PDA

View Full Version : Unitarian Universalism



__
10-16-2014, 03:57 PM
What are the pro's and con's of this religion?

Juvenal
10-16-2014, 04:03 PM
Atheists are welcome?

__
10-16-2014, 04:34 PM
Atheists are welcome?

Yes.

Raphael
10-16-2014, 04:52 PM
Atheists are welcome?
Is that a Pro or a Con (or does that depend on one's perspective)?

__
10-16-2014, 05:00 PM
Is that a Pro or a Con (or does that depend on one's perspective)?

I would say Pro. More diversity and openess.

Catholicity
10-16-2014, 05:22 PM
Inclusivism and community are pros, but there is a saying, don't be so open minded the brain falls out. The UU community does have a strong appreciation for art and tends to be very family focused. However some ministers write articles on how to justify partial birth abortions, which bothers me. I'm also not terribly fond of some of their hymns, which I think would make Emerson turn in his grave.

Juvenal
10-16-2014, 05:33 PM
Is that a Pro or a Con (or does that depend on one's perspective)?

Congratulations.

Juvenal
10-16-2014, 05:37 PM
Inclusivism and community are pros, but there is a saying, don't be so open minded the brain falls out. The UU community does have a strong appreciation for art and tends to be very family focused. However some ministers write articles on how to justify partial birth abortions, which bothers me. I'm also not terribly fond of some of their hymns, which I think would make Emerson turn in his grave.

Our gay pastor is now married.

Spartacus
10-16-2014, 07:54 PM
I would say Pro. More diversity and openess.

Except it isn't open to the majority of Christians throughout history: the diversity does not include a huge spectrum of experiences and viewpoints.

robrecht
10-16-2014, 08:13 PM
I'm also not terribly fond of some of their hymns, which I think would make Emerson turn in his grave.Reminds me of Garrison Keilor's joke about all the Unitarians constantly flipping ahead in the hymnals to decide if they could sing along during the next verse.

__
10-16-2014, 08:54 PM
Except it isn't open to the majority of Christians throughout history: the diversity does not include a huge spectrum of experiences and viewpoints.

Surely only the violent, literalist ones?


reminds me of garrison keilor's joke about all the unitarians constantly flipping ahead in the hymnals to decide if they could sing along during the next verse.

LOL!

Spartacus
10-16-2014, 09:04 PM
Surely only the violent, literalist ones?

Because Trinitarianism is the product of a literalist interpretation of Scripture and not extended and sophisticated philosophical and theological discourse within the Church, and everyone who has ever supported Trinitarianism is violent. Riiiiiiiight.

__
10-16-2014, 09:13 PM
Because Trinitarianism is the product of a literalist interpretation of Scripture and not extended and sophisticated philosophical and theological discourse within the Church, and everyone who has ever supported Trinitarianism is violent. Riiiiiiiight.
Oh, yes, those. I apologize. I was thinking of the time I asked who wouldn't be welcome here, and the response was extremist who basically say they will blow you up if you do not conform. Trinitarianism is difficult to understand, but nothing wrong with it. I find the concept quite mysterious, myself.

Spartacus
10-16-2014, 09:38 PM
Oh, yes, those. I apologize. I was thinking of the time I asked who wouldn't be welcome here, and the response was extremist who basically say they will blow you up if you do not conform. Trinitarianism is difficult to understand, but nothing wrong with it. I find the concept quite mysterious, myself.

Of course it's mysterious-- it's ultimately incomprehensible! But that doesn't mean we can't know that it is true and deeply significant. I'll let the Twitter account "Augustine of Hiphop" explain it: https://twitter.com/hiphopaugustine/status/496862258778353664

"the word Trinity aint simply educational/
it means the ground of all being is relational"

shunyadragon
10-17-2014, 11:26 AM
Inclusivism and community are pros, but there is a saying, don't be so open minded the brain falls out.

. . . or be close minded to the point you mind implodes.



The UU community does have a strong appreciation for art and tends to be very family focused. However some ministers write articles on how to justify partial birth abortions, which bothers me. I'm also not terribly fond of some of their hymns, which I think would make Emerson turn in his grave.

I do not think Emerson would take such a negative view. Growing up in Central and South America, I got to see them in the raw, including the Roman Church and a number of Christian alterenatives, and how they related to those that do not believe as they do. The Unitarians, Quakers and Baha'is performed the best, and I became close to them, and later became a Baha'i. I still remain close to the Unitarians., and many of my friends are members

shunyadragon
10-17-2014, 11:34 AM
Because Trinitarianism is the product of a literalist interpretation of Scripture . . .

Being raised in the Roman Church and studied the theological question for many years, I disagree with the highlighted. It would be more a subject of a separate thread. Nonetheless the 'Unitarian' evolved from a rejection of the Trinity. The Unitarian Universalist Church has evolved into a predominantly 'Humanist' Church that is tolerant of a diversity of beliefs.

Spartacus
10-17-2014, 11:42 AM
Being raised in the Roman Church and studied the theological question for many years, I disagree with the highlighted. It would be more a subject of a separate thread. Nonetheless the 'Unitarian' evolved from a rejection of the Trinity. The Unitarian Universalist Church has evolved into a predominantly 'Humanist' Church that is tolerant of a diversity of beliefs.

You do realize that that entire post was sarcastic, right?

I knew I should have used the tags...

shunyadragon
10-19-2014, 06:08 PM
You do realize that that entire post was sarcastic, right?

I knew I should have used the tags...

From you?!?!? The sarcasm was not apparent.

Spartacus
10-19-2014, 06:13 PM
From you?!?!? The sarcasm was not apparent.

It takes relatively little knowledge of the Trinity or of Scripture to know that the Trinity, as commonly understood by Christians, is not explicitly found in the Bible. If nothign else, the "riiiiiiiight" at the end should have tipped you off :eh:

shunyadragon
10-21-2014, 08:43 AM
It takes relatively little knowledge of the Trinity or of Scripture to know that the Trinity, as commonly understood by Christians, is not explicitly found in the Bible. If nothign else, the "riiiiiiiight" at the end should have tipped you off :eh:

My view is to clarify the beliefs and history of UU and its philosophy and theology?, and not to get tangled in the trivia of sarcasm.

Spartacus
10-21-2014, 09:17 AM
My view is to clarify the beliefs and history of UU and its philosophy and theology?, and not to get tangled in the trivia of sarcasm.

Which you can't possibly hope to do without first gaining a functioning understanding of the history of Christianity and Christian theology generally.

robrecht
10-21-2014, 09:40 AM
Which you can't possibly hope to do without first gaining a functioning understanding of the history of Christianity and Christian theology generally.
Shuny has a good basic understanding of the history of Christian doctrine, and generally prefers to critique catechetical and doctrinal statements from a literalist perspective without getting into the subtleties of theological reflection. Even with respect to his own religious beliefs, he tends to identify as revelation that which I would consider mere theological reflection. For example, in his view, the Baha'i International House of Justice would not be free to decide that women may or should be admitted to this body without there being a new revelation about this.

shunyadragon
10-21-2014, 11:16 AM
Which you can't possibly hope to do without first gaining a functioning understanding of the history of Christianity and Christian theology generally.

I have a functioning understanding and knowledge of Christianity and Christian theology, as well as the other religions of the world.

Spartacus
10-21-2014, 11:19 AM
I have a functioning understanding and knowledge of Christianity and Christian theology, as well as the other religions of the world.

You've yet to demonstrate that to my satisfaction.

Enough of this derail, anyway.

shunyadragon
10-21-2014, 11:36 AM
Shuny has a good basic understanding of the history of Christian doctrine, and generally prefers to critique catechetical and doctrinal statements from a literalist perspective without getting into the subtleties of theological reflection.

Well, this is not totally correct. I recognize the subtleties of theological reflection, but from our previous dialogue we disagree as to what is the nature of theological reflection.



Even with respect to his own religious beliefs, he tends to identify as revelation that which I would consider mere theological reflection. For example, in his view, the Baha'i International House of Justice would not be free to decide that women may or should be admitted to this body without there being a new revelation about this.

Here again we most likely disagree as to the nature of theological reflection. Theological reflection would not change the Doctrine and Dogma of a given religion. It would reflect on the personal growth and application of one's life in the light of faith and the role Doctrine and Dogma of a given religion in ones life, which I define in agreement with the following.



The term ‘theological reflection’ has come into prominence over the last thirty years in a variety of settings and serving a number of ends. It is used to denote a process in which an individual or small group reflects on their personal or collective experience(s) in light of their faith. The aim is not only to come to new understandings about the circumstances in which people live and the faith they profess, but to identify new ways of responding that validate their experience and give voice to their truth.

To reflect theologically is an essential element in faith formation. It is a principal means of integrating faith and life. To reflect on one’s circumstances in life is as natural as breathing. It is that innate capacity and necessity that characterizes our human condition. It is that same capacity which enables us to recognize a reality greater than ourselves. To reflect on our life experiences in light of this greater reality is to reflect ‘theo-logically.’ It is to open us to the possibility of ‘knowing’ and ‘being known’ by what some call the ‘Holy Other.’ Such reflection draws us into the realm of faith. It grounds us in an unseen reality, alters our way of ‘seeing’ and shapes our responses in all of life’s relationships.

Theological Reflection is the contemplation and reflection of Theological questions among me. Revelation is Revealed Divine knowledge in terms the written Word of God in scripture and Divine Law.

Theological Reflection as defined above does play a significant role in the Baha'i Faith.

robrecht
10-21-2014, 01:57 PM
Well, this is not totally correct. I recognize the subtleties of theological reflection, but from our previous dialogue we disagree as to what is the nature of theological reflection. I wholeheartedly agree that we have differing views on the nature of theological reflection. Also please note that I did not say that you do not recognize the subleties of theological reflection, but rather that you nonetheless prefer to critique Christian catechetical and doctrinal statements from an authoritarian or literalist perspective and prefer not to discuss the subtleties of various Christian theologians or schools of theology within Christianity that variously consider themselves empowered to interpret previous doctrinal statements as historically and culturally conditioned and hence still capable of evolving.


Here again we most likely disagree as to the nature of theological reflection. Theological reflection would not change the Doctrine and Dogma of a given religion. It would reflect on the personal growth and application of one's life in the light of faith and the role Doctrine and Dogma of a given religion in ones life, which I define in agreement with the following. Without yet turning to the citation from your link, your above description of the role of theological reflection is much too individualistic not only for my personal taste but also for describing its role in the Christian intellectual tradition. Within the Christian intellectual tradition, one has major schools of theology that have influenced the development of doctrine from the beginning and into medieval and modern times and, apart from doctrinal development, still provide for rather profound theological pluralism within individual churches, not to mention the differences that exist between denominations. (By the way, I am only speaking of the Christian theological traditions, but similar proceses may also be described within Judaism and Islam.)



The term ‘theological reflection’ has come into prominence over the last thirty years in a variety of settings and serving a number of ends. It is used to denote a process in which an individual or small group [r: how small?] reflects on their personal or collective experience(s) in light of their faith. The aim is not only to come to new understandings about the circumstances in which people live and the faith they profess, but to identify new ways of responding that validate their experience and give voice to their truth.

To reflect theologically is an essential element in faith formation [r: of the individual or within small groups?]. It is a principal means of integrating faith and life. To reflect on one’s circumstances in life is as natural as breathing. It is that innate capacity and necessity that characterizes our human condition. It is that same capacity which enables us to recognize a reality greater than ourselves. To reflect on our life experiences in light of this greater reality is to reflect ‘theo-logically.’ It is to open us to the possibility of ‘knowing’ and ‘being known’ by what some call the ‘Holy Other.’ Such reflection draws us into the realm of faith. It grounds us in an unseen reality, alters our way of ‘seeing’ and shapes our responses in all of life’s relationships.


Theological Reflection is the contemplation and reflection of Theological questions among me[n?]. Revelation is Revealed Divine knowledge in terms the written Word of God in scripture and Divine Law.

Theological Reflection as defined above does play a significant role in the Baha'i Faith.I, of course, do not deny this. From what I understand of theological reflection within the Baha'i Faith, which is almost entirely what I have learned from you personally, it strikes me as terribly limited and limiting. I am not sure if that is a characteristic of you personally, what you have have absorbed from the Baha'i Faith, or a function of the the Baha'i authority structure, ie, the Universal House of Justice, as you have described it to me. Using the same example as above, my understanding from you is that the Baha'i International House of Justice, which I think is the supreme authority among or over Baha'i faithful, does not see itself as having the theological or pastoral authority to make changes within their own authority structure, eg, the admission of women to leadership roles. Such a change or development of doctrine or practice would apparently require a new Baha'i revelation from God and cannot be the result of theological reflection and progress in theological or pastoral dialogue.

shunyadragon
10-22-2014, 09:33 AM
I wholeheartedly agree that we have differing views on the nature of theological reflection. Also please note that I did not say that you do not recognize the subleties of theological reflection, but rather that you nonetheless prefer to critique Christian catechetical and doctrinal statements from an authoritarian or literalist perspective and prefer not to discuss the subtleties of various Christian theologians or schools of theology within Christianity that variously consider themselves empowered to interpret previous doctrinal statements as historically and culturally conditioned and hence still capable of evolving.

The reason why emphasis the catechetical, doctrinal, and dogmatic statements of belief is that these are what are least likely to change in the efforts to change and evolve as you propose. I do not see you present an outside source that defines Theological Reflection in the manner you propose. As it stands I will have work around the context of your own personal definition for this.



Without yet turning to the citation from your link, your above description of the role of theological reflection is much too individualistic not only for my personal taste but also for describing its role in the Christian intellectual tradition. Within the Christian intellectual tradition, one has major schools of theology that have influenced the development of doctrine from the beginning and into medieval and modern times and, apart from doctrinal development, . . .

You have failed to present an academic source to give me something to work with concerning a definition that is not your own concerning 'Theological reflection.' As far as I have been able to determine that change in the fundamental Christian doctrine and dogma has never resulted in change by Christian Intellectual traditions, unless a group forms a new Church with different Doctrines and Dogma.


. . . still provide for rather profound theological pluralism within individual churches, not to mention the differences that exist between denominations. (By the way, I am only speaking of the Christian theological traditions, but similar proceses may also be described within Judaism and Islam.)

The process in Judaism is resolution through the evolution of Midrash. Islam actually has no specific process to resolve differences and change in Islam.



The term ‘theological reflection’ has come into prominence over the last thirty years in a variety of settings and serving a number of ends. It is used to denote a process in which an individual or small group [r: how small?] reflects on their personal or collective experience(s) in light of their faith. The aim is not only to come to new understandings about the circumstances in which people live and the faith they profess, but to identify new ways of responding that validate their experience and give voice to their truth.

To reflect theologically is an essential element in faith formation [r: of the individual or within small groups?]. It is a principal means of integrating faith and life. To reflect on one’s circumstances in life is as natural as breathing. It is that innate capacity and necessity that characterizes our human condition. It is that same capacity which enables us to recognize a reality greater than ourselves. To reflect on our life experiences in light of this greater reality is to reflect ‘theo-logically.’ It is to open us to the possibility of ‘knowing’ and ‘being known’ by what some call the ‘Holy Other.’ Such reflection draws us into the realm of faith. It grounds us in an unseen reality, alters our way of ‘seeing’ and shapes our responses in all of life’s relationships.


I, of course, do not deny this. From what I understand of theological reflection within the Baha'i Faith, which is almost entirely what I have learned from you personally, it strikes me as terribly limited and limiting. I am not sure if that is a characteristic of you personally, what you have have absorbed from the Baha'i Faith, or a function of the the Baha'i authority structure, ie, the Universal House of Justice, as you have described it to me. Using the same example as above, my understanding from you is that the Baha'i International House of Justice, which I think is the supreme authority among or over Baha'i faithful, does not see itself as having the theological or pastoral authority to make changes within their own authority structure, eg, the admission of women to leadership roles. Such a change or development of doctrine or practice would apparently require a new Baha'i Revelation from God and cannot be the result of theological reflection and progress in theological or pastoral dialogue.

I believe that you are misrepresenting 'Theological reflection' as far as the Baha'i Faith functions. Just because certain things cannot, or from your perspective appear to not change. therefore Theological reflection is limited. One point of error is that if there was a new Revelation, it would not be a Baha'i Revelation, it would be a Revelation from God. Actually I am not as certain as to how this change could take place as you are. I consider your knowledge and experience concerning the Baha'i Faith as limited and problematic, as you stated your only source on some aspects of the faith is me.

Theological Reflection through consultation is very much a part of many aspects, which at many times impact scripture itself. The Harmony of science and religion requires that all scripture, including Baha'i scripture be interpreted in light of the evolving progressive knowledge of science. This requires theological reflection and consultation.

robrecht
10-22-2014, 09:55 AM
The reason why emphasis the catechetical, doctrinal, and dogmatic statements of belief is that these are what are least likely to change in the efforts to change and evolve as you propose. I do not see you present an outside source that defines Theological Reflection in the manner you propose. As it stands I will have work around the context of your own personal definition for this.

You have failed to present an academic source to give me something to work with concerning a definition that is not your own concerning 'Theological reflection.' As far as I have been able to determine that change in the fundamental Christian doctrine and dogma has never resulted in change by Christian Intellectual traditions, unless a group forms a new Church with different Doctrines and Dogma. I did not fail to give you an academic source--I never even tried to give you an academic force, nor was one requested. To me it is just common knowledge and general word usage. Not sure why it needs to be defined. In case you are not actually that familiar with church history (perhaps I should not have given you the benefit of the doubt), take a look at the importance of the schools of Antioch and Alexandria, especially, in the various approaches to theological formulations which were eventually accepted at some of the earliest church councils. Or consider the substantially differing Franciscan and Dominican schools of theological thought beginning in the Middle Ages, with the elements of the Franciscan school eventually being accepted as church doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th and 20th century. All of this should be covered in any basic introduction to church history or the history of theology. None of this should require any specialized definitions.


The process in Judaism is resolution through the evolution of Midrash. Islam actually has no specific process to resolve differences and change in Islam. Look also at the the important distinctions between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Judaism, and more recently the Orthodox, Hasidic, Conservative, and Reform branches of Judaism. All of this plurality is achieved without the need for claiming a new revelation that replaces earlier revelation. If you do not want to call it theological reflection, what term would you prefer? I'm sure you are more informed than me about some of the theological developments within various branches of Islam. I'm not sure why you are speaking of specific proceses to resolve differences. Is that an important or necessary element of theological reflection or revelation for you?



The term ‘theological reflection’ has come into prominence over the last thirty years in a variety of settings and serving a number of ends. It is used to denote a process in which an individual or small group [r: how small?] reflects on their personal or collective experience(s) in light of their faith. The aim is not only to come to new understandings about the circumstances in which people live and the faith they profess, but to identify new ways of responding that validate their experience and give voice to their truth.

To reflect theologically is an essential element in faith formation [r: of the individual or within small groups?]. It is a principal means of integrating faith and life. To reflect on one’s circumstances in life is as natural as breathing. It is that innate capacity and necessity that characterizes our human condition. It is that same capacity which enables us to recognize a reality greater than ourselves. To reflect on our life experiences in light of this greater reality is to reflect ‘theo-logically.’ It is to open us to the possibility of ‘knowing’ and ‘being known’ by what some call the ‘Holy Other.’ Such reflection draws us into the realm of faith. It grounds us in an unseen reality, alters our way of ‘seeing’ and shapes our responses in all of life’s relationships.


I believe that you are misrepresenting 'Theological reflection' as far as the Baha'i Faith functions. Practically everything I know of revelationa and theological reflection within the Baha'i Faith, I have learned from you. If you want to clarify anything you've told me in the past, I would be delighted to be corrected.


Just because certain things cannot, or from your perspective appear to not change. therefore Theological reflection is limited. One point of error is that if there was a new Revelation, it would not be a Baha'i Revelation, it would be a Revelation from God. Actually I am not as certain as to how this change could take place as you are. I consider your knowledge and experience concerning the Baha'i Faith as limited and problematic, as you stated your only source on some aspects of the faith is me.

Theological Reflection through consultation is very much a part of many aspects, which at many times impact scripture itself. The Harmony of science and religion requires that all scripture, including Baha'i scripture be interpreted in light of the evolving progressive knowledge of science. This requires theological reflection and consultation. Again, I am perfectly willing to hear whatever clarification you would like to offer regarding the role of theological reflection and Revelation in the Baha'i faith. I don't see anything new here or different from what you've told me so far.

shunyadragon
10-22-2014, 07:01 PM
I did not fail to give you an academic source--I never even tried to give you an academic force, nor was one requested. To me it is just common knowledge and general word usage. Not sure why it needs to be defined.

It needs to be defined how you are using it, because you are using it differently then the sources I checked. I gave you the clearest most concise definition I could find. You are creating a high fog index.


In case you are not actually that familiar with church history (perhaps I should not have given you the benefit of the doubt), take a look at the importance of the schools of Antioch and Alexandria, especially, in the various approaches to theological formulations which were eventually accepted at some of the earliest church councils. Or consider the substantially differing Franciscan and Dominican schools of theological thought beginning in the Middle Ages, with the elements of the Franciscan school eventually being accepted as church doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th and 20th century. All of this should be covered in any basic introduction to church history or the history of theology. [/quote]

The basic Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church once established does not change in all of the above variations since about 300-500 AD. The Trinity, Original Sin, the Fall, and the nature of the defined authority of the Roman Church has not changed. In fact in the Vatican II the authority of the church and the standardization of the catechism was more specific and not allowing variations like the Dutch Catechism


None of this should require any specialized definitions.

Nothing specialized here, simply a recognized academic source will do.



The term ‘theological reflection’ has come into prominence over the last thirty years in a variety of settings and serving a number of ends. It is used to denote a process in which an individual or small group [r: how small?] reflects on their personal or collective experience(s) in light of their faith. The aim is not only to come to new understandings about the circumstances in which people live and the faith they profess, but to identify new ways of responding that validate their experience and give voice to their truth.

To reflect theologically is an essential element in faith formation [r: of the individual or within small groups?]. It is a principal means of integrating faith and life. To reflect on one’s circumstances in life is as natural as breathing. It is that innate capacity and necessity that characterizes our human condition. It is that same capacity which enables us to recognize a reality greater than ourselves. To reflect on our life experiences in light of this greater reality is to reflect ‘theo-logically.’ It is to open us to the possibility of ‘knowing’ and ‘being known’ by what some call the ‘Holy Other.’ Such reflection draws us into the realm of faith. It grounds us in an unseen reality, alters our way of ‘seeing’ and shapes our responses in all of life’s relationships.


Practically everything I know of revelationa and theological reflection within the Baha'i Faith, I have learned from you. If you want to clarify anything you've told me in the past, I would be delighted to be corrected.

Again, I am perfectly willing to hear whatever clarification you would like to offer regarding the role of theological reflection and Revelation in the Baha'i faith. I don't see anything new here or different from what you've told me so far.

This where you have to put in some effort yourself. I am not your seeing eye dog. I gave a clear example of the relationship between science and religion where change is and will be taking place over the Millennia and you ignored it. So far you have been very selective on issues that do not reflect the over all character of the Baha'i Faith. My advice, you have a lot of homework, before you can make the judgments you are making

robrecht
10-22-2014, 07:15 PM
It needs to be defined how you are using it, because you are using it differently then the sources I checked. I gave you the clearest most concise definition I could find. You are creating a high fog index. High fog index? Your definition was concise? Theological: pertaining to God. Reflection: Thinking about stuff. Ergo, theological reflection: thinking about God. A bit more concise, don't you think?


The basic Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church once established does not change in all of the above variations since about 300-500 AD. The Trinity, Original Sin, the Fall, and the nature of the defined authority of the Roman Church has not changed. In fact in the Vatican II the authority of the church and the standardization of the catechism was more specific and not allowing variations like the Dutch Catechism I guess I really should not have given you the benefit of the doubt. When was the Dogma of Papal Infallbility defined in the Roman Catholic Church? Nineteenth century. When was the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception defined? Twentieth century. Both products of the Franciscan school of theology.


Nothing specialized here, simply a recognized academic source will do. How about a dictionary? Look up 'theological' and 'reflection'. Should be in most dictionaries.


This where you have to put in some effort yourself. I am not your seeing eye dog. I gave a clear example of the relationship between science and religion where change is and will be taking place over the Millennia and you ignored it. So far you have been very selective on issues that do not reflect the over all character of the Baha'i Faith. My advice, you have a lot of homework, before you can make the judgments you are making I'm am using an example that you yourself have given me. Woman and the role of leadership in the Baha'i Faith. According to you that is a spiritual law in the Baha'i Faith. It is a matter of Revelation and you say it cannot change without a new Revelation. What's wrong with using this example? Your other example, if I recall recall correctly, the evolution of scientific knowledge, does not pertain to spiritual laws in the Baha'i Faith, right?

shunyadragon
10-22-2014, 07:24 PM
WHAT IS THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION teachersites.schoolworld.com/.../WHAT%20IS%20THEOLOGICAL%20..]

The explicit goal of theological reflection is not a dogmatic statement or a contribution to academic theology. Its goal is pastoral and practical: it aims at transformation of social structures and institutions and at fuller personal integration and conversion.

As a result, it criteria for truth and value are practical as well. This theological reflection is “true” and successful when it liberates the fullest living of the Christian spirit possible in the context, the fullest and most aware response to what the Spirit of God is doing here and now and inviting us to do. As a result, it criteria for truth and value are practical as well. This theological reflection is “true” and successful when it liberates the fullest living of the Christian spirit possible in the context, the fullest and most aware response to what the Spirit of God is doing here and now and inviting us to do.

robrecht
10-22-2014, 07:42 PM
High fog index. Try a dictionary. Maybe even common sense. "Transformation of social structures and institutions ...," that might be something the International House of Justice or the Vatican could reflect on--if they wanted to be open to a little revelation.

shunyadragon
10-23-2014, 05:22 AM
High fog index. Try a dictionary. Maybe even common sense. "Transformation of social structures and institutions ...," that might be something the International House of Justice or the Vatican could reflect on--if they wanted to be open to a little revelation.

I am doing exactly that. I refer to authorities that provide good concise definitions, which represents good common sense. Yes, the problem is you are creating the High Fog Index by presenting a confusing description of 'Theological Reflection, which is not how it is used. I can provide several more references, but I doubt it would help.

As described the Universal [not International] House of Justice and the Baha'i Faith as a whole does consult on 'change' as in science, and the evolving body of scientific knowledge as a form of revelation. Probably all religions and faiths involve some form of 'Theological, or Philosophical Reflection,' even UUs, but the purpose as defined is not Revelation, nor change in Doctrine nor Dogma of the foundation of the belief systems..

robrecht
10-23-2014, 06:29 AM
I am doing exactly that. I refer to authorities that provide good concise definitions, which represents good common sense. Yes, the problem is you are creating the High Fog Index by presenting a confusing description of 'Theological Reflection, which is not how it is used. I can provide several more references, but I doubt it would help.

As described the Universal [not International] House of Justice and the Baha'i Faith as a whole does consult on 'change' as in science, and the evolving body of scientific knowledge as a form of revelation. Probably all religions and faiths involve some form of 'Theological, or Philosophical Reflection,' even UUs, but the purpose as defined is not Revelation, nor change in Doctrine nor Dogma of the foundation of the belief systems..
I think you are missing my point. I am using the terms 'theological reflection' in a very normal sense of those terms. I do not think that its purpose is to be some kind of revelation or to change doctrine, nonetheless it certainly has contributed to the development of doctrine in the Christian tradition. In my discussions with you, you have presented some spiritual laws that you say cannot change without a new revelation, eg, the religious leadership of women. This is somewhat different from what has occurred and is still occuring in the Christian tradition. For example, you attribute the rejection of slavery to a new Revelation, whereas other religions did not need to attribute such progress to a new Revelation contained in new Holy Scriptures. Your critism of Christiannity sometimes seems to presume that Christians must share your own literalist view of some fixed spiritual laws that cannot change without a new revelation. Certainly many Christian fundamentalists do share your approach, but many do not and you prefer not to acknowledge or discuss those approaches found within the Christian tradition. It is also ironic that you will not acknowledge this same weakness when it is found in your own view of Revelation. You would prefer not to discuss those examples. If that is not true, prove me wrong and be willing to discuss your own views of Revelation from the same critical perspective that you direct toward other religions.

robrecht
10-23-2014, 07:03 AM
... Universal [not International] House of Justice ... Oops, sorry, I read that once on the Baha'i library website and it just seemed to stick, sounds too much like the International House of Pancakes! Is the original language for the name of this body Arabic? Happen to know the actual terms used?

shunyadragon
10-23-2014, 05:25 PM
Oops, sorry, I read that once on the Baha'i library website and it just seemed to stick, sounds too much like the International House of Pancakes! Is the original language for the name of this body Arabic? Happen to know the actual terms used?

Never was described as such on the Baha'i library website. Sarcasm noted.

Spartacus
10-23-2014, 05:28 PM
is this about baha'i stuff or unitarian universalism?

shunyadragon
10-23-2014, 05:51 PM
I think you are missing my point. I am using the terms 'theological reflection' in a very normal sense of those terms.

No you have not, nor have you cited a source using it that way


I do not think that its purpose is to be some kind of revelation or to change doctrine,

Back peddling, yes you did.


nonetheless it certainly has contributed to the development of doctrine in the Christian tradition.

You are contradicting your above statement.


In my discussions with you, you have presented some spiritual laws that you say cannot change without a new revelation, eg, the religious leadership of women.

I was not as specific at this as you claim. I actually do not know how things will be changed in the future, nor how the revelation in this case would be.


This is somewhat different from what has occurred and is still occurring in the Christian tradition. For example, you attribute the rejection of slavery to a new Revelation, whereas other religions did not need to attribute such progress to a new Revelation contained in new Holy Scriptures.

The opposition to slavery in Christianity has been too inconsistent, and violent, because Bible scripture still endorses slavery without any clear guidance of the rejection of slavery. This remains the problem for many conflicting and contradictory issues in the modern world. The revelation of the absolute spiritual law against slavery was revealed in the Baha'i scripture and now is the international standard. Yes it is somewhat different between the Baha'i Faith and Christian tradition. There is not much change in Christianity except for more churches and sects teaching inconsistent beliefs. The fundamental Doctrines and Dogma Christianity is set in Old World archaic concrete and will not change. It still remains that 50% or more of the Christians in the USA reject the science of evolution (46% of the whole population). There is too much division rejection of science, and clinging to ancient beliefs such as the Fall and Original Sin for their to be any significant leadership for the world for true change.


Your criticism of Christianity sometimes seems to presume that Christians must share your own literalist view of some fixed spiritual laws that cannot change without a new revelation.

Sometime seems . . . makes assumptions about my view that are incorrect.

Never said the literalist rule in either my own nor any particular view. I did say that 50% or more of all Christians in America reject evolution and that is pretty consistent without much change in recent years.


Certainly many Christian fundamentalists do share your approach, but many do not and you prefer not to acknowledge or discuss those approaches found within the Christian tradition.

They just make up more then 50% of the Christians in this country, and remain an unchanged force in Christianity. No I never said this represents all Christians. The clinging to absolute no change in the basic doctrines and dogma of Christianity does represent by far the majority and the only change here results in more churches, based on archaic ancient literature, does come around and bite those seeking change, because the apostles and the Church fathers believed in the literal Bible, and Christian Theocracy.


It is also ironic that you will not acknowledge this same weakness when it is found in your own view of Revelation. You would prefer not to discuss those examples. If that is not true, prove me wrong and be willing to discuss your own views of Revelation from the same critical perspective that you direct toward other religions.

I could hardly be able to prove anything from your stone wall perspective. The Baha'i Faith acknowledges 'change in many things like science where there is impossible consensus in the confusion in Christian churches.

shunyadragon
10-23-2014, 06:12 PM
is this about baha'i stuff or unitarian universalism?I prefer UU, but robrecht is pressing his agenda. UU did adopt Baha'i principles in their Humanist Manifesto. Including the common ground of many principles and beliefs, the UU has much in common with the Baha'i Faith. The difference is the UU is dominantly humanist, an the Baha'i Faith is Theist.

robrecht
10-24-2014, 04:18 AM
Never was described as such on the Baha'i library website. Sarcasm noted.Yes it was. I was not being sarcastic.

robrecht
10-24-2014, 04:46 AM
No you have not, nor have you cited a source using it that way I have no need to be dependent upon sources when using normal words in their normal sense.


Back peddling, yes you did. No, you are proving that you completely misunderstand. My point has always been that a literalist, propositional approach to revelation in closed written scriptures is not needed when one can accept the validity of theological reflection.


You are contradicting your above statement. Try to at least quote a full sentence at a time and you may be able to better understand. Just because theological reflection has produced new doctrines, sometimes over the course of several centuries, does not mean that the theological reflection was seen (then or now) or ever intended as a form of revelation or to produce new doctrine.


I was not as specific at this as you claim. I actually do not know how things will be changed in the future, nor how the revelation in this case would be. Yes you have been exactly as specific as I claim. See here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2499-Divine-revelation&p=110921&viewfull=1#post110921 "As far as change, I do not believe this could change by other means, based on my review of the writings." I notice that you have again refused to address this issue.


The opposition to slavery in Christianity has been too inconsistent, and violent, because Bible scripture still endorses slavery without any clear guidance of the rejection of slavery. This remains the problem for many conflicting and contradictory issues in the modern world. History is messy, no doubt. How many Christians today endorse slavery?


The revelation of the absolute spiritual law against slavery was revealed in the Baha'i scripture and now is the international standard. Yes it is somewhat different between the Baha'i Faith and Christian tradition. The great majority of people in the world have probably never heard of the Baha'i Faith so it is difficult to consider their revelation as the international standard.


There is not much change in Christianity except for more churches and sects teaching inconsistent beliefs. The fundamental Doctrines and Dogma Christianity is set in Old World archaic concrete and will not change. It still remains that 50% or more of the Christians in the USA reject the science of evolution (46% of the whole population). There is too much division rejection of science, and clinging to ancient beliefs such as the Fall and Original Sin for their to be any significant leadership for the world for true change.

Sometime seems . . . makes assumptions about my view that are incorrect.

Never said the literalist rule in either my own nor any particular view. I did say that 50% or more of all Christians in America reject evolution and that is pretty consistent without much change in recent years. I am assessing your approach the best I can in the midst of your refusal to speak directly to this issue. If you want to correct my assessment, all you need do is speak.


They just make up more then 50% of the Christians in this country, and remain an unchanged force in Christianity. No I never said this represents all Christians. The clinging to absolute no change in the basic doctrines and dogma of Christianity does represent by far the majority and the only change here results in more churches, based on archaic ancient literature, does come around and bite those seeking change, because the apostles and the Church fathers believed in the literal Bible, and Christian Theocracy.

I could hardly be able to prove anything from your stone wall perspective. The Baha'i Faith acknowledges 'change in many things like science where there is impossible consensus in the confusion in Christian churches.My 'stone wall' perspective. You are the one who is stonewalling here. I am trying to get you to speak freely about what I consider an important issue.

robrecht
10-24-2014, 05:40 AM
is this about baha'i stuff or unitarian universalism? It started out in this thread about my advice to you as to the the liklihood that Shuny would address the history of Christian theology as opposed to his standard critique, which is ironically enough never directed toward his own beliefs in a self-critical fashion. It originally began in a few other threads, especially one of his own threads in which Shuny argued that theism, which he laters restricted to Christian theism, was contrary to freedom of thought. He abandonded that thread, his own thread, I believe because he was shown to be contradicting himself on this point, and, in his own words, because it became 'muddled'. One of the items with which it became muddled was an argument he was having about Unitarian Universalism; so he started this thread rather than continue his participation in his other thread. I have also tried to discuss this issue with him in a thread on Revelation and in another of his threads on the Baha'i Faith. He is free to discuss this wherever he chooses, if he ever does choose to discuss this. My 'agenda' is merely to have this discussion with him whereever he so chooses.

shunyadragon
10-24-2014, 05:44 AM
Yes it was. I was not being sarcastic.

You would have to cite the Baha'i source to justify this. Your sarcasm was in equating UHJ with the International House of Pancakes.

shunyadragon
10-24-2014, 05:49 AM
It started out in this thread about my advice to you as to the the liklihood that Shuny would address the history of Christian theology as opposed to his standard critique, which is ironically enough never directed toward his own beliefs in a self-critical fashion. It originally began in a few other threads, especially one of his own threads in which Shuny argued that theism, which he laters restricted to Christian theism, was contrary to freedom of thought. He abandonded that thread, his own thread, I believe because he was shown to be contradicting himself on this point, and, in his own words, because it became 'muddled'. One of the items with which it became muddled was an argument he was having about Unitarian Universalism; so he started this thread rather than continue his participation in his other thread. I have also tried to discuss this issue with him in a thread on Revelation and in another of his threads on the Baha'i Faith. He is free to discuss this wherever he chooses, if he ever does choose to discuss this. My 'agenda' is merely to have this discussion with him whereever he so chooses.

First, I did not bring up the Baha'i Faith in this thread, you 'choose' to. Second, I did not abandon any threads. They are still active if you wish to stay on topic and address you problems with the Baha'i Faith in those threads. Third your challenging statements are unwarranted in this thread, and I have responded to everything you have posted in the other threads.

robrecht
10-24-2014, 05:51 AM
You would have to cite the Baha'i source to justify this. Your sarcasm was in equating UHJ with the International House of Pancakes.I did not equate them, merely said the the wording of the International House of Justice stuck in my mind because of the similarity with the International House of Pancakes. It is very easy to Google and find examples, but perhaps these will suffice to prove my good will:

The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá'u'lláh has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other.
http://bahai-library.com/uhj_election_infallibility_uhj

Usage note: in the Bahá’í writings it is sometimes called the 'Supreme House of Justice', the 'International House of Justice', or the 'Universal House of Justice'. Bahá’ís now refer to it as the 'Universal House of Justice', which is sometimes abbreviated to the 'House of Justice', or 'the House'.
http://bahaikipedia.org/Universal_House_of_Justice


t will be evident, therefore, that given favorable circumstances, under which the Bahá’ís of Persia and of the adjoining countries under Soviet rule, may be enabled to elect their national representatives, in accordance with the guiding principles laid down in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s writings, the only remaining obstacle in the way of the definite formation of the International House of Justice will have been removed. For upon the National Houses of Justice of the East and the West devolves the task, in conformity with the explicit provisions of the Will, of electing directly the members of the International House of Justice.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-3.html

So, if my good will is no longer in doubt, perhaps you can address my question: Is the original language for the name of this body Arabic? Happen to know the actual terms used?

robrecht
10-24-2014, 05:54 AM
First, I did not bring up the Baha'i Faith in this thread, you 'choose' to. Second, I did not abandon any threads. They are still active if you wish to stay on topic and address you problems with the Baha'i Faith in those threads. Third your challenging statements are unwarranted in this thread, and I have responded to everything you have posted in the other threads.If you have not abandoned the other threads, does that mean that you now intend to return to them?

shunyadragon
10-24-2014, 06:04 AM
I have no need to be dependent upon sources when using normal words in their normal sense.

What you have presented does not represent the common use of Theological Reflection as defined by many sources. Still waiting . . .


No, you are proving that you completely misunderstand. My point has always been that a literalist, propositional approach to revelation in closed written scriptures is not needed when one can accept the validity of theological reflection.

Problem remains you are misusing Theological reflection.


Try to at least quote a full sentence at a time and you may be able to better understand. Just because theological reflection has produced new doctrines, sometimes over the course of several centuries, does not mean that the theological reflection was seen (then or now) or ever intended as a form of revelation or to produce new doctrine.

Theological reflection has not produced new Doctrines by Definition.

It would help if you got back on topic of UU. The other threads were open, are open and will remain open.

robrecht
10-24-2014, 06:13 AM
What you have presented does not represent the common use of Theological Reflection as defined by many sources. Still waiting . . .

Problem remains you are misusing Theological reflection.

Theological reflection has not produced new Doctrines by Definition.

It would help if you got back on topic of UU. The other threads were open, are open and will remain open. Please explain how you think I have misused the words 'theological reflection' and this time try to do so without misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I have been saying.

You did not answer my question: If you have not abandoned the other threads, does that mean that you now intend to return to them?

shunyadragon
10-24-2014, 06:32 AM
Please explain how you think I have misused the words 'theological reflection' and this time try to do so without misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I have been saying.

You did not answer my question: If you have not abandoned the other threads, does that mean that you now intend to return to them?

I never have left them. There is one here in Comparative religions, right below this one that has always been open. I have been the last one to post in all my threads and all remain open.

robrecht
10-24-2014, 06:40 AM
I never have left them. There is one here in Comparative religions, right below this one that has always been open. I have been the last one to post in all my threads and all remain open.I did not claim that you have abandoned all of your threads. If you are not aware of the one to which I was referring, I will look it up for you. As for the others, I can also dig through them to find the specific questions you have still not answered. I note, again, that you have avoided my question and request here in this very thread:

Please explain how you think I have misused the words 'theological reflection' and this time try to do so without misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I have been saying.

Is the original language for the name of this body (Universal House of Justice) Arabic? Happen to know the actual terms used?

shunyadragon
10-24-2014, 06:45 AM
I did not claim that you have abandoned all of your threads. If you are not aware of the one to which I was referring, I will look it up for you. As for the others, I can also dig through them to find the specific questions you have still not answered. I note, again, that you have avoided my question and request here in this very thread:

Please explain how you think I have misused the words 'theological reflection' and this time try to do so without misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I have been saying.

Is the original language for the name of this body (Universal House of Justice) Arabic? Happen to know the actual terms used?

You have equated 'Theological Reflection' as referring to change and evolution of doctrine and dogma, and every source I have been able to find other then you bears no resemblance to this use.

robrecht
10-24-2014, 06:49 AM
You have equated 'Theological Reflection' as referring to change and evolution of doctrine and dogma, and every source I have been able to find other then you bears no resemblance to this use.Untrue. Once again. Now please try and explain how you think I have misused the words 'theological reflection' and this time try to do so without misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I have been saying. I have said that theological reflection has sometimes contributed to the evolution of doctrine and dogma in the Christian traidition. This is hardly equating 'theological reflection' to 'change and evolution of doctrine and dogma' or saying that 'theological reflection' refers to 'change and evolution of doctrine and dogma'.

shunyadragon
10-24-2014, 07:55 AM
Untrue. Once again. Now please try and explain how you think I have misused the words 'theological reflection' and this time try to do so without misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I have been saying. I have said that theological reflection has sometimes contributed to the evolution of doctrine and dogma in the Christian traidition. This is hardly equating 'theological reflection' to 'change and evolution of doctrine and dogma' or saying that 'theological reflection' refers to 'change and evolution of doctrine and dogma'.


You have equated 'Theological Reflection' as referring to change and evolution of doctrine and dogma, and every source I have been able to find other then you bears no resemblance to this use.

Source: [DOC
WHAT IS THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION teachersites.schoolworld.com/.../WHAT%20IS%20THEOLOGICAL%20..]

The explicit goal of theological reflection is not a dogmatic statement or a contribution to academic theology. Its goal is pastoral and practical: it aims at transformation of social structures and institutions and at fuller personal integration and conversion.
As a result, it criteria for truth and value are practical as well. This theological reflection is “true” and successful when it liberates the fullest living of the Christian spirit possible in the context, the fullest and most aware response to what the Spirit of God is doing here and now and inviting us to do. As a result, it criteria for truth and value are practical as well. This theological reflection is “true” and successful when it liberates the fullest living of the Christian spirit possible in the context, the fullest and most aware response to what the Spirit of God is doing here and now and inviting us to do.

© Copyright Original Source

robrecht
10-24-2014, 08:24 AM
You have equated 'Theological Reflection' as referring to change and evolution of doctrine and dogma, and every source I have been able to find other then you bears no resemblance to this use.

Source: [DOC
WHAT IS THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION teachersites.schoolworld.com/.../WHAT%20IS%20THEOLOGICAL%20..]

The explicit goal of theological reflection is not a dogmatic statement or a contribution to academic theology. Its goal is pastoral and practical: it aims at transformation of social structures and institutions and at fuller personal integration and conversion.
As a result, it criteria for truth and value are practical as well. This theological reflection is “true” and successful when it liberates the fullest living of the Christian spirit possible in the context, the fullest and most aware response to what the Spirit of God is doing here and now and inviting us to do. As a result, it criteria for truth and value are practical as well. This theological reflection is “true” and successful when it liberates the fullest living of the Christian spirit possible in the context, the fullest and most aware response to what the Spirit of God is doing here and now and inviting us to do.

© Copyright Original SourceNo I have never, ever equated theological reflection' with change or evolution of doctrine or dogma. You are still misunderstanding and misrepresenting my view. I have said that theological reflection can contribute to the development of doctrine in the Christian tradition and given you three or four concrete examples. Please try to understand my position before arguing.

shunyadragon
10-24-2014, 09:05 AM
No I have never, ever equated theological reflection' with change or evolution of doctrine or dogma. You are still misunderstanding and misrepresenting my view. I have said that theological reflection can contribute to the development of doctrine in the Christian tradition and given you three or four concrete examples. Please try to understand my position before arguing.

Yes you have made that relationship, and failed to provide an outside definition supporting it. Your position has been combative, distorted. concerning the Baha'i Faith, and vague and foggy concerning how you are using 'Theological Reflection,' You most definitely have been using it in how change takes pace in Christianity, and that is not how it is defined.

Let's get back to the UU discussion.

robrecht
10-24-2014, 09:20 AM
Yes you have made that relationship, and failed to provide an outside definition supporting it. Your position has been combative, distorted. concerning the Baha'i Faith, and vague and foggy concerning how you are using 'Theological Reflection,' You most definitely have been using it in how change takes pace in Christianity, and that is not how it is defined.

Let's get back to the UU discussion.
Too bad you cannot provide a single quote of mine equating theological reflection to change or evolution of doctrine or dogma or using the terms other than how they are normally defined in dictionaries. Your affirmation does not make it so. Likewise, I have no opposition to the Baha'i Faith. In fact, I have have nothing but high praise for most of their positions as I understand them. I am no expert so there may be some positions of theirs that I would not agree with, were I more aware of their theology.

__
10-24-2014, 11:38 PM
I do not know much about Baha'i.

shunyadragon
10-28-2014, 03:30 PM
I do not know much about Baha'i.

You can google Baha'i Faith, or go to this thread http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1232-The-Baha-i-Source-some-call-God(s)-and-why-I-believe-in-God/page6, and read and ask questions.

shunyadragon
10-28-2014, 04:20 PM
Too bad you cannot provide a single quote of mine equating theological reflection to change or evolution of doctrine or dogma or using the terms other than how they are normally defined in dictionaries. Your affirmation does not make it so. Likewise, I have no opposition to the Baha'i Faith. In fact, I have have nothing but high praise for most of their positions as I understand them. I am no expert so there may be some positions of theirs that I would not agree with, were I more aware of their theology.

Here:


Without yet turning to the citation from your link, your above description of the role of theological reflection is much too individualistic not only for my personal taste but also for describing its role in the Christian intellectual tradition. Within the Christian intellectual tradition, one has major schools of theology that have influenced the development of doctrine from the beginning and into medieval and modern times and, apart from doctrinal development, still provide for rather profound theological pluralism within individual churches, not to mention the differences that exist between denominations. (By the way, I am only speaking of the Christian theological traditions, but similar processes may also be described within Judaism and Islam.)



Try to at least quote a full sentence at a time and you may be able to better understand. Just because theological reflection has produced new doctrines, sometimes over the course of several centuries, does not mean that the theological reflection was seen (then or now) or ever intended as a form of revelation or to produce new doctrine.

robrecht
10-28-2014, 04:56 PM
Here:Shuny, you claimed (10/23 8:51pm) that I said the purpose of theological reflection is to be some kind of revelation or to change doctrine. But, of course, I never said that. Your quotations of me do not say what you think they do. Read my posts again, more carefully, please: Theological reflection, especially as part of a larger school of theology (eg, Antochene, Alexandrian, Franciscan, Dominican) can certainly contribute to the development of doctrine. It can indeed perform this role. See, eg, the role of the Franciscan school of theology in defining what eventually became the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility as later defined by the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century. That is not at all the same thing as equating theological reflection with Revelation or saying that the purpose of theological reflection is to change doctrine. I'm sorry you cannot see that, but please do not continue to misrepresent what i have said. I've asked you before, but you declined to answer, what would you prefer to call the theological reflection that took place within these theological schools of thought and which contributed to what eventually came to be defined as dogma? If you do not want to call it 'theological reflection', what would you call it???

shunyadragon
10-29-2014, 06:51 AM
Shuny, you claimed (10/23 8:51pm) that I said the purpose of theological reflection is to be some kind of revelation or to change doctrine. But, of course, I never said that. Your quotations of me do not say what you think they do. Read my posts again, more carefully, please: Theological reflection, especially as part of a larger school of theology (eg, Antochene, Alexandrian, Franciscan, Dominican) can certainly contribute to the development of doctrine. It can indeed perform this role. See, eg, the role of the Franciscan school of theology in defining what eventually became the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility as later defined by the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century. That is not at all the same thing as equating theological reflection with Revelation or saying that the purpose of theological reflection is to change doctrine. I'm sorry you cannot see that, but please do not continue to misrepresent what i have said. I've asked you before, but you declined to answer, . . .

Answered, you indeed did just as I said:




Without yet turning to the citation from your link, your above description of the role of theological reflection is much too individualistic not only for my personal taste . . . .

It is how it is defined and used from my sources. Unless you can provide an alternative citation, I can only assume that this is your 'personal view.'


. . . but also for describing its role in the Christian intellectual tradition. Within the Christian intellectual tradition, one has major schools of theology that have influenced the development of doctrine from the beginning and into medieval and modern times and, apart from doctrinal development, still provide for rather profound theological pluralism within individual churches, not to mention the differences that exist between denominations. (By the way, I am only speaking of the Christian theological traditions, but similar processes may also be described within Judaism and Islam.)

Quote Originally Posted by robrecht#41

Try to at least quote a full sentence at a time and you may be able to better understand. Just because theological reflection has produced new doctrines, sometimes over the course of several centuries, does not mean that the theological reflection was seen (then or now) or ever intended as a form of revelation or to produce new doctrine.



[quote] . . . what would you prefer to call the theological reflection that took place within these theological schools of thought and which contributed to what eventually came to be defined as dogma? If you do not want to call it 'theological reflection', what would you call it???

That is a different question. I will give it some thought, but NO, it is not Theological Reflection as defined and used in the sources I cited. I of course can cite more if it would help, but I do not think it will.

You have failed to provide a source that defines Theological Reflection as you use it in the above cited posts as contributing to the formation of doctrines..

robrecht
10-29-2014, 07:55 AM
Answered, you indeed did just as I said:

It is how it is defined and used from my sources. Unless you can provide an alternative citation, I can only assume that this is your 'personal view.'

. . . but also for describing its role in the Christian intellectual tradition. Within the Christian intellectual tradition, one has major schools of theology that have influenced the development of doctrine from the beginning and into medieval and modern times and, apart from doctrinal development, still provide for rather profound theological pluralism within individual churches, not to mention the differences that exist between denominations. (By the way, I am only speaking of the Christian theological traditions, but similar processes may also be described within Judaism and Islam.)

Quote Originally Posted by robrecht#41

Try to at least quote a full sentence at a time and you may be able to better understand. Just because theological reflection has produced new doctrines, sometimes over the course of several centuries, does not mean that the theological reflection was seen (then or now) or ever intended as a form of revelation or to produce new doctrine.

That is a different question. I will give it some thought, but NO, it is not Theological Reflection as defined and used in the sources I cited. I of course can cite more if it would help, but I do not think it will.

You have failed to provide a source that defines Theological Reflection as you use it in the above cited posts as contributing to the formation of doctrines..
False assumption on your part, and certainly not a necessary one. Let's see if you can come up with a better way of describing the process and examples I have given you. Certainly seems like theological reflection to me and that does not entail any peculiar definition of the terms. Did you bother looking them up in the dictionary, as I suggested?

shunyadragon
10-29-2014, 10:22 AM
False assumption on your part, and certainly not a necessary one. Let's see if you can come up with a better way of describing the process and examples I have given you. Certainly seems like theological reflection to me and that does not entail any peculiar definition of the terms. Did you bother looking them up in the dictionary, as I suggested?

Not an assumption on my part. I used academic definitions and usage, and your own words of your unique personal definition not entailing any particular definition has too high a fog index for a constructive dialogue, No good unless you can provide an outside source to justify your use as I did.

Sure I looked them up, but 'Theological Reflections' is not in the Dictionary. I used legitimate academic sources to provide the definition. You have provided nothing. Still waiting. . .

robrecht
10-29-2014, 11:56 AM
Not an assumption on my part. I used academic definitions and usage, and your own words of your unique personal definition not entailing any particular definition has too high a fog index for a constructive dialogue, No good unless you can provide an outside source to justify your use as I did.

Sure I looked them up, but 'Theological Reflections' is not in the Dictionary. I used legitimate academic sources to provide the definition. You have provided nothing. Still waiting. . .
You already admitted to the fact of your assumption when you tried to claim it was a necessary assumption (it is not). You will need to look up 'theological' and 'reflection' separately in most dictionaries. Once you have done so, perhaps you could try to explain why you think my use and definition of these terms is somehow incorrect. I've also asked you how you might alternatively describe the phenomenon and examples I have given to you. I assure you there is nothing unusual about how I am using these terms. Once you find them in a dictionary, this should become obvious to you. If not, let me know.

shunyadragon
10-29-2014, 03:02 PM
You already admitted to the fact of your assumption when you tried to claim it was a necessary assumption (it is not). You will need to look up 'theological' and 'reflection' separately in most dictionaries. Once you have done so, perhaps you could try to explain why you think my use and definition of these terms is somehow incorrect. I've also asked you how you might alternatively describe the phenomenon and examples I have given to you. I assure you there is nothing unusual about how I am using these terms. Once you find them in a dictionary, this should become obvious to you. If not, let me know.

Yes I found them in the dictionary, but the definitions did not resolve the issue at hand. The use of the phrase 'Theological Reflections' cannot realistically be equated to the individual words, nonetheless here goes, reflection simply translated to thinking, contemplation, deliberation, meditation or maybe musing. This comes closest to a personal process. To vague and anecdotal to have any meaning broader meaning. When combine with 'Theological' you may describe thinking, contemplation, deliberation of theological questions. Considering the definitions it better fits the personal contemplation and meditation of theological questions in ones personal life. The clear academic definition I cited extends this to small groups, but clearly fits the definition of the individual words.

You are creating your own 'personal' definition of the 'phrase,' which creates too high a fog index for further dialogue. I have not found any other reference that uses this phrase in the context you use it.

This thread is supposed to be about UU, where 'Philosophical Reflection' fits better. The following is a good definition:



Philosophical reflection is the activity of utilizing the tools that philosophy provides us to examine our lives, and our most basic beliefs about life. The end goal is to achieve a higher level of understanding which results in rebalancing or changing your life in positive ways i.e. rejecting unimportant things or activities in life in favor of the things which are truly important.

Please note, reflection is very personal in nature. The question of the nature of 'Theological or Philosophical Reflection' would deserve a separate thread.

robrecht
10-29-2014, 07:05 PM
Yes I found them in the dictionary, but the definitions did not resolve the issue at hand. The use of the phrase 'Theological Reflections' cannot realistically be equated to the individual words, nonetheless here goes, reflection simply translated to thinking, contemplation, deliberation, meditation or maybe musing. This comes closest to a personal process. To vague and anecdotal to have any meaning broader meaning. When combine with 'Theological' you may describe thinking, contemplation, deliberation of theological questions. Considering the definitions it better fits the personal contemplation and meditation of theological questions in ones personal life. The clear academic definition I cited extends this to small groups, but clearly fits the definition of the individual words.

You are creating your own 'personal' definition of the 'phrase,' which creates too high a fog index for further dialogue. I have not found any other reference that uses this phrase in the context you use it.

This thread is supposed to be about UU, where 'Philosophical Reflection' fits better. The following is a good definition:



Philosophical reflection is the activity of utilizing the tools that philosophy provides us to examine our lives, and our most basic beliefs about life. The end goal is to achieve a higher level of understanding which results in rebalancing or changing your life in positive ways i.e. rejecting unimportant things or activities in life in favor of the things which are truly important.

Please note, reflection is very personal in nature. The question of the nature of 'Theological or Philosophical Reflection' would deserve a separate thread.I wonder if you even realize that you are precisely demonstrating the truth of my remark to Spartacus that you will not discuss the subtleties of theological reflection. Too funny!

Your description of the definition of each word is fine. It is indeed what I mean. Yet you say that it only applies to one's personal life, and while that can indeed be very true, it need not only be about one's personal life. Recall that I was speaking of theological schools of thought and theological traditions. For example, the Franciscan school of thought is not merely a single individual thiking or reflecting theologically about his own personal life. It is a whole school of thought. It is shared by a rather large group of scholars and communities over several centuries. Some ideas developed in the Franciscan school of thought eventually contribute to the defintion of dogmas in the Roman Catholic Church several centuries later. In the defintion of the Immaculate Conception, for example, the theological tradition that found expression in the Franciscan school of thought, especially as eventually expressed by John Duns Scotus, was later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. Members of the Franciscan school of theology do not consider the writings of Bonneventure, William of Occam, Scotus, Roger Bacon, and others to be divinely inspired scriptures, much less do the opposing members of the Dominican school, but all recognize that the church eventally came to accept the tradition of theological reflection in one school as doctrine.

The Lutheran theological tradition in the Western church or other reform traditions, Protestant and othewise, are likewise not based on new revealed scriptures, but on the theological views and traditions developed first by its founders and later elaborated upon by others. Karl Barth did not view the theological writings of Martin Luther as inspired scripture, but rather as valid theological reflection that did not merely relate to the inidividual personal experience of Martin Luther but the beginnings of a fruitful tradition that he too would contribute to in his own time. It has become a rich and successful school of thought. Lutheran theology does not believe in a separate text or act of special revelation, but it most certainly does have its own character and the Luther traditional school of thought will specifically reject ideas and practices that Roman Catholics continue to consider revealed truths. There are many other rich theological traditions in the Christian church. One can stand within these theological traditions and engage in theological reflection merely about one's own personal experience, if that is all one wants to do, but one can also reflect on the larger experience of whole communities and denominations over centuries and continue to give life to a tradition that will continue to thrive and evolve for centures to come.

shunyadragon
10-29-2014, 07:18 PM
I wonder if you even realize that you are precisely demonstrating the truth of my remark to Spartacus that you will not discuss the subtleties of theological reflection. Too funny!

Not funny at all. I am doing no such thing. You are making up your own private definitions.


Your description of the definition of each word is fine. It is indeed what I mean. Yet you say that it only applies to one's personal life, and while that can indeed be very true, [quote]

ok, but not the following
[quote]
it need not only be about one's personal life. Recall that I was speaking of theological schools of thought and theological traditions. For example, the Franciscan school of thought is not merely a single individual thiking or reflecting theologically about his own personal life. It is a whole school of thought. It is shared by a rather large group of scholars and communities over several centuries. Some ideas developed in the Franciscan school of thought eventually contribute to the defintion of dogmas in the Roman Catholic Church several centuries later. In the defintion of the Immaculate Conception, for example, the theological tradition that found expression in the Franciscan school of thought, especially as eventually expressed by John Duns Scotus, was later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. Members of the Franciscan school of theology do not consider the writings of Bonneventure, William of Occam, Scotus, Roger Bacon, and others to be divinely inspired scriptures, much less do the opposing members of the Dominican school, but all recognize that the church eventally came to accept the tradition of theological reflection in one school as doctrine.

The Lutheran theological tradition in the Western church or other reform traditions, Protestant and othewise, are likewise not based on new revealed scriptures, but on the theological views and traditions developed first by its founders and later elaborated upon by others. Karl Barth did not view the theological writings of Martin Luther as inspired scripture, but rather as valid theological reflection that did not merely relate to the inidividual personal experience of Martin Luther but the beginnings of a fruitful tradition that he too would contribute to in his own time. It has become a rich and successful school of thought. Lutheran theology does not believe in a separate text or act of special revelation, but it most certainly does have its own character and the Luther traditional school of thought will specifically reject ideas and practices that Roman Catholics continue to consider revealed truths. There are many other rich theological traditions in the Christian church. One can stand within these theological traditions and engage in theological reflection merely about one's own personal experience, if that is all one wants to do, but one can also reflect on the larger experience of whole communities and denominations over centuries and continue to give life to a tradition that will continue to thrive and evolve for centures to come.

This is quite involved, but most definitely not anything to do with 'Theological Reflection,' nor the discussion concerning UU. Your going somewhere else with this maybe another thread.

robrecht
10-29-2014, 07:38 PM
Not funny at all. I am doing no such thing. Once again, if you want to prove me wrong, all you have to do is merely speak intelligently about these issues. So far you just try to criticize what I've said by misrepresentation and refusing to present any alternative view or alternative terminology of the examples I have given you.


You are making up your own private definitions. Nonsense. I am perfectly happy with the dictionary defintions and common usage of the words I have used and which you have finally mentioned yourself.


ok, but not the following What do you mean, 'not the following'?


This is quite involved, but most definitely not anything to do with 'Theological Reflection,' nor the discussion concerning UU. Your going somewhere else with this maybe another thread. It is much less involved than the actual riches of a multitude of theological schools of thought and theological traditions within the Christian religion and pretty much all other religions, near as I can tell. It is only your loss if you cannot bring yourself to engage in thoughtful reflection upon these realities.

shunyadragon
10-30-2014, 11:43 AM
Once again, if you want to prove me wrong, all you have to do is merely speak intelligently about these issues. So far you just try to criticize what I've said by misrepresentation and refusing to present any alternative view or alternative terminology of the examples I have given you.

Already done that in spades.



What do you mean, 'not the following'? I was very specific what the following was in your previous post. There is no need to repeat.

Let's get back to the subject at hand UU.

robrecht
10-30-2014, 12:29 PM
Already done that in spades.


I was very specific what the following was in your previous post. There is no need to repeat.

Let's get back to the subject at hand UU.
You are, of course, always free to address these questions in the Revelation thread. But you have not done so there either.

shunyadragon
11-24-2014, 06:49 AM
Because Trinitarianism is the product of a literalist interpretation of Scripture and not extended and sophisticated philosophical and theological discourse within the Church, and everyone who has ever supported Trinitarianism is violent. Riiiiiiiight.

No, but why would they want join a humanist oriented church?

shunyadragon
11-24-2014, 07:06 AM
I would like to get back to the issue at hand, which is, 'What are the advantages of UU? Unfortunately the early part of the thread was dominated by 'flippy' meaningless remarks and insults and later went way off topic.

shunyadragon
11-24-2014, 07:21 AM
Unitarian Universalists hold the Principles as strong values and moral teachings. As Rev. Barbara Wells ten Hove explains, “The Principles are not dogma or doctrine, but rather a guide for those of us who choose to join and participate in Unitarian Universalist religious communities.”
1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Sources of Our Living Tradition

Rev. Kathleen Rolenz said, “Throughout history, we have moved to the rhythms of mystery and wonder, prophecy, wisdom, teachings from ancient and modern sources, and nature herself.” Worshipping in our congregations you may hear a reading or perspective shared from any one of these sources from which our living tradition is drawn:
•Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
•Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
•Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
•Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
•Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
•Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Abu Njoroge
04-16-2017, 05:40 AM
The ones i have visited are a spiritual haven for the homosexual community of whom many feel uncomfortable in christianity.

Catholicity
04-21-2017, 08:20 AM
Everyone is welcome? they're friendly.