I'm not sure that "God" is among the terms being considered, but I'm not sure that it's not.

Yes but is what context does she mean importance? Is it important to use such language or merely to acknowledge the meaning of the language and use it properly? Is it important to choose a singular meaning to language being used by multiple faiths or only that it is used in the proper context?

I consider the language to be important and it should always be used properly but I don't think it's important for UUs to have their own language. And this has nothing to do with religious language. It really bothers me when people mangle vocabulary and use it incorrectly or redefine words to mean whatever they wish. So my sense of importance is along those lines rather than considering the language important because of it's connection to a religion.

 

[J Bryson]

What I got from the post was "Is it important to you personally in your spiritual path"?

 

[Storm]

I voted "Under 30 and religious language/expression is important to me." It's important to me becuase I use it quite naturally and would object to being asked not to. I don't see how that relates to Humanism/ theism, nor do I see why those are presented in opposition.

 

[lilithu]

Yes but is what context does she mean importance?

This is what I mean by "important to me":

I voted "Under 30 and religious language/expression is important to me." It's important to me becuase I use it quite naturally and would object to being asked not to.

I don't see how that relates to Humanism/ theism, nor do I see why those are presented in opposition.

It relates to humanism/theism in that I have heard from more than one self-identified Humanist that they don't see why we need this irrational "God-talk" in UU congregations. In fact, I was dismayed at my first General Assembly when I attended a workshop on Humanism and the entire time was devoted to the presenters ranting about how spirituality is creeping back into UU. I agree that they are not in opposition. I identify as both theist and humanist. But for a lot of UUs, they are in opposition. And my desire was to see where UUs on RF stand on this issue.

A topic that seems to come up in UU circles a lot nowadays, especially around the "leadership" types, is the seeming lack of what could be considered sacred language in our church. As we welcome humanists, atheists, and others who may be uncomfortable with words and terms with dogmatic implications, we're now trying to figure out how to reconcile the hunger for this among some UUs with the understandable skepticism of others.

Basically what he said.

 

[keithnurse]

I voted 30-50 and religious language/expression is important to me. I would add that I don't object to others not using religious language. By "religious language" I mean standing in awe and amazement of the universe, using "spirit"in connection to "breath", in other words pagan or "new age"type spiritual language. I don't know of any UUs who would want "Father God we just want to praise you and ask you to bless us" to be used in a UU service. Also I am perfectly comfortable with a humanist service with no religious language.

 

[bicker]

I think, specifically "Father God" would explicitly violate UU principles. The real question is between using (just) the word "God" and something like "Spirit of Life".

 

[J Bryson]

Yeah. Say "FATHER God", and you'd see a run for the exit the likes of which the world hasn't seen since the last Paris Hilton movie. Spirit of Life is nice, but seems a bit generalized and new-agey for me.

 

[lilithu]

I think, specifically "Father God" would explicitly violate UU principles. The real question is between using (just) the word "God" and something like "Spirit of Life".

That's ironic since "Father God" was William Ellery Channing's God.

Yeah. Say "FATHER God", and you'd see a run for the exit the likes of which the world hasn't seen since the last Paris Hilton movie. Spirit of Life is nice, but seems a bit generalized and new-agey for me.

Oh, I like Spirit. It emphasizes the immanence of the Divine but still retains a relationship with our Judeo-Christian roots. When I pray to the Spirit in interfaith settings, my Jewish and Christian friends and colleagues know Who I am praying to without me having to translate.

 

[bicker]

No, not ironic at all. UUs have always been progressive, and especially so in the last 200 years. So it is natural that the nature of belief of UUs now will show remarkable differences from that of our ancestors. A trail-blazer must know, at some level, that those who carry the torch after them will likely bring their own uniqueness to the mission.

 

[lilithu]

No, not ironic at all.

It is ironic in that Channing is thought by many to be the founder of Unitarianism and you are saying that his core beliefs "violate UU principles." (While I personally do not relate to God that way, I do not think that "God the Father" violates any UU principles.)

UUs have always been progressive, and especially so in the last 200 years. So it is natural that the nature of belief of UUs now will show remarkable differences from that of our ancestors. A trail-blazer must know, at some level, that those who carry the torch after them will likely bring their own uniqueness to the mission.

At what point does bringing one's own uniqueness to a tradition become just creating a different religion altogether?

 

[bicker]

It is ironic in that Channing is thought by many to be the founder of Unitarianism and you are saying that we UUs reject his core beliefs.

Again, for the reason I mentioned, it isn't ironic.

Regardless, your generalization is wrong. There are a number of Channing's core beliefs that are held strongly by UUs, today:

Every human being has a work to carry on within, duties to perform abroad, influence to exert, which are peculiarly his, and which no conscience but his own can teach.

No power in society, no hardship in your condition can depress you, keep you down, in knowledge, power, virtue, influence, but by your own consent.
​

We look forward to the time when the power to love will replace the love of power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.
​

And where does hope rest?

The great hope of society is in individual character.
​

Not God, the Father, apparently.

The world is governed by opinion.
​

Again, not God.

And my favorite, which shows me that Channing didn't really believe what you think he believed, at all, but rather was much more of a humanist:

God is another name for human intelligence raised above all error and imperfection, and extended to all possible truth.
​

Here's one for us UU Pantheists:

Beauty is an all-pervading presence. It unfolds to the numberless flowers of the Spring; it waves in the branches of the trees and in the green blades of grass; it haunts the depths of the earth and the sea, and gleams out in the hues of the shell and the precious stone. And not only these minute objects, but the ocean, the mountains, the clouds, the heavens, the stars, the rising and the setting sun all overflow with beauty. The universe is its temple; and those people who are alive to it can not lift their eyes without feeling themselves encompassed with it on every side.​

The more I read about Channing, the more it seems to me that you've made an assumption about him that casts him as a very one-dimensional character, when in reality he was far from it.

At what point does bringing one's own uniqueness to a tradition become just creating a different religion altogether?

Never. Absolutely never. :chalice:

 

[lilithu]

Again, for the reason I mentioned, it isn't ironic.

Regardless, your generalization is wrong. There are a number of Channing's core beliefs that are held strongly by UUs, today:

Nice, but not my point.

Please explain how belief in God the Father "explicitly violates UU principles," as you previously claimed.

Never. Absolutely never.

I disagree. If you are no longer accountable to the previous generations in some way, then you are no longer on the same path as they were.

 

[bicker]

Belief in God the Father, as I have experienced such a concept typically held in our society, precludes acceptance of the legitimacy of the beliefs of others, which is a fundamental UU principle.

 

[Storm]

Belief in God the Father, as I have experienced such a concept typically held in our society, precludes acceptance of other beliefs, which is a fundamental UU principle.

But we're not talking about the "concept typically held in our society." You're adding unnecessary cultural baggage to make your point.

 

[bicker]

Who are you to say it is unnecessary? It's reflective of my experience of reality. That's makes it very relevant, and very important. You can rip all relevance from everything by devoiding it of all aspects of operational reality. That doesn't provide enlightenment -- it dims everything down to vacuousness.

 

[Storm]

Wow, you really chose your username well, didn't you?

 

[lilithu]

Belief in God the Father, as I have experienced such a concept typically held in our society, precludes acceptance of the legitimacy of the beliefs of others, which is a fundamental UU principle.

So...you are using our UU principle of acceptance of the beliefs of others in order to try to justify your not accepting that some UUs might believe in God the Father.

As I said previously, ironic.

 

[J Bryson]

lilithu: Understood about your appreciation for "Spirit of Life". I think that our differences are more aesthetic that theological on that.

I don't mind if the person next to me likes "God the Father", so long as we can overcome certain semantic barriers when conversing on spiritual matters, and concentrate on that which unites us.

 

[lilithu]

And my favorite, which shows me that Channing didn't really believe what you think he believed, at all, but rather was much more of a humanist:

Oh, I agree that Channing was a humanist. But then I do not see humanist and theist as at odds with each other. For Channing (and myself and many UUs), love of God and love of one's neighbors are one and the same. But he still conceived of God in paternal terms. Hence sermons such as "A Father's Love for Persons."


But I am confused by your statement. I thought that you were previously arguing that humanism was at odds with pantheism because it was too human-centered.

 

[bicker]

So...you are using our UU principle of acceptance of the beliefs of others in order to try to justify your not accepting that some UUs might believe in God the Father.

No, not at all. That's just how you've chosen to distort what I've been saying, so as to have something easy to argue against.

I think you're being excessively antagonistic for no good reason.