[UU only!] Age and Humanism/Theism

[bicker]

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.

Precisely, and there are indeed there are a number of people who believe in the dogma of their ancient monotheistic religion so strongly that they are not able to do so. Denying the existence of such people, and denying that their perspective is antithetical to our principles, is silly, IMHO.

What's really annoying me today is that someone will read what I just wrote and decide, because of something within them, that it said something other than what is written. Just watch....

 

[bicker]

Oh, I agree that Channing was a humanist. But then I do not see humanist and theist as at odds with each other.

Neither do I.

For Channing (and myself and many UUs), love of God and love of one's neighbors are one and the same.

Which is not what many who believe in "God, the Father" as that belief is held by many, believe.

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.

That doesn't mean that every aspect of humanism conflicts with every aspect of pantheism. Again, I think you're distorting what I'm writing into something easier to disagree with, rather than letting my words speak for themselves. Indeed, that which is "at odds" between humanism and pantheism is just one aspect.

 

[lilithu]

What's really annoying me today is that someone will read what I just wrote and decide, because of something within them, that it said something other than what is written. Just watch....

What I am responding to is your statement that belief in God the Father "explicitly violates UU principles." That is what you wrote. Are we to read your words and believe that you meant something else by them?

Channing DID believe in God the Father, as evidenced by his numerous references to God as "Father" and yet Channing's theology was not at odds with UU principles. Your claim is unjustified and itself violates the UU principle that you claim it violates, and that is why I take issue with it.

If the conversation is annoying you, we can stop. While I'm not annoyed, I am certainly not getting anything out of it.

 

[bicker]

I'll send you a PM. No sense in cluttering the thread with this petty, personal disagreement.

 

[lilithu]

I'll send you a PM. No sense in cluttering the thread with this petty, personal disagreement.

I do not consider whether belief in God the Father violates UU principles to be a petty, personal disagreement. And if it's too petty for the thread, then it probably should not be pursued via PM either.

 

[J Bryson]

I do not consider whether belief in God the Father violates UU principles to be a petty, personal disagreement. And if it's too petty for the thread, then it probably should not be pursued via PM either.

Yes, I'm finding it to be rather educational in all sorts of ways.

 

[lilithu]

Well I doubt that we have 10 UUs actively posting on these forums and only Willa has identified herself as a non-UU voter, so I guess the poll is moot.

 

[J Bryson]

I dunno...we've had a weird influx lately.

 

[bicker]

I've been sharing the URL around some communities I belong to.

 

[EverChanging]

Precisely, and there are indeed there are a number of people who believe in the dogma of their ancient monotheistic religion so strongly that they are not able to do so. Denying the existence of such people, and denying that their perspective is antithetical to our principles, is silly, IMHO.

People who are so dogmatic that they can't respect diversity and differences in beliefs and opinion probably wouldn't be Unitarian Universalists. If a Unitarian Universalist believes in God the Father but can still uphold the principles, including "acceptance of one another," I don't see what the problem is.

I wanted to comment about the stained glass window the church keeps tucked away. I don't believe in angels, but I can still appreciate art. I mean, it's art for crying out loud -- it's open to interpretation. Plenty of atheists have an appreciation of religious art and music. I'm not really sure how people can be so easily offended if they're willing to be a part of a religion that embraces people from all religious traditions and those with no faith as well. I suppose it could be that many people who come to Unitarian Universalism have had negative experiences in traditional religion, and it brings back bad memories. I've known about Unitarian Universalism for a long time, but it was only very recently that I decided to become a member, which was a big leap. I was very against organized religion for a long time. I am still highly critical of most religious groups and can't ever see myself giving a dollar to any church that indoctrinates children before they are old enough to reason for themselves. That's one of my big issues with even moderate forms of religion.

 

[lilithu]

I wanted to comment about the stained glass window the church keeps tucked away. I don't believe in angels, but I can still appreciate art. I mean, it's art for crying out loud -- it's open to interpretation. Plenty of atheists have an appreciation of religious art and music.

It seems like almost every UU church struggles with this issue to one extent or another. The one in San Francisco has two bible verses engraved on the walls of the sanctuary. Micah 6:8 - "What does the Lord require of thee but to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God." And from the Gospel of Thomas - "The Kingdom of God is within you and all around you." And there is a constant struggle between those who want to get rid of them and those who want to keep them.

Granted, if we were building a sanctuary today, I would be against putting those bible verses up because to do so would be too Judeo-Christian-centric. But these were put up when the sanctuary was originally built, ages ago. They are part of a historic building. And for the life of me, I can't think of two biblical verses that are more apt for a UU church. They speak of social justice and humanism and the inherent worth of creation.

I'm not really sure how people can be so easily offended if they're willing to be a part of a religion that embraces people from all religious traditions and those with no faith as well. I suppose it could be that many people who come to Unitarian Universalism have had negative experiences in traditional religion, and it brings back bad memories.

Yes, a lot of people are fleeing bad experiences. And actually, I've found that part of what we do as a faith community is to help people get over the hurt so that they can see the potential positive aspects of religion again. (Tho I forget this at times and then get annoyed with some UUs for being so anti-religious when they are part of a religion.)

I've known about Unitarian Universalism for a long time, but it was only very recently that I decided to become a member, which was a big leap. I was very against organized religion for a long time.

As was I. But I also did not see the point of joining a "disorganized" religion. And I think it was the latter that kept me away from UU longer than the fact it was a religion. It wasn't until I understood that just because we don't have creeds and dogmas doesn't mean we don't believe in anything. We believe in social justice. Our religion exists to make the world a better place than it would be without it. That, to me, was totally worth joining and even telling others about.

 

[uu_sage]

I'm under 30 and religious language is important to me

 

[applewuud]

I was at a UU wedding in June. The first two minutes of the ceremony were, essentially, a reading about God, from David Korten's The Great Turning. But the words "God" and "Jesus" weren't in the reading. It referred in a humanist-friendly way to a cosmic force behind creation "which has been known by many names".

I don't mind God-talk in the right context. But when "God" and "Jesus" are tossed around in conversation or in ceremonies, they often are a code for "are you one of US?" (meaning, a true believer in orthodox Christianity, one-way, exclusive). Those words are so freighted with negative associations from fundamentalism, they've been polluted for many people. I understand that. But I also believe in the power of mythic symbolism, and groan at the tortured language UUs sometimes feel compelled to use to avoid using/claiming the word "God".

Interestingly, at this wedding, a Baptist/Episcopalian attendee posed the question to me why there was no explicit reference to God in the ceremony. I said it was so non-religious people wouldn't feel excluded. She said, "well, what if the Christians attending feel excluded by there being no reference to God or Jesus?"

 

[bicker]

Did you reply that it wasn't a Christian wedding?

The reality is that the generic language can indeed by acknowledged by Christians as implying their personal view of God. Their refusal to do so is actually part of the problem, but the wedding itself offered them the opportunity to feel included, and they simply refused it.