UU Roots

[lilithu]

Greetings bicker, namaste. An interesting moniker, you've got there. Welcome to the UU corner of RF!

While I agree that the term "Unitarian" is a bit off-the-mark with regard to UU, I think the term "Universalism" fits very well, perhaps not in its original context, but as a word, at least.

UUs have changed the meaning of universalist in its use. They've also changed the meaning of unitarian. I've heard UUs explain Unitarian Universalist as a religion that believes in the "unity" of all religions/faith traditions and the "universality" of truth within them. That's not how I personally explain what it means to be UU, since I prefer historical accuracy and think that saying that "we're all one" can be a little thin, BUT, I do think it captures one main part of our faith and thus is valid reinterpretation.

Fact is, Unitarians and Universalists "glued themselves together" in 1961 for organizational convenience and never did the theological work to truly create something new out of their separate histories. We glossed over our differences and celebrated our similarities. Now, we've become something else altogether, as our placement in the "syncretic" part of RF denotes.

True, our theology is thin. I think our work should be focused on fleshing out our theology rather than looking for a new name. In fact, the name may follow naturally from that.

What's wrong with being labeled "syncretic"? Religions are naturally syncretic. Traditional "polytheistic" religions incorporated new deities as they came into contact with new peoples. And even Christianity is a syncretism between Hebrew mythology and Greek philosophy.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

There's a difference between Unitarian and unitarian. From Wikipedia, As such, it need not have anything to do with Christianity. Indeed, Jews are, explicitly, unitarian. "Trinitarian", by contrast, I believe indicates only something specific, i.e., belief in "the Holy Trinity", i.e., the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

I think you're assigning a definition to the word Unitarian that doesn't belong. You can say that Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians are all Anti-Trinitarian but they are not all Unitarian. Unitarian is a label for a Christian denomination that has recently lost it's Christian connections, at least here in the US. In the UK they are still considered a Christian denomination.

 

[lilithu]

I think you're assigning a definition to the word Unitarian that doesn't belong. You can say that Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians are all Anti-Trinitarian but they are not all Unitarian.

They are not Unitarian (with a capital U) but they are unitarian (with a lower-case u).

I would not call Jews "anti-trinitarian" because that suggests that their theology was in reaction against the trinitarian doctrine, which we know it certainly wasn't.

I am Unitarian Universalist. I do not call myself Unitarian, as that word to me denotes anti-trinitarian Christians. I am unitarian in theology, but I am not anti-trinitarian. I have no objections to the trinity. I just don't relate much to it personally.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

They are not Unitarian (with a capital U) but they are unitarian (with a lower-case u).

I understand that the term is used that way today but was it used that way traditionally?

 

[lilithu]

I understand that the term is used that way today but was it used that way traditionally?

To me, Unitarian (with a capital U) is the name of a religious denomination. unitarian (with a lower-case u) describes a theological position on the nature of God. I don't know whether that is traditional or not.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

To me, Unitarian (with a capital U) is the name of a religious denomination. unitarian (with a lower-case u) describes a theological position on the nature of God. I don't know whether that is traditional or not.

Understood, but personal definitions are not at issue here. As far as I know, there is no Unitarian with a little u, the proper term is anti-trinitarian. (Sorry but I feel proper definitions are very important in a discussion, otherwise you don't know what your actually arguing about. )

 

[lilithu]

Understood, but personal definitions are not at issue here. As far as I know, there is no Unitarian with a little u, the proper term is anti-trinitarian. (Sorry but I feel proper definitions are very important in a discussion, otherwise you don't know what your actually arguing about. )

I've seen unitarian with a little u in books. It's not something that I made up. Apparently bicker is using it that way too. And I don't think that unitarian and anti-trinitarian are interchangeable. As I said before, it would be inaccurate to say that Jews are anti-trinitarian, since their unitarian theology predates trinitarian doctrine.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I've seen unitarian with a little u in books. It's not something that I made up. Apparently bicker is using it that way too. And I don't think that unitarian and anti-trinitarian are interchangeable. As I said before, it would be inaccurate to say that Jews are anti-trinitarian, since their unitarian theology predates trinitarian doctrine.

I've seen it used that way too but I think it is a recent abuse of the term rather than a true definition. I'll have to do a little research and get back to you. As for the Jews, that was in response to bickers statement, I really don't know their views on the subject.

 

[bicker]

I think you're assigning a definition to the word Unitarian that doesn't belong.

Well, I did make a point of pointing out the difference between Unitarian and unitarian. I didn't say anything about the word Unitarian. I do suggest you check around; the use of the term unitarian is proper, as far as I believe.

You can say that Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians are all Anti-Trinitarian but they are not all Unitarian.

Anti-trinitarian is not a synonym for unitarian, as pointed out by another poster.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I didn't say anything about the word Unitarian. I do suggest you check around; the use of the term unitarian is proper, as far as I believe.

I have and I'm still unsure. The use of the word in this context seems reserved to the last 50 years. I suppose that makes it legitimate but I don't think that was the original meaning of the word.

 

[Doodlebug02]

I voted for both because I consider myself to be both a Unitarian and a Universalist, thus a Unitarian Universalist.

 

[lilithu]

I can't subscribe to the Universalist belief that there is a Heaven but not a Hell. I'm too Taoist to believe that there can be one without the other.

Hi Trey, I just caught this while rereading the thread. Taoism does not believe in a good/bad duality. It's true that it lifts up other dualities such as male/female, light/dark, up/down, heaven/earth, etc. And out of each pole, its opposite is generated. But that doesn't mean that good/evil are thought of in the same way. Neither yin nor yang is "evil." In fact, I would say that what we call "good" is when yin and yang are in balance, and what we call "bad" is when they are out of balance.

I believe that there can be more good than bad in this world and that it is our responsibility to make it so.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

In fact, I would say that what we call "good" is when yin and yang are in balance, and what we call "bad" is when they are out of balance.

I think you're right, good and bad are more in line with when things are in or out of balance, as far as Taoism goes. My connection to Taoism is with the idea of balance rather than with the details. I don't even believe in the traditional good/evil relationship but rather a positive and negative energy situation with good and evil being our attempts to perceive these energies.

Anyway, as it pertains to Heaven and Hell, I still fall back on the duality of things. If you have a Heaven, then a Hell must exist to counter balance it. Universalists believe that a Heaven exists but that a Hell does not. I can't subscribe to this line of thought. It is easier for me to consider neither to exist than it is to consider one without the other.

 

[J Bryson]

Universalist, as far as that sort of thing goes. I'm actually technically agnostic with a leaning towards deism, but believe that so long as God exists in some form in a loving manner, then the wonderful tapestry of beliefs that we see worldwide are further evidence of the beauty provided by this God.

 

[lilithu]

Anyway, as it pertains to Heaven and Hell, I still fall back on the duality of things. If you have a Heaven, then a Hell must exist to counter balance it. Universalists believe that a Heaven exists but that a Hell does not. I can't subscribe to this line of thought. It is easier for me to consider neither to exist than it is to consider one without the other.

If heaven is where all is in balance and hell is here all is out of balance, does there actually have to be a hell for there to be a heaven?

The main problem with universalism, as I see it (even tho I am a universalist), is the problem of justice. Some people do some really horrendous things while other people are generally kind. For them to end up in the exact same "place" seems unjust. I'm not talking about vengeance, but rather accountability. Hence, Hoseah Ballou's doctrine of immediate universal salvation was untenable, and subsequent Universalists tried to rework it with some kind of purgatory.

This latter version of would make more sense to me if I believed in an afterlife. As it is, I believe in karma. And that no one is "saved" unless everyone is "saved" in this life. Meaning, for example, that our economic recovery plan will not work if we do not also consider the interests of the less powerful, more needy.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

If heaven is where all is in balance and hell is here all is out of balance, does there actually have to be a hell for there to be a heaven?

But this is not traditional Universalism. When I say to have a Heaven there must be a Hell I'm speaking of what's behind the pearly gates of traditional Christian belief. Once you cross that boundary to discuss the multitude of possible definitions of Heaven and Hell all bets are off.

Your question is more in line with Heaven and Hell being a personal state of being rather than a physical location and I can easily entertain it as a possibility. Or were you saying that there is a physical place where everything was in perfect balance? If so then I would say there must be a physical place where everything is out of balance, otherwise, the positive and negative forces of the universe would be out of balance, ripping the time space continuum and causing the universe to implode. (I saw it happen on Star Trek once so it must be true. )

 

[Lucian]

Where do Arian Apokatastasists sign?

I prefer to use the word Unitarian of myself, so I'll pick that one.

 

[J Bryson]

Where do Arian Apokatastasists sign?

Sign right here for your stake, sir, we'll provide the matches and fuel free of charge....

 

[Lucian]

Well, I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[J Bryson]

Argh. As an RPGer, I banned Monty Python references from games that I ran (mostly "Holy Grail" ones, though I frowned on others), so I'm disappointed that I walked right into that one.