Unitarian?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

A lot of this has already been covered but heres my Unitarian speech.

"Unitarian," like a lot of words that relate to faiths and belief systems have so many different meanings to so many different people that you strike up debate trying to define them.

But being a longtime student of philosophy and religion i have several takes on a lot of this stuff and heres my nickel tour within the context of religious history studies of my own.

Historically , "Unitarian" is often used to differentiate it from "Trinitarian". The idea that some believed in Christianity but not in the trinity concept. "Unitarianism" was far more widespread in ancient times than it is today. Some unitarians point to trinitarianism as a failing away from christs teachings. While some trinitarians belive the exact opposite. In early Christian history many considered that christs teachings are Unitarian and not Trinitarian. After around 325 CE when the council of Nicene Creed established the Trinity as core concept and no longer a thing to be questioned was when things got more dicey. Today there are still many Unitarians but they are usually looked upon by many Trinitarians as either misguided , or sometimes as even worse.

Most Unitarians have been are also "Universalists" that is, universal salvation. Meaning, no one is beyond saving. Some Christian sects believe that after a certain point (apostates for example) you are beyond salvation. Universalists would usually argue with this and there as many passages that non-universalists point to that tend to lead them to believe that there is such a thing as being "beyond salvation".

I could go on for 10 pages about this to try and limit some of the errors that might arise depending on what spin is put on this, but i don't have the energy at the moment. Please try to limit reading to much into the above, im just sharing what I've studied. There's lots more were this came from and im just throwing my 2 cents in.

Just as a side note: The current "religion" known as "Unitarian Universalism" while facinating and i've studied it as well, is >NOT

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

but my point was - the word of god is the word of god... what makes you (general, not specific) smarter than "god" to be able to pick & choose which section of "god's word" is/isn't applicable? might as well say "ok, i like this - don't like this... like this - hate this!"...

"the bible is a good reference for truth, but really unnecessary when you have truth"... ummm, i don't get it - if the bible wasn't necessary, where else would you find the truth that can be found in the bible, since it's the truth!? :erm

"Catholics are hipocrites, jews are no better"!?! you think maybe they would put you in the same category? remember this - according to someone else's belief, everyone on this planet is going to someone else's hell... now, does that make any sense!?

i'm sorry if this sounds derogatory, and i apologize if it does - don't mean for it to, i just don't understand...  :whistling

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it doesn't sound deragotory. Truth comes from the Spirit. The bible only confirms what the Spirit teaches. So if you have the Spirit of Truth, than how is the bible necessary other than as a reference to confirm what you already know? Everyone is born with this whether they choose to acknowledge it or not.

To say something isn't applicable isn't picking and choosing. There is an Old Covenant, which was fullfilled by Christ. The Old Covenant, and the laws that were established in it are therefore no longer valid. Christ brought the New Covenant by dying for our sins, resurrecting, and giving us the Spirit of Truth. His command to us was to love God with our whole heart, mind, and soul, love our neighbors as ourselves, and love our enemies too. By doing this we have fulfilled the law. So is the Law of value anymore? This ties in with a previous statement of mine regarding circumcision. Circumcision in relation to the soul is inward circumcision. If you are only circumcised in flesh, than you are bound to the laws of the Old Covenant. Including following the whole law as it is written. If your soul is circumcised then fleshly circumcision is of no value. You are not bound to the Law but to Jesus himself. You are truly free from sin, as long as you follow his command which I mentioned previously. Act in love, and out of love. So no this is not picking and choosing anything. This was further verified when the angel spoke to Peter regarding acceptance of the Gentiles. This is not new knowledge. Anyone who has actually read and studied the bible thoroughly, could easily confirm everything I've said.

[Msterbeau]

Just as a side note:  The current "religion" known as "Unitarian Universalism" while facinating and i've studied it as well, is >NOT< really Unitarian nor Universalist as such.  Its name may be misleading for some. It has its historical roots in various Unitarian and Universalist christan denominations , but its current incarnation is not faith-specific and is more of a collective study group based around just about all major "religions", including some atheistic/humanist concepts.

You and I would have a good conversation or three I suspect...

I'm a little weak on the history of UU, but it IS directly decended from both the Unitarian and Universalist faiths. They joined in the mid 50's. Since there has always been an element of evolutionary thinking and in both, it's not surprising that today's UU congregations have refined and changed thier principles and purposes to coincide with new knowledge and social changes. It's one of the reasons I chose it. Stagnant, dogmatic thinking seems silly to me. Times change as do people, and our beliefs should develop in the face of new experiences and information. Being Unitarian is not "easy" like some think. If you really feel that thinking whatever you want is easy... try to seriously create and evolve your own spirtual practice... Not only do we have answer our own questions...we have to decide what questions matter to us first. Dogmatic faiths, for all intents, have an "instruction book" of how you believe and practice. This is not a judgement... Just my experience of it since I was Catholic for most of my childhood/adolescence.

[Steven]

What a fascinating topic this has become, and there are obviously quite a few well read and articulate peeps in this room. I've learned quite a bit from reading all of you....

I will say this though: Thank God (wasent being funny there) that I'm NOT God, not divine, in need of some higher power help, rely on absolutes, live by faith, and beleive absolutely in Christ's deity and his assertions that he was exclusive in providing the conduit to the life of abundance as provided by God in the person of YHWH.

Because I need that. Straight up. There is a NEED in me regarding my spirituality and identity. That may sound weak, or produce more than a snicker, but it brings me no shame to speak it and live it, and it allows no one the strength to rob that certainty of faith from me.

If this is small mindedness, or gleefull ignorance, or misplaced sincereity, it seems that the flaws therein would expose themselves and become evidenced in my life in the 38 years that I've been on this planet.

We can argue science, yet we still must acknowledge evil, which plainly exists, and yet is not scientifically pinpointed.

We can argue a relative approach, and yet the world around us simply defies that argument with it's many corruptions of the spirit, the family, and the ideal of what we call "good".

And we can collect data and facts and choose our positions - yet inthe end ALL people prostelicyze (spelling???), ALL people worship (the Hebrew word Davar meaning "that which you yeild to") all people Euphymize, categorize, dismiss, self elevate, judge, etc. etc. etc..... and yet all people make their decisions based on their particular arguments as they do or do not support their particular comfort levels and we use this as our pinpoint process in regards to who's position has more intrinsic WORTH - and therefore there you have it - your place - your faith - your identity- and your beleif that you are "right" and isint it so plain to see?

I cant trust people and that includes myself.

I dont beleive that anything in the history of mankind bears evidence that we are any different after all of these years, nor are we equipped to self rule and self enlighten.

We talk big talk. But look around us man, most of our youth are on pharmecuticals, its never our fault anymore and therefore we live a life without accountability, and we are scientifically advanced yet World Hunger is not illegal, eroticism of the children takes place on TV everyday, hundreds of thousands of dying people have to wait for dead donor tissue when millions of live people could solve the problem immediately, and it's always somone else's fault.

Yep. I need God. I've seen what people and all of their wisdom do.

They do nothing.

-Steven

[torn asunder]

...We can argue science, yet we still must acknowledge evil, which plainly exists, and yet is not scientifically pinpointed.

good and evil are entirely relative, dependant on the point of view/viewer...

We can argue a relative approach, and yet the world around us simply defies that argument with it's many corruptions of the spirit, the family, and the ideal of what we call "good".

corruption of the spirit / ideal of what we call good, again, solely dependant upon the viewer, and therefore, entirely relative... everything we think about life is relative to our own, individual viewpoint. no two ways about it...

[Steven]

good and evil are entirely relative, dependant on the point of view/viewer...

corruption of the spirit / ideal of what we call good, again, solely dependant upon the viewer, and therefore, entirely relative... everything we think about life is relative to our own, individual viewpoint. no two ways about it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know Torn....its all relative, and I've been told this many times - to include being told this by the Satanist who tried to murder my mother.

I just dont beleive it. At all. I think it's crap, and I think it's dangerous. I know what I've seen more than once - and I dont need enlightenment by humanistic philosophy to recognize good and evil. Both are self evident, and life is made up of so much more than intellectual study within the safety of one's confines. To me relative truth is one of the biggest lies that we've ever bought into, and we buy into it, because we just dont like accountability.

Dont mean to offend you dude - but I've seen too much and have personally been involved (the acid test) in too many things to beleive that approach holds up.

- Steven

[phee]

I just dont beleive it. At all. I think it's crap, and I think it's dangerous. I know what I've seen more than once - and I dont need enlightenment by humanistic philosophy to recognize good and evil. Both are self evident, and life is made up of so much more than intellectual study within the safety of one's confines. To me relative truth is one of the biggest lies that we've ever bought into, and we buy into it, because we just dont like accountability.

OK... so what decides what is "unconditionally good" and what is "Unconditionally evil"... You? what you think God has told you? or what the guy down the street thinks God has told him? The Majority? World leaders? A book that was translated from spoken Aramaic to written Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to German, to English? I have to agree with Torn on this... it is all relative, I see nothing of this so called morality as self evident. I myself try to make decisions based on what I think is right, I cannot perscribe my world view, or what I believe a God's sense or right and wrong is on anybody. I have a daughter, I try to teach her that actions have consequences and to respect others, but I could not tell her that there are some kind of universals that she must obey, in world where everybody has different opinions and impressions of things, I would be a bad parent. I simply tell her to be the best person that she can be.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

You and I would have a good conversation or three I suspect...   

I'm a little weak on the history of UU, but it IS directly decended from both the Unitarian and Universalist faiths.  They joined in the mid 50's.  Since there has always been an element of evolutionary thinking and in both, it's not surprising that today's UU congregations have refined and changed thier principles and purposes to coincide with new knowledge and social changes.  It's one of the reasons I chose it.  Stagnant, dogmatic thinking seems silly to me.  Times change as do people, and our beliefs should develop in the face of new experiences and information.  Being Unitarian is not "easy" like some think.  If you really feel that thinking whatever you want is easy... try to seriously create and evolve your own spirtual practice...  Not only do we have answer our own questions...we have to decide what questions matter to us first.  Dogmatic faiths, for all intents, have an "instruction book" of how you believe and practice.    This is not a judgement...  Just my experience of it since I was Catholic for most of my childhood/adolescence.

We are on the same page on this UU subject. Any disagreement between what you say in the above paragraph , and my post that your referring is, i think, as is often the case, a problem with language and/or just the impossibility of covering all aspects a subject that we bring up in one post/conversation.

I probably should have used the phrase something along the lines of "not the traditional Universalism or Unitarian Christian based churches." with an emphasis on the "traditional" word.

The current UU documentation does not directly claim , but it implies that "Unitarians" and "Universalists" both merged, en masse, mid 20th century to form the current Unitarian Universalists, this is true but a bit misleading. It is true that specific Unitarian and Universalist congregations merged to create the current UU. But, traditional Universalists and Unitarians still both exist as independent movements. Both groups , not part of the UU still exist, many of them quite active and still far more "Christian" than the UU is. Not to say that's good or bad just trying to make my original point more clear, not contradict anything you or I have said.

I wish not to cause any abrasion and im not contradicting you. Just adding some additional information and trying to clarify what may have been misunderstood.

I've come not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.

I understand and tend agree with your overall take on the progressive nature of spiritual/philosophical practice. Im sure we would differ in our conclusions and even our basis for such conclusions (if any) but im with you.

I too think we could have a good conversation or three. =)

A bit off the path from where i intended with that post (and far deeper) but related:

My current take on "How to know with certainty the nature of the universe and what proper conduct within it is." Is that it is possibly a progressive revelation or discovery, not, necessarily already fully revealed or discovered and possibly still unknown. This one has been lifelong conversation for me.

Im not necessarily biased to any particular religion / philosophy / way of life as such, or at least i try not to be. I think at least for me that "the answer" is still out there and I've yet to find it. I think i tended the past to find the answer that wanted , rather than the answer i was certain of (and continue to try not to do this today) Many times i find myself trying to convince myself something is true , rather than trying to objectively look at it with a clear mind and heart. "Wanting" something to be true can be as big a trap as anything as it can , if you let it cloud you judgement.

I continue to try and not be biased even if i don't like the answer(s) that i find and hope im willing to change my current beliefs in light of new information that may come along. Hopefully im willing to accept whatever the truth is, or if necessary, up to the task of discovering it. Like I've recently been saying quite often "I just want the truth." Whatever that is and wherever it comes from in whatever form.

[Brenda Starrr]

Not at all.  I believe in a Messiah.  I also believe the Messiah was Christ.  I don't believe that Christ is God.  I also don't believe in sin the same way most Christians are taught.  Christ said to love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind, love your neighbor as yourself, and love your enemies too, and you have already fulfilled the law.  Not one of the ten commandments can be broken outside of this.  However, Jewish laws that carried on through the New Covenant, despite the Old Covenant being fulfilled have still pushed Christians more towards prejudice, malice, hate, shame, guilt, fear, and wrath.  Many people walk away from the Church, because they learn the loving God they've always known and felt no longer exists, or they've never known him.

Peter was presented with a feast that an angel provided him with one day.  Peter refused to partake of this feast, because the meat was "unclean".  The angel had told Peter not to call unclean was God has made clean.  He was asking Peter to accept the Gentiles, and to teach them love and forgiveness.  Is this what happened?  No.  What happened instead is despite the teachings of Christ, Paul (originally Saul and a highly respected Jewish leader) came to believe in Christ and took it upon himself to make Christianity appealing to the Jews and the people of Rome.  His own prejudices have perverted the word of Christ now for centuries.  This is why so many people have walked away from faith.  God never intended man to be ashamed, fearful, or to be plagued with guilt for things that he thought in his heart to be justified.  Why would a God who created us in "his" image, be ashamed of us?  He loves us as we are and always has, and will always love us even when we we've forgotten him.  Yet even many churches have forgotten him.  They believe in words, laws, rituals, and their faith is weak.  They judge others based on actions they commit themselves, yet they try to hold themselves to the standards of the cirumsised (and I'm not speaking flesh here), when that Covenant was established for a godless race of men who needed those laws to have any form of civility.  Christ did not say to break the law no.  Peter on the otherhand was instructed to accept these people as they were, since Christ had destroyed sin, death, and the evils that were penetrating our primitive natures.

In closing, I just want to say that I have always felt a closeness with God even before I knew what God was.  Everything I was taught growing up as a Catholic painted this entity as a monster that hated men.  This is why I walked away from the Church, and why I am a monotheist now.  I do not believe in praying to anything else but God for one.  For two, I believe the body of Christ is the church, and not some organization that passes judgments upon everyone to profit on distorting the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm...

This is a really good thread. I've said for many years that I'm Christian. However, I beleive in more than just God and Jesus Christ. I know I'm being vague here, and I apologize. It just gives me food for thought.

[phee]

It's nice to have a thread where we are "talking" about it instead of all the other alternatives that have shown themselves recently.

[Steven]

OK... so what decides what is "unconditionally good" and what is "Unconditionally evil"... You? what you think God has told you? or what the guy down the street thinks God has told him? The Majority? World leaders? A book that was translated from spoken Aramaic to written Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, to German, to English? I have to agree with Torn on this... it is all relative, I see nothing of this so called morality as self evident. I myself try to make decisions based on what I think is right, I cannot perscribe my world view, or what I believe a God's sense or right and wrong is on anybody. I have a daughter, I try to teach her that actions have consequences and to respect others, but I could not tell her that there are some kind of universals that she must obey, in world where everybody has different opinions and impressions of things, I would be a bad parent. I simply tell her to be the best person that she can be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Question Number 1:

Yep, me. Yep, I think God has told me things. And Yep - the book that was translated to death. All of the above. Dismiss the Majority and World leaders. I dont have lunch with Mr. Bush and dont care to, and I am a minority and often chastised within my spiritual peer group for not being of the majority. Peer pressure is not my cha cha.

Issue Number 2: (your declaration)

You just did what you accused me of. You weighed out the circumstances and decided what is intrinsically RIGHT to teach your daughter, and then you posted what you beleive is intrinsically RIGHT (and wrong) in this thread, and then insinuated that what I beleive is WRONG as it is in opposition to your experience. You are GUILTY of offering up your opinion, GUILTY of professing right and wrong mindsets, and GUILTY of informing ME - what is agreeible - based on YOUR value system and what YOU see and embrace in YOUR system of relative truth.

....it's ok though. I understand the preacher within you and I support your free speech and right to walk the path you've chosen. There are many preachers in this board.

- Steven

[torn asunder]

...

Issue Number 2:  (your declaration)

You just did what you accused me of.  You weighed out the circumstances and decided what is intrinsically RIGHT to teach your daughter, and then you posted what you beleive is intrinsically RIGHT (and wrong) in this thread, and then insinuated that what I beleive is WRONG as it is in opposition to your experience.  You are GUILTY of offering up your opinion, GUILTY of professing right and wrong mindsets, and GUILTY of informing ME - what is agreeible - based on YOUR value system and what YOU see and embrace in YOUR system of relative truth. 

....

point is, it's his opinion not "fact" or "truth", just as it is yours... it's relative, entirely. i see nowhere in phee's post where it could be interpreted as "insinuating" you are wrong, unless you're predisposed to being defensive about your position. people will read into things whatever they wish. true, it could be inferred that he disagrees with you, but disagreeing and declaring "right" or "wrong" are two completely different things...

[phee]

Issue Number 2: (your declaration)

You just did what you accused me of. You weighed out the circumstances and decided what is intrinsically RIGHT to teach your daughter, and then you posted what you beleive is intrinsically RIGHT (and wrong) in this thread, and then insinuated that what I beleive is WRONG as it is in opposition to your experience. You are GUILTY of offering up your opinion, GUILTY of professing right and wrong mindsets, and GUILTY of informing ME - what is agreeible - based on YOUR value system and what YOU see and embrace in YOUR system of relative truth.

Once again what Torn said....

Yes... I am not telling you that you are wrong, I telling you what I believe, not telling you to believe it. I am doing what I believe is right, not playing into universals, some people may not want to raise there kids the way I am... That is fine, as I don't think there is one right way that the universe must obey. So I am not doing what you are doing. I am not declaring that there is an absolute that all must obey to... it is relative.... I do what I think is right, that does not mean that I think that you are wrong for believing what you do... it is relative.

[torn asunder]

I know Torn....its all relative, and I've been told this many times - to include being told this by the Satanist who tried to murder my mother. 

I just dont beleive it.  At all.  I think it's crap, and I think it's dangerous.  I know what I've seen more than once - and I dont need enlightenment by humanistic philosophy to recognize good and evil.  Both are self evident, and life is made up of so much more than intellectual study within the safety of one's confines.  To me relative truth is one of the biggest lies that we've ever bought into, and we buy into it, because we just dont like accountability.

Dont mean to offend you dude - but I've seen too much and have personally been involved (the acid test) in too many things to beleive that approach holds up.

- Steven

at one point, people made animal/human sacrifices to "god", and it was completely acceptable, and even expected, within that "congregation" - if you didn't participate, you were "evil", a "sinner", "going to hell", call it what you wish... yes, today, that's considered barbaric, but today's "acceptable" could be tomorrow's "abomination", just as in the above example... there can be no "absolute" truth, as long as there is an observer, because the observation is tainted/coloured by our own individual past experiences, like the one you used in your example. but this is your "interpretation", and cannot be expected from any other person who hasn't lived your life. i fully accept that you think my ideas on this are crap, and i can respect that, while disagreeing with you. that is, in essence, what i've been trying to get across.

btw, you can't offend me...

[torn asunder]

...based on YOUR value system and what YOU see and embrace in YOUR system of relative truth...

btw, had to add - you just admitted that i'm right, it's relative! :whistling

[Steven]

ok I had to crack up on the last three posts. The only thing I'm admittings so far boys, is that all I've done is express my point of view, as have you, strongly, as have you, and with complete faith, as have you. I have not damned any of you, have not called any of you evil, or sinners, or declared that any of you were hell bound, nor thumped you with my dusty bible, and am glad your not offended. What I think is crap I think is crap, so do you, and so what?. You sleep well, I sleep well. You draw from your experiences - I draw from mine. I would still sit down and have drinks with any of you. But I'd probably still think your full of crap. And every once in awhile, I'm sure you'd teach me something.