Unitarian Universalist Christianity

[Storico]

I've been thinking about this for a while (several weeks, anyways), and I thought that I'd better officially say something -- well, I wanted to say something, anyways. My views aren't what you'd call "orthodox" when it comes to Christianity. I believe in God, and in Christ, but my views overall line up a lot more with UU sentiments, and I think I'd be better off presenting my stance a bit more accurately by actually saying so. As far as I know, there's no need to formally join anything. I don't feel a need to, anyways -- I don't have anything to prove. I do have an interest to share, though, and I'd like to talk with anyone interested:

http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html These are the UU principles. People who share these principles come from several different religious backgrounds, and some of them, like me, are Christian.

The principles:


* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

There's more on that site in its entirety. It's a pretty good site.

This site, here: http://www.liveoakuu.org/christianityLINKS.htm is also a neat list I've been making my way through.

Are there other UU people on this board? Of any religious background, including Christian? =)

[Rayado]

Hmm...you know, I don't see hardly any difference between the principles you listed and orthdox Christian ethics. (Beliefs, at the brass tacks level, now that's quite likely a different story.)

:nsm:

But I do wonder...what is the basis for their belief in those principles? Why do they believe what they do?

[mossrose]

I am with Ray. The bigger question is, above and beyond all that other stuff, is, what do they believe about Christ and do they believe that He is the ONLY path to God.

:smile:

[dizzle]

No they don't believe that Mossy, and they deny the Trinity. They believe that all sincere roads lead to God. They deny sin and need for atonement. In fact they deny all of the essentials of the faith - except they think it is okay for anyone to believe that for themselves. But of course the problem is that is Christ is not necessary for everybody then He is not necessary for anybody, and thus is a denial of Christ.

Storico, I will not preach at you in public. Myself and my staff are available to speak to you in private on this issue, and we urge you to contemplation.

[mossrose]

That's what I figured, with the "universalism" part of their name.

They are in error then.

[bigsplit]

I am with Ray. The bigger question is, above and beyond all that other stuff, is, what do they believe about Christ and do they believe that He is the ONLY path to God.

:smile:

That depends on what you mean. Some of them do not even believe in God persay as orthodoxy defines him/her. Some of them do.

It also depends on what you mean by believing in Christ, the Pauline doctrain, no they do not believe that, although some of them do.

If you mean that Christ being the light and that light is shown through his teachings on morality and rightous living, I think they would agree that following that light is the key to finding "God". So in that sense they do believe that Jesus is the only path to God, but this light can also be found in other traditions. Not all UUs are Christian, although some of them most certainly are. The major goal of the group is that of peacemaker, you know the ones that Christ blesses. I know several UUs and they seem to be very sincere, dedicated and devout people. Most are extremely intellectual and highly educated. There name says much of what they believe....Thomas Jefferson was a UU.

[Storico]

From the same page above (UUA,org),


The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:

* 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.

Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support.

Unitarian Universalism is ecumenical in that it's inclusive. It's not a "religion" with many defined theological positions really. It's a philosophy that incorporates people from all cultures, backgrounds, and religions. There's more a social justice aspect to it, but works from other religions are also presented (not as something that HAS to be believed, but as something worthy of reflecting on). There are Christian UU's, Jewish UU's, Wiccan UU's, etc etc.

What I find appealing is the philosophy of inclusivity: seeing people from all backgrounds as friends and as having a great story to 'bring to the table', so to speak. Unitarians also believe that people have different names for God, but we all have the same God: we see Him differently. I've always thought that, but I didn't know until this year that it was already a comprehensive philosophy, really.

People who believe in Christ are welcome to share their faith with others, and as someone who believes in Christ, I'm happy to. I'm going to check out a local UU congregation and see what I think. There are a wide array of congregations, some for Christian UU's, some for just general UU's. I'll take a look for a Christian one. I live in a more conservative place, but I think there's at least one.

[mossrose]

I mean exactly what I said. Christ is the ONLY path to God. There is no other way. He said so Himself.

And, although lots of people are sincere in what they believe, it doesn't make them right, in fact, they can be "sincerely wrong".

[Storico]

As Bigsplit said, there are several faiths (and nonfaiths) who might consider themselves UU. It's more a way of seeing faith, rather than something anyone's told to believe. I also know a few Christian UU's and like me, they're looking for a better way to interact with people across faiths and cultures.

[Storico]

No they don't believe that Mossy, and they deny the Trinity. They believe that all sincere roads lead to God. They deny sin and need for atonement. In fact they deny all of the essentials of the faith - except they think it is okay for anyone to believe that for themselves. But of course the problem is that is Christ is not necessary for everybody then He is not necessary for anybody, and thus is a denial of Christ.

Storico, I will not preach at you in public. Myself and my staff are available to speak to you in private on this issue, and we urge you to contemplation.

DX, thanks for your perspective. I don't mind or take offense to public preaching, but if you'd rather not do it, that's alright too. I don't see them denying Christ, though. They use Christian material in what they present, often. As for the exclusivity of it... yes, they do believe that people find God in their own way. But Christian UU's generally believe that Jesus Christ IS God's son, DID die for our sins, WAS resurrected -- and that's the core of the Christian message. As far as I know now, they don't deny that people sin. But if you've read of their documents affirming that, I'd be really happy to see it, for clarity's sake.

I'll definitely continue the contemplation.

[Rayado]

No they don't believe that Mossy, and they deny the Trinity. They believe that all sincere roads lead to God. They deny sin and need for atonement. In fact they deny all of the essentials of the faith - except they think it is okay for anyone to believe that for themselves. But of course the problem is that is Christ is not necessary for everybody then He is not necessary for anybody, and thus is a denial of Christ.

Storico, I will not preach at you in public. Myself and my staff are available to speak to you in private on this issue, and we urge you to contemplation.


:yes: This is precisly why I made the distinction I did.

[Storico]

Hmm...you know, I don't see hardly any difference between the principles you listed and orthdox Christian ethics. (Beliefs, at the brass tacks level, now that's quite likely a different story.)

:nsm:

But I do wonder...what is the basis for their belief in those principles? Why do they believe what they do?

I can't be their spokesperson really, but my understanding of it is that the basis for belief, and why they believe the way they do, is fueled by a need for unity with others across cultures, a need to share experiences and traditions and values, a need to come together as a whole community with people who may or may not believe in the exact same things everyone else does.

They seem to think that the experiences people have with God across cultures are valid ones. And I'm not sure at all that they're invalid. When a friend who's Muslim tells me "I love God, I feel God's love, He's wonderful", I can't say that they don't REALLY love God, that they don't REALLY feel God's love, or that they don't really think He's wonderful. When a Wiccan tells me their experiences with God are as real and whole and amazing as the experiences of others, I can't think it fair to say that my belief is justified and true while theirs is delusional.

Kinda get where I'm coming from?

[dizzle]

DX, thanks for your perspective. I don't mind or take offense to public preaching, but if you'd rather not do it, that's alright too. I don't see them denying Christ, though. They use Christian material in what they present, often. As for the exclusivity of it... yes, they do believe that people find God in their own way.

It is inherently self-contradictory. How does one find Christ in denying Christ?

But Christian UU's generally believe that Jesus Christ IS God's son...

So do JWs which deny the Trinity. UU denies the Trinity.

DID die for our sins, WAS resurrected -- and that's the core of the Christian message....

He did those things for Christians, but others may have another path. Again Christ is either necessary for everybody or nobody.

As far as I know now, they don't deny that people sin. But if you've read of their documents affirming that, I'd be really happy to see it, for clarity's sake.

It has been a long time. I had delved into UU a bit while still pagan, and the fact that they had zero issue with me openly denying Christ and every other aspect of the Christian faith shows that it implodes into meaninglessness and every man doing what is right in his own eyes. When I became a Christian and started to question the inconsistencies, I was then a troublemaker and my opinions divisive.

Storico, in all bluntness, this is a man-made feel-good club. If that is what you are into, okay, but don't drag Christ into it. On a theological (not sociological) level, it is a cult.

[dizzle]

They seem to think that the experiences people have with God across cultures are valid ones. And I'm not sure at all that they're invalid.

Then you believe men over Christ?

"No one comes to the Father except through Me."

If you are claiming saving relationships with God by a means other than Christ, you are denying His words.

{quote]When a friend who's Muslim tells me "I love God, I feel God's love, He's wonderful", I can't say that they don't REALLY love God, that they don't REALLY feel God's love, or that they don't really think He's wonderful. [/quote]

Really? I can. They deny Jesus Christ. No one can deny God and love God at the same time and in the same way. The OT Baal-worshippers were more sincere than most of us (would you cut your flesh in a frenzy to prove your devotion) and yet the Jews had no problem saying they were worthless idols.

When a Wiccan tells me their experiences with God are as real and whole and amazing as the experiences of others, I can't think it fair to say that my belief is justified and true while theirs is delusional.

If there's is real, yours is delusional. There is a thing called mutually contradictiory claims. You have to choose or be incoherent.

[dizzle]

As Bigsplit said, there are several faiths (and nonfaiths) who might consider themselves UU. It's more a way of seeing faith, rather than something anyone's told to believe. I also know a few Christian UU's and like me, they're looking for a better way to interact with people across faiths and cultures.

There are solidly Christian movements looking to do that. You don't need to go an organization that recognizes witchcraft as just as valid as Christ.

[Alien]

What I find appealing is the philosophy of inclusivity: seeing people from all backgrounds as friends and as having a great story to 'bring to the table', so to speak. Unitarians also believe that people have different names for God, but we all have the same God: we see Him differently. I've always thought that, but I didn't know until this year that it was already a comprehensive philosophy, really.


Storico, there are Christians who are not exclusivist. You might be interested to read Marcus Borg. I suggest The Heart of Christianity as a good starting point.

[Lili]

Are there other UU people on this board? Of any religious background, including Christian? =)Hi, Storico. I also agree with the UU principles, although I have not formally joined. I'm going to attend a Unitarian Universalist church for the first time this Sunday.

[Johnny MacManky]

Hey Storico,

If I'm technically or factually wrong in my understanding of UU, I trust some learned and kind soul will point our my misunderstanding. For the purpose of discussion, I'm well aware that UU is not an orthodox Christian Theology.

There are those who are Unitarian without being Universalist, and vice versa. Universal Unitarianism is, however, a specific combination of theological views. The combination of UU is quite different from simply being people who believe in both Universalism and Unitarianism.

Concerning Christian Unitarianism. I think it's a terrible shame when Trinitarian Christians state that "Unitarians deny Christ". There are lots of variations on the unitarian theme. All have a different view of Christ's relation to the Father than the Nicean Creed declares, but this is in no way the same as saying they "deny Christ". The Biblical instance of the expression obviously is when Peter denied Christ three times. Perhaps it would be more accurate to state that Unitarians deny the Nicaean and Athanasian formulations of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity.

Christian Universalism is generally the view that God will save everyone in the end. Again, it's (imo) misleading to suggest that this is the same as believing that all religious paths result in salvation. Perhaps I could broadly (and I do mean really broadly) use the example of Calvinist Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election. Christian Universalism would say that God has 'elected everyone' to salvation and that Christ's atoning work is sufficient for, and applies to all.

Teh reason I used the Calvinist example is because there are some people (according to Calvinism) who are currently not saved, but they are still elect. God simply has not yet revealed Himself to them, but in His own good time, He will. The Universalist would argue that, in some cases, God will even save someone who will never hear the name of Jesus in this life. Perhaps some may even be saved after death.

But going back to UU. As I said, the combination of UU is quite different from simply being people who believe in both Universalism and Unitarianism. The views you posted from the Unitarian Universalist Association are fine, until we realise that they also espouse views which are, well, frankly, a hotch potch mishmash of just about every religious and spiritual belief there is. I couldn't find the words Jesus, Christ or God on the first three of their pages I checked out, but I did find several references to various pagan and new age type beliefs.

My opinion? For now, run away and stay well away from groups like these. If at some point God leads you to reach out to folks in this organisation with a view to leading them away from the UUA and to an orthodox view of Christianity, fine.

[dizzle]

Concerning Christian Unitarianism. I think it's a terrible shame when Trinitarian Christians state that "Unitarians deny Christ".

Oh come on. Okay, Jesus is my hispanic lawn maintenance man. Do I deny the Christian Christ or no? Get real. Naming something entirely different from what/who Christ is IS denying Christ. Otherwise I can say that my desk chair is Christ and be fine.

Arians of any stripe deny Christ. They have presented "another Jesus" as Paul stated is possible which is no Christ at all. "Christ" or "Jesus" isn't simply a magic word that we can attach to anything we wish to sanitize it.

It's a terrible shame when professed Christians state that one can deny that Christ is God and still be said not to deny Christ.

[Johnny MacManky]

Hey Xena, let's not get at cross purposes.

. . . It's a terrible shame when professed Christians state that one can deny that Christ is God and still be said not to deny Christ.

My point was about using clear terminology. I don't think I'm in disagreement with anything you are saying, but I do think it's worthwhile making the effort to state it as clearly and accurately as possible. I know you are passionate about precise terminology, given your on the record comments about not falling for the Hyperprets' trap of using the term Orthodox Preterism.

Even the expression "deny that Christ is God" is still not explict. Do Oneness advocates "deny that Christ is God"? No, they do not, but they do deny the Nicaean & Athanasian Creeds.

[Sparko]

Storico,

Jesus was very clear that only by faith in him is anyone saved.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

and in John 3: 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

It might be hard to accept, but if you believe what Jesus says himself, only those that believe in him will be saved.

You have to remember that God is just and in control. I don't think that anybody that would have been saved will be lost. No one will be able to stand before God at the Judgment and claim "I would have believed if only I had a chance - its not my fault"

I believe God will make sure than any that will respond and believe will hear of Jesus and be saved.

But you also have to remember that none of us DESERVE to be saved. We are all sinners and we all DESERVE death. God only saves us because he is merciful. But he would be as just and fair if he didn't save any of us.

[Rayado]

Kinda get where I'm coming from?Kinda. :teeth:

I can't be their spokesperson really, but my understanding of it is that the basis for belief, and why they believe the way they do, is fueled by a need for unity with others across cultures,Hmm...I still think Christianity offers a better unity than even UU can claim. When Paul said "In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, free or slave, man or woman," that set forth a colossal challenge to Christians to break down the barriers that once separated them from each other.

a need to share experiences and traditions and values, a need to come together as a whole community with people who may or may not believe in the exact same things everyone else does. Again, I think orthodox Christianity offers this unity more genuinely than UU. We are called to minister to a broken and traumatized world; as the Body of Christ we are called directly to engage the world where it matters most--and that certainly includes bringing the Gospel to a broken world as well.

A small aside: If Christianity is just the same as everything else in terms of morals and ethics and experiences, can it really be called the Good News?

They seem to think that the experiences people have with God across cultures are valid ones. And I'm not sure at all that they're invalid.If their experiences are valid, it does behoove us to reexamine the nature of reality.

What I mean is this: if the miracles in the New Testament really took place, it tells us many things about reality.

Let's take something simple like...healings. They're fairly straightforward. But they tells us, simply, that Jesus had dominion over nature and reality. What, then, does that tell us about the claims about reality of the other religions? When Jesus healed people, he demonstrated that the material world was a good thing, and worth taking care of and restoring. This directly conflicts with eastern philosophies that teach that the material world is an illusion. It also teaches us that the fatalism of Hinduism and Islam do not have the force of demonstration like the free will enacted by Jesus and those who believed in him.

What does the Resurrection teach us about reality? It teaches us that death is not the end of life (which conflicts with materialism), and that we will be physically resurrected (which conflicts with nirvana and progress theology), and that the problem of evil will finally be resolved.

So you see, the miracles of Christianity really do challenge how we view reality, and what we think of as true. They challenge us to seek the God who is really here.

When a friend who's Muslim tells me "I love God, I feel God's love, He's wonderful", I can't say that they don't REALLY love God, that they don't REALLY feel God's love, or that they don't really think He's wonderful. When a Wiccan tells me their experiences with God are as real and whole and amazing as the experiences of others, I can't think it fair to say that my belief is justified and true while theirs is delusional. I think you are correct not to dismiss their experiences prejudicially--but, as a Christian, I would ask a few pertinent questions guided by 1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Test all things. Hold on to the good."

Such experiences may not be delusional, but it is quite possible to be sincerely misled.

I am leery of relying entirely on experience for religious belief, because of its subjective nature and subsequent difficulty of communicating such things to everyone else. This makes finding the nature of such experiences challenging--and much mroe so if there is the possibility of deception on a supernatural level.

But I think, for Christians, the task is actually fairly simple. To borrow from Rob Bell, we are to act as 'tour guides' for the world, to show everyone the nature of reality in ways that they did not previously understand or know.

This means that we are to sift through everything, showing what is true and what is not. It is God who is the source of all their joy and happiness; our job is to show them that. It may well be that such experiences described above could come from God; in any case, a wise use of 1 Thes 5:21 is in order. :smile:

[dizzle]

Even the expression "deny that Christ is God" is still not explict. Do Oneness advocates "deny that Christ is God"? No, they do not, but they do deny the Nicaean & Athanasian Creeds.

It is explicit for the group we are speaking of. I don't need to speak of Sabellians when I am speaking of Arians.

Arians of any stripe deny Christ.

[Rusty T]

Briefly, years ago, I attended a UU congregation. I began to see that it was a social function for a small group of dissidents in a wider community of Christians. There was no real agreement on anything other than on what they rejected. It was a communion of negation. I became disillusioned with the whole concept of waking up on a Sunday morning to worship . . . what exactly?

rusty

[Amazing Rando]

Storico, you and I have similar hearts and passions in a lot of ways. Yet I too would encourage you to seek belonging in the Church of Jesus Christ rather than in an association of UU's. Rayado's on to something when he says that the gospel of Christ, when properly understood, breaks down barriers better than any other message out there. Women and men from all tribes and races, all kinship, ancestry, or families, all nations and all peoples are united in the Church, the reconstituted people of God.

They are not united by what they believe, for a Christian is not defined solely by what he or she believes, and as you're well aware, there is a huge disparity of beliefs among those who confess the name of Jesus Christ as their own. Rather Christians the world over are united by a transformed identity and collective belonging in the Church universal.

I encourage you- spend time getting to really know your Lord, to encounter him in Scripture (particularly the gospels), to speak your heart to him, to dwell with him in silence, and to join your voice with those of the saints and angels in singing his praises. But above all, get to know him by encountering and breaking bread with his disciples, and become a part of his Church, the reconstituted people of God. You'll find that his heart already passionately cares for many of the things you already do, but the radical implications of following him will not become clear to you until you follow him in community with other Christian disciples- not those on vague "spiritual journies" to an indetermined location, but those whose journies are ones of faithfully following in Jesus' steps, all the way to the cross. May God's blessings rest fully on you as you embark on that costly journey. :pray:

[easyboy201]

So if universalism is not Scriptural - then what basis do you have for believing it? God's word is either God's word or it isn't.
You can't just erase the parts you don't like.
Is that what is appealing about universalism? Do you not agree that it sounds very much like a group of MEN (I of course mean women as well...) creating their own religion?

[Storico]

Everyone's said a lot, and I appreciate it. I really do. I read everything here that's been said. At the moment, I have more than a few other things I'm working on (for assignments worth credit) so I regret not being able to respond to each of you point by point just now. When I have some more time, if it's still relevant/needed, I'd be happy to do that, though. For now...

... I don't want to be too hasty. I don't want to rush into something if it really IS unscriptural, and I made the mistake of letting my interest carry my enthusiastic intro (and defense!) a little too far. I also don't want to align myself with a group that's truly adversarial to Christ in any way.

What I want is a group that really wants to reach out in understanding and friendship to other religious backgrounds and to other cultures, and to all people. I see a problem emerging in the Church today with respect to other religions, and to other 'groups', and it's what we'd call "fingerpointing": the whole "I'm not listening to you, I'm right, you're wrong" thing. That troubles me, because I prefer getting along with people rather than taking them to task. Some people are good at that. Me, not so much. If I HAVE to disagree with someone in my personal life, I try and throw a smile or a joke or something to diffuse it into the situation. That's just how I am.... stereotypical, archetypal leftist peace-loving hug-everybody me. In all my glory. :tongue: Heh.

I love Christ. I really do. And I DO want to stand for His word. I also want to share it with others. I don't think I could ever give up loving people regardless of their religion or political inclination or sexuality or philosophy or whatever, but I know deep down that the love Christ offers isn't "blank cheque" acceptance, it's a different kind of LOVE... and it's the kind that I have to learn how to surrender to and eventually give my stubborn inclinations over to, if I want to get serious about Christ.

I really value all of your opinions. Whether the UU philosophy has SOME stuff right or not is irrelevant -- if I have several mature, faith-filled people who I respect, who I consider friends and who have been Christian much longer than I have warning me about a system, I WILL listen. I'll also do more research so that I can come to better-informed conclusions of my own, and most importantly, I'll pray on it, too.

Thanks, guys. You know who you are. :hug:

[Augusta]

Reading this thread, several disjointed thoughts came to mind I feel compelled to write down and put out for others to comment. I'm tired, so this may not be my normal (hopefully coherent) self.

On the one hand, some people have a very specific interpretation of "the truth," doctrine by doctrine and see everything as black and white. There's no mystery or nuance in interpretation. . . you're either in or out, they're right, you're wrong. These folks seem to lack humility and appear condescending. It's possible that some churches take on this "character," causing members to feel stifled and upset.

On the other hand, some say all the interpretations are right and mean basically the same thing anyway, so why bother even trying to delve into the mess, let along try to figure it all out.

The idea of finding common ground and focusing on similarities rather than differences is immensely appealing to me. Yet (when it comes to discussing doctrines--not now!!) I like precise language and don't like calling things the same when they are not; exploring the differences is edifying.

Has it always been the case, or is it a recent trend to use Christian terms in ways that are completely removed from their orthodox meanings? I am seeing and hearing alot of this lately (TV / radio).

I have no problem whatsoever with the UU principles stated in the opening post. Yet DD's and others comments about UU fit well with what I've heard about the organization second-hand. (I have never been to a UU service.)

Per our local newspaper, the UU church in my county (major US metro area) is 40% atheist. I doubt this is representative of all UU churches -- just representative of my locale. The three people I've known who attend UU services (not related to each other) are all non-religions, very social, and a little eccentric. I call them "contrary-natured" in that they like to argue. I doubt they would feel comfortable in a more traditional church. I get the impression that all can JOIN UU, whereas more traditional churches say all may attend, but are more selective in who may JOIN. Maybe someone can confirm/deny this impression.

Slightly off-topic. . . I've recently noticed folks who don't believe in God or are deist that go to church (liberal churches) for the social and community service aspect. Seriously. Being an introvert and not drawn to crowds of people, this amazes me, though it's probably a positive thing for both the individuals and for the community. Some of these folks have actually joined the (non-creedal, non-doctrinal) churches.

[Shadow Phoenix]

From the same page above (UUA,org),

I agree with Rayado. I have no problem with the ethics listed in the first post. I think they can be done in orthodox Christianity so why go outside? Let's look at what else you have though.
Originally posted by UUA.org
The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:

* 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;

Experience? Big warning sign here Storico. Experience does not convey truth. It is the interpretation of the experience that matters. Experiences are not self-interpreting. It is how you interpret them that makes all the difference. By what standard does the UU intend to interpret experience?

* 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;

All of this can happen in Christianity, but I wonder what about these prophets that disagree. Was Joseph Smith a prophet? He said God was once a man who became God. That hardly agrees with my view. He also raised an army of Danites. Do I need to speak about the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Mohammad said that Jesus denied being deity and that I as a Trinitarian am committing the sin of shirk and I blaspheme God. That's hardly the same as the message of Jesus. So which prophets do I believe?

* Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;

I have no problem saying there's wisdom in beliefs outside of Christianity. There's wisdom in Plato and Aristotle, but they were not Christians. Having some truth does not equal having all truth.

* Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

Which we should, but this love is secondary. How can you properly love your neighbor if you do not have the true love of God? What teaching has it other than the Trinity?

* 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;

Alright. This one I really dislike. You know why? I see it as saying "Ancient people are stupid." We need to get out of this mindset that there is only one way and realize that science has changed the world and listen to its truth. The priests have been replaced with the physicists as the source of truth. Here's my solution.

Use reason and listen to what shows itself to be true. Pretty simple huh?

* 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.

Did any of this mention God? Earth-centered traditions? Sounds like stacking the deck in favor of a monistic pantheism to me. Seriously Storico, this is such a major problem with me in these groups. They have this idea of an ethical system but they want to tag it and call it a religion. Nope. It has nothing to do with God. Instead, it has to do with how we relate to our fellow man. It's important to relate to man right, but what if you relate to every man right and to God wrong?

Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support.

Enter this covenant? A covenant with who? With just each other? Then why call it a religion? With God? Which God. If you're making a covenant with God, you need to know who he is. It's very disturbing to wake up next to someone who's not who you think they are. Just ask Jacob.

Do other religions do some benefit? Of course. They allow us to search the ideas of our own faith. Christianity was helped I think ultimately by the Arian controversy in that it helped us set down our Trinitarian beliefs to counter it. We formed a canon based in part on Marcion's false canon. I think the same happened when the Da Vinci Code came out. It caused some Christians to really examine historical truth.


Unitarian Universalism is ecumenical in that it's inclusive.

Oh nonsense. Here's how I know. I could come in and say "Jesus Christ is the only path to God and if you do not accept that, then you will die in your sins and go to Hell." Do you honestly think they would say "Well welcome aboard! We celebrate your view and we are blessed by it!"? Not a chance. They are not inclusivists. They exclude exclusivists.

It's not a "religion" with many defined theological positions really.

You got that right.

It's a philosophy that incorporates people from all cultures, backgrounds, and religions.

Does it incorporate exclusivism?

There's more a social justice aspect to it, but works from other religions are also presented (not as something that HAS to be believed, but as something worthy of reflecting on). There are Christian UU's, Jewish UU's, Wiccan UU's, etc etc.

Sure. Ponder all you want. The reason you ponder though is to determine if something is true. Not because it'd give "Warm fuzzies." By the way, can you define "Social Justice."

What I find appealing is the philosophy of inclusivity: seeing people from all backgrounds as friends and as having a great story to 'bring to the table', so to speak. Unitarians also believe that people have different names for God, but we all have the same God: we see Him differently. I've always thought that, but I didn't know until this year that it was already a comprehensive philosophy, really.

Just totally contradictory. Go to Islam and tell them they worship the same God as Christians. Not a chance they'll buy it. Sorry, but we have a deceiving God in this case, because he's never got the message straight. Again, these people are NOT inclusivists. You start disagreeing with them on inclusivism and see how exclusive they become.

People who believe in Christ are welcome to share their faith with others, and as someone who believes in Christ, I'm happy to. I'm going to check out a local UU congregation and see what I think. There are a wide array of congregations, some for Christian UU's, some for just general UU's. I'll take a look for a Christian one. I live in a more conservative place, but I think there's at least one.

STorico. I honestly don't care if you're a Baptist, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, or any other denomination as long as you hold to the essentials of the faith. You will not find that in the UU and they will draw you in with an emphasis on the horizontal instead of the vertical.

You can sit back and say "I like inclusivity" all you want. Here's all I care about. Is inclusivity true? You can say "Well exclusivism just doesn't seem right." Sorry. I need more than that. The truth is that all truth is exclusive. In fact, going to a UU organization is exclusive as well as it's saying you're going there because they have what the others don't have. Thus, the others have to be wrong since the UUs would have something right that they don't. Congratulations. Everyone at a UU is just as exclusive as I am deep down.

STorico. I would be glad to talk to you about this, but I would urge you strongly to NOT take this path.

[lao tzu]

No they don't believe that Mossy, and they deny the Trinity. They believe that all sincere roads lead to God. Hold on there a second, Dee Dee.

There's no barrier to a trinitarian joining a UU congregation. You don't have to deny the trinity. Most of us are comfortable with a large range of faiths, but we come together on universally acknowledged aspects of spirituality. It's the ideals that we have in common that make us Unitarians. It's a question of focus. I see you've acknowledged this in the rest of the post, but the above makes it look like you don't really credit it.

They deny sin and need for atonement. In fact they deny all of the essentials of the faith - except they think it is okay for anyone to believe that for themselves. But of course the problem is that is Christ is not necessary for everybody then He is not necessary for anybody, and thus is a denial of Christ. Some of us do deny sin, that's true enough. But UU does not. UU does not deny the essentials of any faith. If anything, it acknowledges too many. It simply does not make dogmatic,exclusionary statements. The point is that your faith is personal to yourself, and you should be free to pursue it. We encourage you to permit others the same freedom.

As ever, Jesse

[shunyadragon]

I've been thinking about this for a while (several weeks, anyways), and I thought that I'd better officially say something -- well, I wanted to say something, anyways. My views aren't what you'd call "orthodox" when it comes to Christianity. I believe in God, and in Christ, but my views overall line up a lot more with UU sentiments, and I think I'd be better off presenting my stance a bit more accurately by actually saying so. As far as I know, there's no need to formally join anything. I don't feel a need to, anyways -- I don't have anything to prove. I do have an interest to share, though, and I'd like to talk with anyone interested:

http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html These are the UU principles. People who share these principles come from several different religious backgrounds, and some of them, like me, are Christian.

The principles:



There's more on that site in its entirety. It's a pretty good site.

This site, here: http://www.liveoakuu.org/christianityLINKS.htm is also a neat list I've been making my way through.

Are there other UU people on this board? Of any religious background, including Christian? =)

When I was a university student I attended and studied the UU. The foundation of UU belief is more humanist than Christian. The believers I knew that chose UU ranged from atheist, agnostic, deist, Buddhist-Taoist, and those that called themselves Christian. The main emphasis was diversity of belief and not any doctrine or set theology. The Christians involved in UU emphasized the more human nature of Christ, and not His Divine nature. If the believers believed in God it was a deist-monist deity.

The rebel Bishop Spong(sp?) of the Episcopalian Church promotes the most commonly believed Unitarian view of Christ.

[Rayado]

It simply does not make dogmatic,exclusionary statements. The point is that your faith is personal to yourself, and you should be free to pursue it. We encourage you to permit others the same freedom.

And if ApologiaNick were to waltz straight into just such a UU congregation and say what he said above--"Jesus Christ is the only path to God and if you do not accept that, then you will die in your sins and go to Hell"--would he get the same inclusion granted to everyone else?

UU does not deny the essentials of any faith.To affirm the essentials of many faiths is to deny quite a few of the essentials at the same time--namely, their claims to exclusivity.

[lao tzu]

And if ApologiaNick were to waltz straight into just such a UU congregation and say what he said above--"Jesus Christ is the only path to God and if you do not accept that, then you will die in your sins and go to Hell"--would he get the same inclusion granted to everyone else? Were someone to waltz in and declare his own faith, I don't see an issue.
"Jesus Christ is my only path to God and if I do not acept that, then I will die in my sins and go to Hell."
But that's not what you're suggesting, is it? You're asking if we include those who reject us. This is a fundamentally dishonest criticism, even more so when deliberately draped in a paradox, as suggested by AN, "We exclude exclusivists." We don't encourage toleration of the intolerant, either. Creating these self-referential paradoxes is trivially simple. They add nothing to the conversation.

To affirm the essentials of many faiths is to deny quite a few of the essentials at the same time--namely, their claims to exclusivity. Why is this is an issue? At the heart of any personal faith, there is an insurmountable exclusivity. You do not feel what I feel. Agreement on a description does little more than cover up the differences in the numinous experiences we all consider "indescribable." We can force fit these experiences into the language of many religions, but the individual choice is little more than cultural bias. Spiritual truths transcend religion.

As ever, Jesse

[dizzle]

Rayado responded exactly how I would. Taoist your statements self-implode.

Shuny's comments are quite precise on my experiences with UUers.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Were someone to waltz in and declare his own faith, I don't see an issue.
"Jesus Christ is my only path to God and if I do not acept that, then I will die in my sins and go to Hell."

Except I am not saying that. I am saying Jesus is THE only path to God. If YOU do not accept that then YOU will die in your sins.

But that's not what you're suggesting, is it? You're asking if we include those who reject us. This is a fundamentally dishonest criticism, even more so when deliberately draped in a paradox, as suggested by AN, "We exclude exclusivists." We don't encourage toleration of the intolerant, either. Creating these self-referential paradoxes is trivially simple. They add nothing to the conversation.

They're quite revealing. To say you are inclusivist is to say exclusivism is false. I also see they're intolerant of intolerance. That means tolerance only applies if there's agreement on central points.

Why is this is an issue? At the heart of any personal faith, there is an insurmountable exclusivity. You do not feel what I feel. Agreement on a description does little more than cover up the differences in the numinous experiences we all consider "indescribable." We can force fit these experiences into the language of many religions, but the individual choice is little more than cultural bias. Spiritual truths transcend religion.

As ever, Jesse

Nope. My religion is not about experiences and feelings. My religion is about an event in history. I am not saying Christianity is true because it gives X feelings or because of X experiences. I even say this in my own church in our frequent Sunday School discussions. When our own leader says "I feel like X is true," I just say "I don't want to know how you feel about something external to you. I want to know what you think.

My religion is not subjective. It is objective. I find this to be one of biggest annoyances with such pluralism. It tells me that I ought to view my religion as subjective and not "better" (whatever that means) than anyone else's. As a Christian, I refuse to do such.

[lao tzu]

They're quite revealing. To say you are inclusivist is to say exclusivism is false. I also see they're intolerant of intolerance. That means tolerance only applies if there's agreement on central points. Come now, Nick. This paradox is older than Epimenides. Why pretend it's clever? I included the other standard phrasing just to make that point. I thought you were a fan of logic? How could you have missed it?

It tells me that I ought to view my religion as subjective and not "better" (whatever that means) than anyone else's. As a Christian, I refuse to do such. Now that is quite revealing.

As ever, Jesse

[Shadow Phoenix]

Come now, Nick. This paradox is older than Epimenides. Why pretend it's clever? I included the other standard phrasing just to make that point. I thought you were a fan of logic? How could you have missed it?

I don't pretend. I find it quite true. Show that it's otherwise.

Now that is quite revealing.

As ever, Jesse

Yes it is. It reveals that I am committed to Christ instead of wanting to just hold hands and sing kum-bu-yah. If you don't like it, then tough. I won't compromise.

[dizzle]

Yes it is. It reveals that I am committed to Christ instead of wanting to just hold hands and sing kum-bu-yah. If you don't like it, then tough. I won't compromise.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lao tzu]

I don't pretend. I find it quite true. Show that it's otherwise. You don't recognize the paradoxes?

Inclusivisim is exclusivism of exclusivists.
Tolerance is intolerance of the intolerant.

Well, let's just go to town, then. I hope you enjoy the rest of your crowd.

Love is hate to the haters.
Peacemaking is war to the warmongers.
Knowledge is foolishness to fools.
Learning is loss of comprehension to the bigots.

I could go on all day. That's because, unlike you, I recognize the form of this paradox. Slapping new concepts through it to create new paradoxes is trivial when you understand the structure. And so, of course, in recognizing the structure, we recognize the paradox, like all paradoxes, is inherently devoid of meaning.

As ever, Jesse

[dizzle]

Or simply a way to hand-wave away an inconvenient contradiction.

[shunyadragon]

And if ApologiaNick were to waltz straight into just such a UU congregation and say what he said above--"Jesus Christ is the only path to God and if you do not accept that, then you will die in your sins and go to Hell"--would he get the same inclusion granted to everyone else?

You would be welcome to the fellowship, but . . . the problem is that the people who believe this rather exclusive system common to most Christian Churches, would not be comfortable worshiping with the diversity of beliefs they consider as condemned, polluted, satanic, deluded and possibly infectous. They may catch one of these strange diseases if they hung around very long, or their children may become contaminated or brainwashed by these strange cultish beliefs.

To affirm the essentials of many faiths is to deny quite a few of the essentials at the same time--namely, their claims to exclusivity.

It depends on whether these essentials depend on the belief of absolute truths, many faiths including UU, have less, ah . . . absolute essentials that would exclude others in a more inclusive spiritual fellowship.

For the most part UU considers itself a fellowship of a diversity of beliefs without consideration of whether the individual beliefs are inclusive or exclusive. The atheists are usually very exclusive of other beliefs, but others like the agnostics, and what I would call seekers without a specific belief are common in UU congregations and are rather inclusive in their world view.

My belief resembles UU in that I personally consider different religions and faiths as the human view of God and revelation, and reflect a relative view of truth and not absolute. My view would be exclusive, but not intolerant/tolerant or antagonistic, of atheists and those that believe that their belief represents an absolute truth and by this doctrine or theology excludes people who believe differently. I differ from UU beliefs in that I believe there is a theistic God who relates to existence through creation and revelation, in a relative progressive evolving way over time, thus I am a Baha'i.

[Shadow Phoenix]

You don't recognize the paradoxes?

Inclusivisim is exclusivism of exclusivists.
Tolerance is intolerance of the intolerant.

Well, let's just go to town, then. I hope you enjoy the rest of your crowd.

Love is hate to the haters.
Peacemaking is war to the warmongers.
Knowledge is foolishness to fools.
Learning is loss of comprehension to the bigots.

I could go on all day. That's because, unlike you, I recognize the form of this paradox. Slapping new concepts through it to create new paradoxes is trivial when you understand the structure. And so, of course, in recognizing the structure, we recognize the paradox, like all paradoxes, is inherently devoid of meaning.

As ever, Jesse


So then, will the UU welcome my exclusivism into their beliefs? Will they include exclusivism into their exclusivism?

What about my intolerance of their beliefs? Will they tolerate that?

Sorry Jesse. They're making a truth claim and as soon as you do that, you are making an exclusive statement. You are immediately excluding all that is opposite.

[shunyadragon]

So then, will the UU welcome my exclusivism into their beliefs? Will they include exclusivism into their exclusivism?

What about my intolerance of their beliefs? Will they tolerate that?

Sorry Jesse. They're making a truth claim and as soon as you do that, you are making an exclusive statement. You are immediately excluding all that is opposite.

Coming from a very exclusive faith the makes very absolute truth claims about their belief it would be difficult for you to understand others who do make such absolute truth claims, but others indeed do make more relative, inclusive, and flexible truth claims that are more acceptable to a variety of beliefs for the purpose of a diverse fellowship of beliefs. That is essentially what UU does.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Coming from a very exclusive faith the makes very absolute truth claims about their belief it would be difficult for you to understand others who do make such absolute truth claims, but others indeed do make more relative, inclusive, and flexible truth claims that are more acceptable to a variety of beliefs for the purpose of a diverse fellowship of beliefs. That is essentially what UU does.

Hogwash.

When I hear that from UU, that is saying to my beliefs that I believe that the only Son of God came and died a horrible death on a cross for my sins so I could be with him, but if I want to go another way that's cool. I consider that a direct challenge to my beliefs and a direct insult to them. Of course, that doesn't mean their belief is false, but don't give me this nonsense about making my beliefs more acceptable. You either accept Jesus as he claims to be or you don't accept him at all.

[lao tzu]

So then, will the UU welcome my exclusivism into their beliefs? Will they include exclusivism into their exclusivism?

What about my intolerance of their beliefs? Will they tolerate that?

Sorry Jesse. They're making a truth claim and as soon as you do that, you are making an exclusive statement. You are immediately excluding all that is opposite. Respectively: Of course not. Of course not. What about it? Of course not.

Claiming a standard paradox as contradiction is meaningless. I could create a similar paradox with any of your principles. But in doing so, I wouldn't pretend I'd formed an answer or advanced discussion, because I know better. And you should as well. I expect better of anyone who has spent time studying formal logic, even outside the classroom.

I've presented sufficient examples to illustrate the paradox, so what more is there to say? I don't believe for a moment that you don't recognize it. Granting validity to the form of the argument, you allow me to equivocate any of your principles in turn.

The paradox itself has the net effect of suggesting equivocation for any opposed principles. We can use the form to show that love is hate or ignorance is strength if we wished. But, as it is remains nothing more than the standard self-referential paradox, it remains semantically null.

Certainly there are differences between exclusive and inclusive principles, as surely as there are diffferences between love and hate, peacemaking and war, and bigotry and learning.

As ever, Jesse

[Shadow Phoenix]

Respectively: Of course not. Of course not. What about it? Of course not.

Claiming a standard paradox as contradiction is meaningless. I could create a similar paradox with any of your principles. But in doing so, I wouldn't pretend I'd formed an answer or advanced discussion, because I know better. And you should as well. I expect better of anyone who has spent time studying formal logic, even outside the classroom.

I've presented sufficient examples to illustrate the paradox, so what more is there to say? I don't believe for a moment that you don't recognize it. Granting validity to the form of the argument, you allow me to equivocate any of your principles in turn.

The paradox itself has the net effect of suggesting equivocation for any opposed principles. We can use the form to show that love is hate or ignorance is strength if we wished. But, as it is remains nothing more than the standard self-referential paradox, it remains semantically null.

Certainly there are differences between exclusive and inclusive principles, as surely as there are diffferences between love and hate, peacemaking and war, and bigotry and learning.

As ever, Jesse

I haven't seen any refutation of my point at all. I still see incluvisism as inclusive only to a certain point. They become incredibly exclusive when exclusivism shows up. I find the crowd that preaches tolerance the most are usually the most intolerant of all. (Let's not forget that modern man has no idea what the word tolerance really means.)

My faith is not just about how I get along with my fellow man. I am claiming a certain view of God and that that is the way God is and the way God has acted in history and anything contrary to that is false. I am claiming God revealed himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. If you deny that Jesus is fully God and fully man, then I have no basis for seeing you as a Christian.

[shunyadragon]

Hogwash.

When I hear that from UU, that is saying to my beliefs that I believe that the only Son of God came and died a horrible death on a cross for my sins so I could be with him, but if I want to go another way that's cool. I consider that a direct challenge to my beliefs and a direct insult to them. Of course, that doesn't mean their belief is false, but don't give me this nonsense about making my beliefs more acceptable. You either accept Jesus as he claims to be or you don't accept him at all.

Interesting!

You would not hear that from the UU, because the UU has no such doctrine, but because UU has a diversity of religious worldviews, you hear that from some of the members, probably the atheists in particular, and in return you would likely have choice words for them too. Your final statement, 'You either accept Jesus as he claims to be or you don't accept him at all.', reflects what I have said in my last several posts, you would not be comfortable in a congregation or fellowship made up of a diverse selection of worldviews that may or may have a mix of inclusive and exclusive worldviews.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Interesting!

You would not hear that from the UU, because the UU has no such doctrine, but because UU has a diversity of religious worldviews, you hear that from some of the members, probably the atheists in particular, and in return you would likely have choice words for them too. Your final statement, 'You either accept Jesus as he claims to be or you don't accept him at all.', reflects what I have said in my last several posts, you would not be comfortable in a congregation or fellowship made up of a diverse selection of worldviews that may or may have a mix of inclusive and exclusive worldviews.

Hear it explicitly? No. Hear it implicitly? Yes. That is implied in putting my view on par with everyone else's.

I could care less about how pleasing my views are to everyone else. I care about if they're true or not. If the rest of the world likes what I believe and I believe it and it isn't true, I have lost. If, however, I believe the truth and the rest of the world hates it, then I have won. I would rather be true to Christ than true to men.

[shunyadragon]

Hear it explicitly? No. Hear it implicitly? Yes. That is implied in putting my view on par with everyone else's.

I could care less about how pleasing my views are to everyone else. I care about if they're true or not. If the rest of the world likes what I believe and I believe it and it isn't true, I have lost. If, however, I believe the truth and the rest of the world hates it, then I have won. I would rather be true to Christ than true to men.

An implied claim is not easy to respond to, but nontheless I did know Christians the attended a UU fellowship where I attended in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Morgantown, WV, and they did not feel that there was such an implied statement as you made in the previous post.

As you just made very clear, your very, very exclusive truth claims and intolerant view of other beliefs would not be comfortable in a UU fellowship.

[Sparko]

You don't recognize the paradoxes?

Inclusivisim is exclusivism of exclusivists.
Tolerance is intolerance of the intolerant.

Well, let's just go to town, then. I hope you enjoy the rest of your crowd.

Love is hate to the haters.
Peacemaking is war to the warmongers.
Knowledge is foolishness to fools.
Learning is loss of comprehension to the bigots.

I could go on all day. That's because, unlike you, I recognize the form of this paradox. Slapping new concepts through it to create new paradoxes is trivial when you understand the structure. And so, of course, in recognizing the structure, we recognize the paradox, like all paradoxes, is inherently devoid of meaning.

As ever, Jesse

You seem quite intolerant of ApologiaPhoenix's views, Jesse.
Why can't we all just get along?

[Shadow Phoenix]

An implied claim is not easy to respond to, but nontheless I did know Christians the attended a UU fellowship where I attended in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Morgantown, WV, and they did not feel that there was such an implied statement as you made in the previous post.

As you just made very clear, your very, very exclusive truth claims and intolerant view of other beliefs would not be comfortable in a UU fellowship.


Shunya. All truth claims are exclusive. Any claim of truth excludes its opposite. It's reality.

[Rayado]

Since Shunya also answered my post, I'll go ahead and respond to that after I respond to taoist.

Were someone to waltz in and declare his own faith, I don't see an issue.
"Jesus Christ is my only path to God and if I do not acept that, then I will die in my sins and go to Hell."As Nick pointed out, this is not what we're saying. It's the path, for everyone--not just my path.

But that's not what you're suggesting, is it? You're asking if we include those who reject us. This is a fundamentally dishonest criticism, even more so when deliberately draped in a paradox, as suggested by AN, "We exclude exclusivists." We don't encourage toleration of the intolerant, either. Creating these self-referential paradoxes is trivially simple. They add nothing to the conversation.So is being exclusivistic wrong?

Why is this is an issue?Because this is reality we're talking about.

At the heart of any personal faith, there is an insurmountable exclusivity. You do not feel what I feel. Agreement on a description does little more than cover up the differences in the numinous experiences we all consider "indescribable." We can force fit these experiences into the language of many religions, but the individual choice is little more than cultural bias. Scruffy, is that you?

Nick hammered this point home, so I see no need to rehash answering in kind.

Spiritual truths transcend religion.What is a spiritual truth?

And to Shunya:

You would be welcome to the fellowship, but . . . the problem is that the people who believe this rather exclusive system common to most Christian Churches, would not be comfortable worshiping with the diversity of beliefs they consider as condemned, polluted, satanic, deluded and possibly infectous. They may catch one of these strange diseases if they hung around very long, or their children may become contaminated or brainwashed by these strange cultish beliefs.But that's not what I believe about UUs.

Would I really be welcome to the fellowship claiming Christ as the only truth?

It depends on whether these essentials depend on the belief of absolute truths, many faiths including UU, have less, ah . . . absolute essentials that would exclude others in a more inclusive spiritual fellowship.I did not know truth changed, much less that quickly. I was under the impression that truth was true even if nobody knew what it was, or when they discovered it--and that truth stayed true.

For the most part UU considers itself a fellowship of a diversity of beliefs without consideration of whether the individual beliefs are inclusive or exclusive. The atheists are usually very exclusive of other beliefs, but others like the agnostics, and what I would call seekers without a specific belief are common in UU congregations and are rather inclusive in their world view.Two things: It sounds like, instead of a diversity of beliefs without consideration of the inclusivity (or lack thereof) of beliefs, it's a fellowship of a diversity of beliefs without consideration for individual beliefs.

Second, I find it interesting that there is a conflict, within the UUs, between the exclusivists and the inclusivists. I guess I just never hear much about atheists being labeled as intolerant.

My belief resembles UU in that I personally consider different religions and faiths as the human view of God and revelation, and reflect a relative view of truth and not absolute. My view would be exclusive, but not intolerant/tolerant or antagonistic, of atheists and those that believe that their belief represents an absolute truth and by this doctrine or theology excludes people who believe differently. I differ from UU beliefs in that I believe there is a theistic God who relates to existence through creation and revelation, in a relative progressive evolving way over time, thus I am a Baha'i.Even though the Baha'i faith isn't the topic of the thread, I do find that it suffers the same inehrent weakness of UUism: the inconsistency between the religions' claims about the nature of God.

More firmly, I find that it also denies the claims of the religions it claims to honor, and that this is an egregious treatment of those beliefs. It really is religious imperialism on the part of UU (and Baha'i) towards believers such as myself. Tizzidale was quite correct when he called UU a fellowship of negation. They're united in what they deny, not what they affirm; it's simply impossible to claim Christianity as true in its affirmation of Christ as God and the denial thereof by Judaism and Islam.

[Storico]

Shunya. All truth claims are exclusive. Any claim of truth excludes its opposite. It's reality.

Quick, question, Nick. I want to see how an apologist would answer this.

Christianity claims it's true in that Jesus is the ONLY way to God.

Islam claims it's true in that submission to the will of Allah is the ONLY way to God.

If an Islamic apologist and a Christian apologist were to go head to head in a debate, how do you think the two would decide which truth claim was actually THE truth? Would one EVER be able to convince the other, or would they fight all night, and go home angry after calling each other liars? I suspect that might happen, but I'm not sure it's an effective way to dialogue.

[Sparko]

Quick, question, Nick. I want to see how an apologist would answer this.

Christianity claims it's true in that Jesus is the ONLY way to God.

Islam claims it's true in that submission to the will of Allah is the ONLY way to God.

If an Islamic apologist and a Christian apologist were to go head to head in a debate, how do you think the two would decide which truth claim was actually THE truth? Would one EVER be able to convince the other, or would they fight all night, and go home angry after calling each other liars? I suspect that might happen, but I'm not sure it's an effective way to dialogue.

Storico I know nick will answer himself, but I wanted to make sure you know that it isn't just a Christian claim that Jesus is the only way to God, it is JESUS' claim.
We just believe what Jesus says.

Supposedly Muslims believe what Jesus said too, so in theory they should agree with that Jesus is the only way to God and that you can't be saved unless you believe in Jesus. But in practice, when such claims are brought to their attention they claim the bible got corrupted in those areas or try to say that "What Jesus REALLY meant to say was..." and give it a different spin.

The fact remains that Jesus did claim to be the only way. You have to decide whether to believe he was telling the truth or not. It's your soul on the line.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Quick, question, Nick. I want to see how an apologist would answer this.

Christianity claims it's true in that Jesus is the ONLY way to God.

Islam claims it's true in that submission to the will of Allah is the ONLY way to God.

If an Islamic apologist and a Christian apologist were to go head to head in a debate, how do you think the two would decide which truth claim was actually THE truth? Would one EVER be able to convince the other, or would they fight all night, and go home angry after calling each other liars? I suspect that might happen, but I'm not sure it's an effective way to dialogue.

There's a simple way really.

Look at the claims that can be put to the test.

There are three ways and all are used.

Logical Consistency: Is it internally consistent?
Empirical Adequacy: Is it externally consistent?
Experientical viability: Does it work in the laboratory of life?

We usually just skip to number three. Here's how I would see it done.

I would look at the philosophical and theological implications of Islam and Christianity. Since Islam claims God is a monad, how will that mesh with reality? Can they adequately explain the nature of love or unity in diversity? (I consider the Trinity strong evidence for the truth of Christianity.)

I would look at the historical claims then. Is there reason to doubt the Koran on the claims it makes of the life of Christ? One claims Jesus was crucified and rose again. The other says he wasn't crucified. Which one stands up historically? What about the making of the Koran and the making of Scripture? Is there any evidence outside of them that testifies to their claims?

Finally, what kind of people does each produce?

These debates have happened and will continue to happen. That is the way I would argue it though.

[Storico]

I know Jesus made that claim. By "Christianity", I did mean to center it around Christ's own claims. Thanks for the clarification.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Storico I know nick will answer himself, but I wanted to make sure you know that it isn't just a Christian claim that Jesus is the only way to God, it is JESUS' claim.
We just believe what Jesus says.

Supposedly Muslims believe what Jesus said too, so in theory they should agree with that Jesus is the only way to God and that you can't be saved unless you believe in Jesus. But in practice, when such claims are brought to their attention they claim the bible got corrupted in those areas or try to say that "What Jesus REALLY meant to say was..." and give it a different spin.

The fact remains that Jesus did claim to be the only way. You have to decide whether to believe he was telling the truth or not. It's your soul on the line.

Would a Muslim say a prophet can lie? Would they say Mohammad was a prophet? Would they say Jesus was a prophet? I believe the answer is no to the first and yes to the latter two.

Jesus claimed exclusivity. If he was right, then Mohammad is not the way. If Jesus was wrong, you still have a problem because Mohammad said Jesus was a prophet.

[Storico]

Thanks for your response. Examining it that way would be a good way to begin that debate, and expand on the claims made by Christianity and Islam. As for the sorts of people both produce, though... I'd have to say because humans interpret their own religions different, peaceful, devoted people CAN be produced in both religions. Violent people can also be produced in both.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Thanks for your response. Examining it that way would be a good way to begin that debate, and expand on the claims made by Christianity and Islam. As for the sorts of people both produce, though... I'd have to say because humans interpret their own religions different, peaceful, devoted people CAN be produced in both religions. Violent people can also be produced in both.

Yes. They can be. However, with several statements in the Qu'ran, I can see how one can logically arrive at the idea to destroy infidels. I do not see that with "Love your neighbor as yourself."

[Rayado]

Sparko,

To play the devil's advocate: Why, then, would we not accept Mohammad's claims about Mohammad as true?

[lao tzu]

I haven't seen any refutation of my point at all. I still see incluvisism as inclusive only to a certain point. They become incredibly exclusive when exclusivism shows up. I find the crowd that preaches tolerance the most are usually the most intolerant of all. (Let's not forget that modern man has no idea what the word tolerance really means.) The refutation lies in the form of your argument. You've used a paradox to claim an equivocation that sidesteps the issues. I don't see any sign that you've recognized this. An artificial paradox cannot be used as a valid argument.

Certainly, inclusivism excludes exclusivism and tolerance is intolerant of intolerance. But by casting the paradox, by claiming that inclusivism is exclusivism and that tolerance is intolerance, you create an equivocation that doesn't address the claims but instead merely eliminates the distinction. It's the logical equivalent of bumping the chess board and dumping the pieces.

My faith is not just about how I get along with my fellow man. I am claiming a certain view of God and that that is the way God is and the way God has acted in history and anything contrary to that is false. I am claiming God revealed himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. If you deny that Jesus is fully God and fully man, then I have no basis for seeing you as a Christian. Thank you. I don't mean to avoid your faith claims, though no doubt you've noticed how my responses have snipped around them.

UU doesn't make a claim to be representative of christianity, or buddhism, or any other faith, including my own. Like many if not most members, I would never describe myself as a theist, let alone a christian. But I wouldn't have any issues with sharing a pew with a christian, either. I don't deny their experiences, even though I disagree with their claims. I like the Unitarians because they don't try to force any dogma down my throat.

If you believe there is some special aprés-vie prepared for you, so long as that belief still leads you to treat your fellow humans humanely, why should I quibble about how you got there? I've seen people move from one formalization to another without changing their basic beliefs of fair play and consideration for others. I don't believe an erosion of faith in one interpretation of one sacred text necessarily changes the core beliefs of the adherent. People create religion, not the other way around.

So there's a profound difference in how I approach religious services in comparison to those who accept revealed faiths. Faith, for me, is internal. It is something we can speak of, but something we can not truly share. Portions of your faith will resonate with me, but that resonation is not an identity. I don't need doctrinal agreements, and I won't accept them as revelation. The only proof of faith is revealed in its social utility. If it doesn't work in this world, there's no reason to believe it will work in any other.

As ever, Jesse

[Shadow Phoenix]

The refutation lies in the form of your argument. You've used a paradox to claim an equivocation that sidesteps the issues. I don't see any sign that you've recognized this. An artificial paradox cannot be used as a valid argument.

Certainly, inclusivism excludes exclusivism and tolerance is intolerant of intolerance. But by casting the paradox, by claiming that inclusivism is exclusivism and that tolerance is intolerance, you create an equivocation that doesn't address the claims but instead merely eliminates the distinction. It's the logical equivalent of bumping the chess board and dumping the pieces.

Nope. My point is made. They are only inclusive and tolerant to a point. They accept that which agrees with them. In that case, they are no different from any other worldview. Let's not give this nonsense about them being open then.

Thank you. I don't mean to avoid your faith claims, though no doubt you've noticed how my responses have snipped around them.

UU doesn't make a claim to be representative of christianity, or buddhism, or any other faith, including my own. Like many if not most members, I would never describe myself as a theist, let alone a christian. But I wouldn't have any issues with sharing a pew with a christian, either. I don't deny their experiences, even though I disagree with their claims. I like the Unitarians because they don't try to force any dogma down my throat.

They can't force something down your throat because they have nothing to feed. Share a pew with me? Sure. Call yourself a Christian brother though? Got a problem if you're not saying Jesus is Lord and God. When that is denied and Christian exclusivity is denied, UU denigrates my faith. I take that seriously.

Furthermore, I could care less about the experiences. I am not a Christian because of experiences. I believe the resurrection happened, therefore, I am a Christian.

If you believe there is some special aprés-vie prepared for you, so long as that belief still leads you to treat your fellow humans humanely, why should I quibble about how you got there? I've seen people move from one formalization to another without changing their basic beliefs of fair play and consideration for others. I don't believe an erosion of faith in one interpretation of one sacred text necessarily changes the core beliefs of the adherent. People create religion, not the other way around.

Oh what question-begging! I would not say my religion is created by man at all. Mine is divinely revealed from God himself. Why do I love? Because that is the nature of God in the Trinity. I see no other worldview that has that.

So there's a profound difference in how I approach religious services in comparison to those who accept revealed faiths. Faith, for me, is internal. It is something we can speak of, but something we can not truly share. Portions of your faith will resonate with me, but that resonation is not an identity. I don't need doctrinal agreements, and I won't accept them as revelation. The only proof of faith is revealed in its social utility. If it doesn't work in this world, there's no reason to believe it will work in any other.

As ever, Jesse

And what does it mean to work? Lies work. Does that mean they are true? When asking this, then one is asking the irrelevant question. The relevant question is not "Does Jesus rising from the dead work?" The relevant question is "Did Jesus rise from the dead?"

[Sparko]

Sparko,

To play the devil's advocate: Why, then, would we not accept Mohammad's claims about Mohammad as true?

Because as Nick said, The muslims should accept what Jesus said because Mohommed said Jesus was a prophet. And the muslims believe Jesus was a prophet.

But, Jesus never said Mohommed was a prophet and we don't believe he is either. In fact we think he was a false teacher.

That is why we don't accept Mohommed's claims.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Because as Nick said, The muslims should accept what Jesus said because Mohommed said Jesus was a prophet. And the muslims believe Jesus was a prophet.

But, Jesus never said Mohommed was a prophet and we don't believe he is either. In fact we think he was a false teacher.

That is why we don't accept Mohommed's claims.

I don't accept them because they contradict the one who claimed to be God and proved it by rising from the dead.

[lao tzu]

As Nick pointed out, this is not what we're saying. It's the path, for everyone--not just my path. I understand your claim, and I disagree with it. We are different people, with different thoughts and beliefs. Claiming that your path is my path as well is simply wrong. But that doesn't preclude the possibility of sharing some, though admittedly not all, spiritual goals.

So is being exclusivistic wrong? Do you exclude truth?

Because this is reality we're talking about. Nonsense. This is spirituality and belief we're talking about, and there is nothing more arbitrary. At its best, any human belief system can encompass no more than a pale specter of reality, and to claim otherwise is unsupportable. Gods might just possibly be omniscient, though I have reason to doubt it even if they do exist. No human can reasonably make the same claim.

Nick hammered this point home, so I see no need to rehash answering in kind. Nick was answered, so I see no need to rehash the explanation.

What is a spiritual truth? Love is better than hate.

As ever, Jesse

[Rayado]

I understand your claim, and I disagree with it. We are different people, with different thoughts and beliefs. Claiming that your path is my path as well is simply wrong. But that doesn't preclude the possibility of sharing some, though admittedly not all, spiritual goals.In the presence of such conflict, then, why should I consider it rational to accept both views as true?

Do you exclude truth?Only error. I didn't ask what was excluded. I asked if excluding was wrong.

Nonsense. This is spirituality and belief we're talking about, and there is nothing more arbitrary. At its best, any human belief system can encompass no more than a pale specter of reality, and to claim otherwise is unsupportable. Gods might just possibly be omniscient, though I have reason to doubt it even if they do exist. No human can reasonably make the same claim.Unless that person really does know what they're talking about when they make such claims, and can demonstrate them. With things like a resurrection.

And such things challenge everything else.

Love is better than hate.My bad--I should have phrased that better. I asked what the nature of spiritual truth is, not for one in particular. The article "a" I included made it unclear as to what I was asking.

So I'll try this again: What is spiritual truth?

[shadowmaster]

Then you believe men over Christ?

"No one comes to the Father except through Me."

If you are claiming saving relationships with God by a means other than Christ, you are denying His words.

Shadowmaster thinks that it means that Jesus Christ determines who is saved, rather than any of the self-appointed, self-righteous staff at TWEB. What comes next in your fervor --- the Geneisidal scientific outlook of YEC and Anti-Darwinism?

Shadowmaster hopes that the exclusivity of your type of Christian bigotry will drive many away from a tweb type "Christianity" and to a true relationship with the Lord.

[lao tzu]

Nope. My point is made. They are only inclusive and tolerant to a point. They accept that which agrees with them. In that case, they are no different from any other worldview. Let's not give this nonsense about them being open then. If open is closed, then closed is open, and the criterion itself is identically void. You can't get around the equivocation created by your use of paradox. The very form of the argument is logically invalid. Why can't you understand this? I thought you had studied logic. Am I confusing you with someone else?

They can't force something down your throat because they have nothing to feed. Share a pew with me? Sure. Call yourself a Christian brother though? Got a problem if you're not saying Jesus is Lord and God. When that is denied and Christian exclusivity is denied, UU denigrates my faith. I take that seriously. Were you to call me a christian brother, I would feel insulted. These facts remain though: Love, hope and charity transcend any exclusivist claims of your faith.

Furthermore, I could care less about the experiences. I am not a Christian because of experiences. I believe the resurrection happened, therefore, I am a Christian. I don't believe you. Humans rely on their feelings to a far greater extent than they rely on any deductive processes. Naturally, we do. We have billions of years of evolution in our history during which deduction was not possible.

Oh what question-begging! I would not say my religion is created by man at all. Mine is divinely revealed from God himself. Why do I love? Because that is the nature of God in the Trinity. I see no other worldview that has that. What question have I begged in stating my own beliefs? Religion is man made. We have tens of thousands of years of archaeological evidence showing that religion occurs wherever humans do, though the form evolves. We can trace the syncretism of beliefs and their spread through imperial adoption on a map with timelines.

Your own claims are far less global. You claim that your religion, unlike all these others, was inspired by divine revelation. You agree with me that all others are man made. Our agreement on this far surpasses our disagreement. I just add one more religion to the mix tape. To do otherwise would be to engage in special pleading.

And what does it mean to work? Lies work. Does that mean they are true? When asking this, then one is asking the irrelevant question. The relevant question is not "Does Jesus rising from the dead work?" The relevant question is "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" There are humane lies. Would you tell a woman sprawled in the ditch dying from a car wreck that her child was crushed inside the car? I wouldn't. I'd lie, and I'd do so with a clean conscience, observing a higher "truth." That truth is that it is better to refrain from needless harm.

Imagine there exists an ideal society for any stage of human development. Naturally this ideal changes over time as advances or retreats occur in our societies. A working belief system, in my view, is then one which approaches this ideal or enables it to come into being. It is simple enough, post 9/11, to describe counter-examples.

To answer your question, then, I would need to characterize what I see as the ideal society for our time. I'm willing to make the attempt, but not in this thread. It is something I've given much thought over the years. Better not to swamp this thread with such a tangent.

Did Jesus resurrect? If he didn't, how would you change the way you live your life? The question is rhetorical. An honest answer is impossible without abandoning your faith.

As ever, Jesse

[dizzle]

Shadowmaster thinks that it means that Jesus Christ determines who is saved, rather than any of the self-appointed, self-righteous staff at TWEB. What comes next in your fervor --- the Geneisidal scientific outlook of YEC and Anti-Darwinism?

Shadowmaster hopes that the exclusivity of your type of Christian bigotry will drive many away from a tweb type "Christianity" and to a true relationship with the Lord.

And He says how. The rest of your rancor you can keep to yourself. I am sorry for you that you are so. Suit yourself. I will "hit submit post" and not think twice, yet you stew in hate towards those who disagree with you. I feel sorry for you.

[Sparko]

And He says how. The rest of your rancor you can keep to yourself. I am sorry for you that you are so. Suit yourself. I will "hit submit post" and not think twice, yet you stew in hate towards those who disagree with you. I feel sorry for you.

Yeah usually those who go around claiming "inclusivity" and "pluralism" usually end up showing they are just as exclusive as we are by claiming how WRONG we are. Funny how upset they seem to get with us regarding our views. We always end up being called bigots because they don't want to accept our beliefs.

The self-implosion of relativism never fails.

[Sparko]

Shadowmaster hopes that the exclusivity of your type of Christian bigotry will drive many away from a tweb type "Christianity" and to a true relationship with the Lord.

:irony:

[Shadow Phoenix]

If open is closed, then closed is open, and the criterion itself is identically void. You can't get around the equivocation created by your use of paradox. The very form of the argument is logically invalid. Why can't you understand this? I thought you had studied logic. Am I confusing you with someone else?

You're not. I'm just saying that they are no different from anyone else. They are as exclusive as I am. Why? Because we ALL are exclusive. That's why I don't buy this exclusive nonsense. I especially find it odd in the area of religion. It starts out with the belief that we can change religion because we are the masters of it. I am not the master of my faith. My faith is the master of me.

Were you to call me a christian brother, I would feel insulted. These facts remain though: Love, hope and charity transcend any exclusivist claims of your faith.

Got a basis for them? All the love in the world won't matter without truth.

I don't believe you. Humans rely on their feelings to a far greater extent than they rely on any deductive processes. Naturally, we do. We have billions of years of evolution in our history during which deduction was not possible.

You can disbelieve me all you want. I'm not a Christian because I have warm fuzzies that tell me Jesus rose from the dead. I'm a Christian because the evidence leads me to that conclusion.

What question have I begged in stating my own beliefs? Religion is man made. We have tens of thousands of years of archaeological evidence showing that religion occurs wherever humans do, though the form evolves. We can trace the syncretism of beliefs and their spread through imperial adoption on a map with timelines.

Ah yes. Religion is man-made. By those standards then, mathematics is man-made. Tomorrow, we'll make 2 + 2 = 5 since we're in charge of it. The next day, we'll abolish the Law of Noncontradiction since logic is man-made. Because something is there where humans is does not mean it is man made. I claim my religion is God revealed and not made by man.

Your own claims are far less global. You claim that your religion, unlike all these others, was inspired by divine revelation. You agree with me that all others are man made. Our agreement on this far surpasses our disagreement. I just add one more religion to the mix tape. To do otherwise would be to engage in special pleading.

Ah yes. Thus, you say everyone else is wrong. Indeed, this is what the UUs are saying about my exclusivistic claims.

There are humane lies. Would you tell a woman sprawled in the ditch dying from a car wreck that her child was crushed inside the car? I wouldn't. I'd lie, and I'd do so with a clean conscience, observing a higher "truth." That truth is that it is better to refrain from needless harm.

I'd try to hold off, but she's going to find out eventually. I'd get her to focus elsewhere for now. How do you know what harm is or isn't needless?

Imagine there exists an ideal society for any stage of human development. Naturally this ideal changes over time as advances or retreats occur in our societies. A working belief system, in my view, is then one which approaches this ideal or enables it to come into being. It is simple enough, post 9/11, to describe counter-examples.

Rest assured though, it won't be OUR ideal. It will be the ideal of some people. Furthermore, this assumes the goal is again to please men. Mine is to please God.

To answer your question, then, I would need to characterize what I see as the ideal society for our time. I'm willing to make the attempt, but not in this thread. It is something I've given much thought over the years. Better not to swamp this thread with such a tangent.

Very well.

Did Jesus resurrect? If he didn't, how would you change the way you live your life? The question is rhetorical. An honest answer is impossible without abandoning your faith.

As ever, Jesse


I've said the answer on PALtalk before. If he didn't, I'd drive the wrong way down the interstate. Life is meaningless if Christ is not raised.

[lao tzu]

In the presence of such conflict, then, why should I consider it rational to accept both views as true? You shouldn't. But neither should you reject those portions of the view that are held in common.

Only error. I didn't ask what was excluded. I asked if excluding was wrong. The answer is indeterminate, as it depends on what is excluded. The rhetorical question I left as an answer was intended as an illustration.

Unless that person really does know what they're talking about when they make such claims, and can demonstrate them. With things like a resurrection. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." This is Clarke's third law. To which I would add the trivial corollary that it is also indistinguishable from miracle. My larger point is that a god capable of performing miracles is also able to mislead us about the nature of reality.

That does not preclude our ability to investigate reality. It is merely a caution. We can never be entirely sure of anything we apprehend. To this point, and for any forseeable future, the incompleteness of our ability to test reality is unlikely to change. Humans are not capable of judging ultimate reality. We lack requisite abilities.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain.

My bad--I should have phrased that better. I asked what the nature of spiritual truth is, not for one in particular. The article "a" I included made it unclear as to what I was asking.

So I'll try this again: What is spiritual truth? I doubt that spiritual truth has a "nature." I am not a Platonist. It is, to my mind, merely a category for inclusion of specific instances as in my above example. It is an abstract concept created by us for our own convenience. It is not a concrete category.

Thank you for your thoughts.

As ever, Jesse

[Storico]

Nick, I know you said you'd drive the wrong way down the interstate if Christ wasn't raised because you think life would be meaningless, but as far as I know, you've never lived without faith in Christ. Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on what I know about you, you've never lived under a framework that says Christ wasn't raised, you've probably never held atheistic views before, and because of that, with all due respect, you can intellectualize the view that life wouldn't have any meaning, but you can't know how much meaning it actually DOES have.

When I was an atheist, life every day was full of meaning for me, not because of something supernatural and external, but because of something natural and immediate: the world around me. I cared about people like crazy while they were here and alive, and the depth my relationships took with people demonstrated the meaning life had.

Becoming Christian didn't change that. People and life itself are/is valuable in and of itself. If you value the connection you have with others and the way you can help change the world, the way you learn things and grow and mature and make friends, the way you develop your own history while you're on earth...

... you realize that there's no reason at all to drive that car the wrong way down that interstate. Whether you're Christian or ANYTHING else, life's worth it because we're all in it together.

[barnasha]

I doubt that spiritual truth has a "nature." I am not a Platonist. It is, to my mind, merely a category for inclusion of specific instances as in my above example. It is an abstract concept created by us for our own convenience. It is not a concrete category.


truth is neither spiritual nor material, and has only the nature of truth, because that is what it is.

[Rayado]

You shouldn't. But neither should you reject those portions of the view that are held in common.Commonality alone doesn't tell me much, really. However, if Chrsitianity is objectively true, it would be foolish for me to reject a Jewish person's claim that God is just. I affirm that there is some truth to every religion--but it's in a distorted reflection of the true God.

The answer is indeterminate, as it depends on what is excluded. The rhetorical question I left as an answer was intended as an illustration.Interesting. What makes the difference in what is excluded? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that there are instances where exclusion is okay?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." This is Clarke's third law. To which I would add the trivial corollary that it is also indistinguishable from miracle. My larger point is that a god capable of performing miracles is also able to mislead us about the nature of reality.Even though we're approaching the out-of-bounds line for this thread, I would say that that's simply not the case. Such a proposal runs counter to the evidence already present in what has already been revealed about the character of God.

And what sufficiently advanced technology can turn water into wine? (I don't mean just right now, but the future as well.) Water, all things being equal, simply can't turn into wine without quite a few things being added. Try as technology may, it simply can't create wine molecules from just water without destroying the water.

That does not preclude our ability to investigate reality. It is merely a caution. We can never be entirely sure of anything we apprehend. To this point, and for any forseeable future, the incompleteness of our ability to test reality is unlikely to change.I'd say that we do have some very reliable tools by which to test reality. It stays within the bounds of logic and reason, for starters. It is objective, which means that any given object or entity is the same no matter who examines it--even if we don't agree on what it is, or know exactly what it is. Now, if that entity insists on telling us what it is, that's another matter.

Humans are not capable of judging ultimate reality. We lack requisite abilities.If we don't have the requisite abilities to judge ultimate reality, how do you know we're not capable of judging it? How do you know it even exists?

I doubt that spiritual truth has a "nature."Not even existence?

I am not a Platonist. It is, to my mind, merely a category for inclusion of specific instances as in my above example. It is an abstract concept created by us for our own convenience. It is not a concrete category.Is truth created or discovered?

Thank you for your thoughts.:glare: Hey! Stop being civil! This is the internet, after all!

:hehe: Thanks for being courteous. It's appreciated.

[shadowmaster]

And He says how. The rest of your rancor you can keep to yourself. I am sorry for you that you are so. Suit yourself. I will "hit submit post" and not think twice, yet you stew in hate towards those who disagree with you. I feel sorry for you.

Is Shadowmaster not allowed to speak out against the mighty leaders of TWEB and what they have posted? Will he be now kicked out?

It is not hate that Shadowmaster feels. It is extreme annoyance at how some can be so judgmental of others and then call themselves "Christians". Christians who think that Mahatma Gandhi is in hell because he rejected someone's style of Christianity. Feel sorry for yourself while you condemn others.

[Rayado]

Is it wrong to be judgmental?

[shadowmaster]

Is it wrong to be judgmental?

Shadowmaster suggests that you read your Bible about that. See what it says about you or I passing judgment -- not what Jesus did or can do.

[Rayado]

And what, exactly, does the Bible say about judging?

[dizzle]

Shadowmaster suggests that you read your Bible about that. See what it says about you or I passing judgment -- not what Jesus did or can do.

My irony meter is totally broken right about now.

:rofl:

[lao tzu]

You're not. I'm just saying that they are no different from anyone else. They are as exclusive as I am. Why? Because we ALL are exclusive. That's the natural conclusion of the equivocation. But the process by which you formed the equivocation is invalid. You can't use paradox as argument. That's against the rules, Nick. A deductive structure based on paradox collapses to a trivial system. This is basic.

Consider the collection of all belief systems. Now we can incorporate the duality within any system to close and bound the topology. This is the basis of Stone-Cech compactification. You add a bit, and turn it back on itself as a metric. So, formally, we can always construct locally compact subspaces and label them "Western religions," "Eastern religions," "monotheistic," "polytheistic," "atheistic," or "human" as we see fit.

Given this "next best thing to finite" construction, there is no bar to simply "counting" inclusivity. By any measure I can imagine, UU is more inclusive. Feel free to demonstrate a counter-example.

That's why I don't buy this exclusive nonsense. I especially find it odd in the area of religion. It starts out with the belief that we can change religion because we are the masters of it. I am not the master of my faith. My faith is the master of me. On this, we disagree.

Got a basis for them? All the love in the world won't matter without truth. My basis for these is shared humanity. What's yours? Shared divinity? Are you god that you can know god's will? Of course not. At most you have written documents that cannot compete for comprehensibility with an immediate presence in your soul. There are truths beyond the ability of human words to express. I accept this. You do not, or at the very least, you do not integrate this into your appreciation of your sacred texts. I believe this is a mistake.

Love is not dependent upon truth, and often enough opposes it. A mother's belief in the preternatural beauty of her ugly baby is an expression of love more important than truth. I wouldn't have it any other way.

You can disbelieve me all you want. I'm not a Christian because I have warm fuzzies that tell me Jesus rose from the dead. I'm a Christian because the evidence leads me to that conclusion. Yeah, but that's what you're supposed to say. What do you really believe?

:tongue:

Ah yes. Religion is man-made. By those standards then, mathematics is man-made. Tomorrow, we'll make 2 + 2 = 5 since we're in charge of it. The next day, we'll abolish the Law of Noncontradiction since logic is man-made. Because something is there where humans is does not mean it is man made. I claim my religion is God revealed and not made by man. What awful examples. There's nothing wrong with setting two and two to equal five. It still retains adequate algebraic structure to model interesting objects. It's not useful for those objects where we demand a non-trivial multiplication as well. But the equivalence is essentially arbitrary. We choose it.

There is no "law" of non-contradiction, either. That's simply one of the axioms we accept for classical logics. They have their uses, but they are anything but universal. I studied non-classical logics under the late Willem Blok, by the way. They have amazing utility.

I think I might have assumed too much about your background. I studied logic within a mathematics curriculum. You wouldn't have used these examples if you'd done the same. I suspect you've never studied algebra at the university level. Well, I'm not going to wipe the example above, but the point is to show that inclusivism can be meaningfully measured by established mathematical tools.

You claim your religion is revealed by your god. I think you are wrong. What evidence I have seen is consistent with christianity having an ordinary human genesis. To steal an analogy, if I find a watch on the beach tomorrow, I won't assume it was planted there by martians. I won't rule it out conclusively, but you can make a safe bet that the mere possibility won't change the way I approach the watch. If it still runs, I'll probably keep it. If the martians want it back, they're going to have to knock on my door like anybody else.

I've seen a lot of humans claiming christianity was revealed by a god. I haven't seen any gods making the same claim.

Ah yes. Thus, you say everyone else is wrong. Indeed, this is what the UUs are saying about my exclusivistic claims. As you make this claim yourself, what is your objection?

I'd try to hold off, but she's going to find out eventually. I'd get her to focus elsewhere for now. How do you know what harm is or isn't needless? I figured you'd have enough grace to allow that she was breathing her last breaths. There's no need to belabor an example of a principle you don't dismiss. After all, you'd try to hold off too.

As to your question, I don't. I have to guess, and accept the consequences if my guess misleads me. That's part of being human. Being human means we can't ever be entirely sure, as much as we might like it to be otherwise. I would say, metaphysically, that uncertainty is built into the very structure of this universe. We know this is actually true of both physics and mathematics by virtue of the work of Heisenberg and Godel, respectively.

Rest assured though, it won't be OUR ideal. It will be the ideal of some people. Furthermore, this assumes the goal is again to please men. Mine is to please God. Oh, that reminds me. I had an email from your god last night. He says he'd be pleased if you'd be kind to children and animals. There was some other stuff, too, but I just skimmed the heading and stopped when I noticed it wasn't for me.

I've said the answer on PALtalk before. If he didn't, I'd drive the wrong way down the interstate. Life is meaningless if Christ is not raised. I call dibs on your Xbox.

Your claim is heavily contradicted by the lives of millions of atheists around you. Why you feel you would behave so dramatically differently from the rest of us is kind of beyond me. It sounds like hysteria. It is almost certainly not true. It is statistically absurd.

Thank you again, Nick.

As ever, Jesse

[Sparko]

My irony meter is totally broken right about now.

:rofl:

here, borrow mine...
:irony:

..oops never mind. I need to get a new batch.

[shadowmaster]

here, borrow mine...
:irony:

..oops never mind. I need to get a new batch.

Shadowmaster really apologizes for being so obnoxious.

I tried to advise him but he gets really pigheaded at times.

[shunyadragon]

Shunya. All truth claims are exclusive. Any claim of truth excludes its opposite. It's reality.

From your point of view, well, ah . . . yes, but the reality is no. It is unreasonable for you to speak for the nature of belief of others. There are varying degrees of inclusive beliefs in the real world, without believing there is only and absolutely one way to believe.

[easyboy201]

And what, exactly, does the Bible say about judging?

To boot "Christians" that keep sinning out of the church! ;)
Woot!

And whoever brought up the buzz word - "bigot" - seriously, dude... seriously...
*shakes head*

That word has lost all meaning... and you're a bigot for not letting ME be a bigot! :tongue:

[Rayado]

From your point of view, well, ah . . . yes, but the reality is no. It is unreasonable for you to speak for the nature of belief of others. There are varying degrees of inclusive beliefs in the real world, without believing there is only and absolutely one way to believe. From your point of view, yes, but reality...no.

/tongue-in-cheek

:tongue:

[Rayado]

To boot "Christians" that keep sinning out of the church! ;)
Woot!

And whoever brought up the buzz word - "bigot" - seriously, dude... seriously...
*shakes head*

That word has lost all meaning... and you're a bigot for not letting ME be a bigot! :tongue:
...


What?

[shunyadragon]

And to Shunya:

But that's not what I believe about UUs.

My explanation reflects my experience and study of UU, and not what you or I believe about UU. I am not a member of UU, but I share many of there beliefs concerning relationships with those who believe differentely. I will add that, because UU is predominately humanist, but not exclusively so, in the their beliefs, it is probably not a Christian Church. Many if not most UUs do not consider their fellowship as a Christian Church.

Would I really be welcome to the fellowship claiming Christ as the only truth?

I would say yes, if your not too obnoxious pushing you faith on others. As I said I have known Christians who believe in the basic doctrines of Christianity, the Aposteles cred, etc, but still find themselves comfortable at UU.

I did not know truth changed, much less that quickly. I was under the impression that truth was true even if nobody knew what it was, or when they discovered it--and that truth stayed true.

What truth is, is not really the issue here. I was trying only to present the view of UU. In terms of truth theydo not believe that truth is absolute in any single belief or creed, and with this I agree with them.

From your point of view, of course absolute truth is as you believe it is and unchanged, but this fails to find concensous even within Christianity. Considering the diversity of the views of truth in the world, you would have difficulty demonstrating or much less proving your view as the absolute truth. I believe God does represent truth, but the real world witness of the falliable human condition is that absolute truth is very illusive at best. With the UUs, truth is arrived at more by concensous of the human search for knowledge in the diversity of human beliefs.

Two things: It sounds like, instead of a diversity of beliefs without consideration of the inclusivity (or lack thereof) of beliefs, it's a fellowship of a diversity of beliefs without consideration for individual beliefs.

This, again reflects your belief in your absolute truth, and not how mwmbers of UU relate to each other and those who believe differently.

Second, I find it interesting that there is a conflict, within the UUs, between the exclusivists and the inclusivists. I guess I just never hear much about atheists being labeled as intolerant.

Just as all humans in the diversity of faiths, some atheists a more tolerant than others, but no this diversity of beliefs does not represent a conflict within UU.

Even though the Baha'i faith isn't the topic of the thread, I do find that it suffers the same inehrent weakness of UUism: the inconsistency between the religions' claims about the nature of God.

More firmly, I find that it also denies the claims of the religions it claims to honor, and that this is an egregious treatment of those beliefs. It really is religious imperialism on the part of UU (and Baha'i) towards believers such as myself. Tizzidale was quite correct when he called UU a fellowship of negation. They're united in what they deny, not what they affirm; it's simply impossible to claim Christianity as true in its affirmation of Christ as God and the denial thereof by Judaism and Islam.

This reflects your view of absolute of absolute truth. I brought up the Baha'i Faith, because the concept of relative truth in the human perspective is shared with UU, but with the Baha'i Faith, revelation from God is real, universal, progressive, and relative to the human condition. The rest is the subject to another debate topic.

[lao tzu]

Commonality alone doesn't tell me much, really. However, if Chrsitianity is objectively true, it would be foolish for me to reject a Jewish person's claim that God is just. I affirm that there is some truth to every religion--but it's in a distorted reflection of the true God. You're going to tell me there is an undistorted reflection out there somewhere? I'd pay real money to see that, and double to get a reserved parking space.

Interesting. What makes the difference in what is excluded? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that there are instances where exclusion is okay? Last question first, I gave an example of an instance where exclusion is okay, in my opinion.

What makes the difference? How are we to judge? I'm not sure, but I'm open to suggestions. That doesn't keep us from assigning principles, at least on a conditional basis. Most human morality is reflected in the golden rule. It's determined by how you, personally, would feel if you were on the receiving end of your own behavior. That's good enough to cover most interactions, I'm thinking.

I've run into a recent neuropsych paper that claims to have localized portions of the brain that react sympathetically to fellow humans. It could be that our ideas of morality have a physiological basis. That's a kind of scary thought. If we can identify it, we can probably manipulate it. I can imagine humans bred and selected for lack of empathy. But, "evolution is smarter than you are," as the saying goes. If a lack of empathy was an advantage, we'd have it. Since we don't, it's not, give or take anecdotal counterexamples. You know, like Canadians, or Jack Bauer fans.

Even though we're approaching the out-of-bounds line for this thread, I would say that that's simply not the case. Such a proposal runs counter to the evidence already present in what has already been revealed about the character of God. You do believe your god is the creator of the universe, don't you? I'd say that's the most readily apparent revelation about the character of its creator. And we don't understand it. Every new discovery tells us something about the creator. At the same time, each new discovery shows us that our former apprehension was in some way deficient.

And what sufficiently advanced technology can turn water into wine? (I don't mean just right now, but the future as well.) Water, all things being equal, simply can't turn into wine without quite a few things being added. Try as technology may, it simply can't create wine molecules from just water without destroying the water. Protons, neutrons and electrons. Fermions and baryons. There's a lab outside Chicago that supplies them as needed. At the level of the standard model, I can't see any theoretical reason why the transformation shouldn't be possible. And even if I could, that wouldn't rule out some more advanced model that could handle it.

In either case, I take that tale as apocryphal. It probably didn't happen, and quite possibly is a syncretism from tales of Bacchus. Or perhaps Jesus was a stage magician, and did a switch. That would be a lot more likely than actually transforming water.

I'd say that we do have some very reliable tools by which to test reality. It stays within the bounds of logic and reason, for starters. It is objective, which means that any given object or entity is the same no matter who examines it--even if we don't agree on what it is, or know exactly what it is. Now, if that entity insists on telling us what it is, that's another matter. Logic is not truly objective. The axioms of our proving systems are essentially arbitrary. We choose them and derive our theorems based on those choices. Certainly we have good tools, and we are developing better ones, but we cannot, even theoretically, approach a physical universe on the other side of the big bang, if that question is even meaningful. The physical universe on this side of the big bang, as derived by Heisenberg, is fuzzy at the edges.

If we don't have the requisite abilities to judge ultimate reality, how do you know we're not capable of judging it? How do you know it even exists? I don't know it exists except perhaps as an abstract form. I do know we lack abilities because new abilities are constantly being created. Each advance in our knowledge highlights our prior ignorance and suggests even more current ignorance. I count this as evidence that reality itself is fundamentally intractable.

Not even existence? What existence does any abstract entity possess? Do sets "exist"? Do numbers? We use them. That is enough.

Is truth created or discovered? Truths can be created. Truths can be discovered. As to some abstract all encompassing collection of truths called "truth," by any meaningful definition, it does not exist. Godel incompleteness, you know. It is always possible to construct a "true" statement for any formal system that cannot be proved within the system. And recursively, any system in which the "true' statement can be proved will have its own deductive hole.

:glare: Hey! Stop being civil! This is the internet, after all!

:hehe: Thanks for being courteous. It's appreciated. If you like, I can bump my "Rayado is a poopie head" thread. I'm kind of proud of that whole exchange. It takes real talent to get a mod warning for failing to be vicious enough when claiming to "hate you all." I'm betting that was probably unique for TWeb.

As ever, Jesse

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick, I know you said you'd drive the wrong way down the interstate if Christ wasn't raised because you think life would be meaningless, but as far as I know, you've never lived without faith in Christ. Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on what I know about you, you've never lived under a framework that says Christ wasn't raised, you've probably never held atheistic views before, and because of that, with all due respect, you can intellectualize the view that life wouldn't have any meaning, but you can't know how much meaning it actually DOES have.

When I was an atheist, life every day was full of meaning for me, not because of something supernatural and external, but because of something natural and immediate: the world around me. I cared about people like crazy while they were here and alive, and the depth my relationships took with people demonstrated the meaning life had.

Becoming Christian didn't change that. People and life itself are/is valuable in and of itself. If you value the connection you have with others and the way you can help change the world, the way you learn things and grow and mature and make friends, the way you develop your own history while you're on earth...

... you realize that there's no reason at all to drive that car the wrong way down that interstate. Whether you're Christian or ANYTHING else, life's worth it because we're all in it together.

Sorry STorico, but I just can't agree. I think the concept of meaning is taken from theistic systems. Nihilism is the logical end result of atheism. There's no reference point that I see for anything without God. There is no reference for meaning. You live a life as a cosmic accident and you die and you become worm food.

Chirst is the life that I have and if he is not true, then either God does not exist or God does not care. If God does not care, why should I?

[Amazing Rando]

And what, exactly, does the Bible say about judging?

Something along these lines:

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

[Shadow Phoenix]

That's the natural conclusion of the equivocation. But the process by which you formed the equivocation is invalid. You can't use paradox as argument. That's against the rules, Nick. A deductive structure based on paradox collapses to a trivial system. This is basic.

Actually, I was pointing out that they don't follow their own claims. Of course nothing can include its opposite within it. Thus, we can say we like the UUs because they include everyone. They don't. They too have an underlying belief system and you should not conflict with it to be a UU.

Consider the collection of all belief systems. Now we can incorporate the duality within any system to close and bound the topology. This is the basis of Stone-Cech compactification. You add a bit, and turn it back on itself as a metric. So, formally, we can always construct locally compact subspaces and label them "Western religions," "Eastern religions," "monotheistic," "polytheistic," "atheistic," or "human" as we see fit.

Given this "next best thing to finite" construction, there is no bar to simply "counting" inclusivity. By any measure I can imagine, UU is more inclusive. Feel free to demonstrate a counter-example.

I have no problem saying they're inclusive. I have a problem though with how they claim to be inclusive. They are not inclusive of true orthodox Christianity which has a specific view of God and a specific view of how he's revealed himself.

On this, we disagree.

Yes. We do.

My basis for these is shared humanity. What's yours? Shared divinity? Are you god that you can know god's will? Of course not. At most you have written documents that cannot compete for comprehensibility with an immediate presence in your soul. There are truths beyond the ability of human words to express. I accept this. You do not, or at the very least, you do not integrate this into your appreciation of your sacred texts. I believe this is a mistake.

Actually, I do accept there are truths words cannot express. So does Scripture. 1 Cor. 2 comes to mind immediately. Scripture cannot exhaust all that there is about God but we can know some things about God. How do I claim to know God's will? Because I see that he has revealed himself in Christ.

Love is not dependent upon truth, and often enough opposes it. A mother's belief in the preternatural beauty of her ugly baby is an expression of love more important than truth. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Actually, I would say the mother is correct. IT is the rest of us who are wrong because we are not seeing as God sees who created all natures good as reflecting himself.

Yeah, but that's what you're supposed to say. What do you really believe?

:tongue:

I said what I believe.

What awful examples. There's nothing wrong with setting two and two to equal five. It still retains adequate algebraic structure to model interesting objects. It's not useful for those objects where we demand a non-trivial multiplication as well. But the equivalence is essentially arbitrary. We choose it.

Except this little problem that 2 + 2 do not equal 5.....

There is no "law" of non-contradiction, either. That's simply one of the axioms we accept for classical logics. They have their uses, but they are anything but universal. I studied non-classical logics under the late Willem Blok, by the way. They have amazing utility.

YOu know what Aristotle said about those who deny the LNC don't you? I suppose you also know what Avicenna said.

If you want to throw out the Law of Noncontradiction, then let us be right on everything even though we contradict and both of us go home happy.

I think I might have assumed too much about your background. I studied logic within a mathematics curriculum. You wouldn't have used these examples if you'd done the same. I suspect you've never studied algebra at the university level. Well, I'm not going to wipe the example above, but the point is to show that inclusivism can be meaningfully measured by established mathematical tools.

Odd. I saw nothing of the sort mentioned. Based on the Law of Identity though, 1 = 1. We don't create mathematical rules. We discover them. We didn't create 2 + 2 = 4. We discovered it.

You claim your religion is revealed by your god. I think you are wrong. What evidence I have seen is consistent with christianity having an ordinary human genesis. To steal an analogy, if I find a watch on the beach tomorrow, I won't assume it was planted there by martians. I won't rule it out conclusively, but you can make a safe bet that the mere possibility won't change the way I approach the watch. If it still runs, I'll probably keep it. If the martians want it back, they're going to have to knock on my door like anybody else.

Only if you look at it as a horizontal system. The Christian claim is that God specifically acted within time to bring about certain events. Take away miracles from every other religion (Judaism excepted) and the religion is fine. Take them away from Christianity and there's nothing.

I've seen a lot of humans claiming christianity was revealed by a god. I haven't seen any gods making the same claim.

It was made 2,000 years ago.

As you make this claim yourself, what is your objection?

I'm exclusive, but I don't hide it under the claim of inclusivism. I have no problem with being exclusive. I have a problem though with UU saying they include Christianity within their beliefs.

I figured you'd have enough grace to allow that she was breathing her last breaths. There's no need to belabor an example of a principle you don't dismiss. After all, you'd try to hold off too.

I didn't see that discussed. If I had to answer point-blank though, I would tell the truth.

As to your question, I don't. I have to guess, and accept the consequences if my guess misleads me. That's part of being human. Being human means we can't ever be entirely sure, as much as we might like it to be otherwise. I would say, metaphysically, that uncertainty is built into the very structure of this universe. We know this is actually true of both physics and mathematics by virtue of the work of Heisenberg and Godel, respectively.

I find it very dangerous to take physical laws and assume that they're moral laws and spiritual laws. I think we all want to avoid needless harm, but none of us do know what that is and so it doesn't do much good to say it. To say we are always unsure though I don't see as accurate. There are some things we can be sure of and we work from there.

Oh, that reminds me. I had an email from your god last night. He says he'd be pleased if you'd be kind to children and animals. There was some other stuff, too, but I just skimmed the heading and stopped when I noticed it wasn't for me.

I should believe something like this because?

I call dibs on your Xbox.

Your claim is heavily contradicted by the lives of millions of atheists around you. Why you feel you would behave so dramatically differently from the rest of us is kind of beyond me. It sounds like hysteria. It is almost certainly not true. It is statistically absurd.

Thank you again, Nick.

As ever, Jesse


Simply because it is true. If Christ is not raised, I am of all men to be most pitied. Either God does not exist or God does not care. If God does not care, why should I? I have staked everything on Christ. The degree to which you place something central to your worldview will effect the degree your worldview changes if that belief changes.

[Shadow Phoenix]

From your point of view, well, ah . . . yes, but the reality is no. It is unreasonable for you to speak for the nature of belief of others. There are varying degrees of inclusive beliefs in the real world, without believing there is only and absolutely one way to believe.

So you are saying your belief excludes my belief? That is the way reality is. Any truth claim does contradict what is contrary to it. When I say 2 + 2 = 4, I say all non-4 answers are false.

[Sparko]

Shadowmaster really apologizes for being so obnoxious.

I tried to advise him but he gets really pigheaded at times.

not a problem. I am pretty obnoxious a lot of times too! :blush:

[Storico]

Sorry STorico, but I just can't agree. I think the concept of meaning is taken from theistic systems. Nihilism is the logical end result of atheism. There's no reference point that I see for anything without God. There is no reference for meaning. You live a life as a cosmic accident and you die and you become worm food.

Chirst is the life that I have and if he is not true, then either God does not exist or God does not care. If God does not care, why should I?

Nick. I'll make a comment, but it's not for the sake of arguing with you.

Nihilism is not the logical end of atheism.

See http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

From it:

Nihilism, in fact, can be understood in several different ways. Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

Not many atheists I know (including myself when I was one) believe that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and not many would ever say that we have to destroy social, political or religious order to improve ourselves. Instead, the reference point MANY (not all, but many) atheists come from is human interaction: without God, a possible reference point is our relationships with one another. Even if it were somehow revealed God did NOT exist, or that Christ did NOT rise, my neighbors would still be as cold and hungry and in need of love as they were the day before the above about God was revealed. Human reality doesn't change. We continue to care, if we've always cared.

You DON'T live life as a cosmic accident, die and become worm food, with that being IT. In between those steps of life, death and regeneration comes human experience, human knowing, human love, human ethics, human interaction, human politics and philosophy and literature and conversation. Some of my best friends are atheists. Some of my family members are atheists. Their lives aren't meaningless. Mine wasn't before I came to Christ, and I don't consider my belief in Christ now the ONLY thing that gives my life meaning. My family, my friends, my fellow humans and all of our shared experiences add richness too, richness that'll always be there and that's always been there, regardless of belief.

That's all I feel a need to say. :smile:

[easyboy201]

...


What?

I was too lazy to reply to everyone individually... so I just kinda summed up my general thoughts.
(It must be just me... but this site takes sooooooo long to load on my computer).

[sylvius]

Jesus was very clear that only by faith in him is anyone saved.



It might be hard to accept, but if you believe what Jesus says himself, only those that believe in him will be saved.


.


Sparko, how you rhyme this with the dogma:

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_Nulla_Salus

are the Catholics wrong?

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick. I'll make a comment, but it's not for the sake of arguing with you.

Nihilism is not the logical end of atheism.

See http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

From it:



Not many atheists I know (including myself when I was one) believe that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and not many would ever say that we have to destroy social, political or religious order to improve ourselves. Instead, the reference point MANY (not all, but many) atheists come from is human interaction: without God, a possible reference point is our relationships with one another. Even if it were somehow revealed God did NOT exist, or that Christ did NOT rise, my neighbors would still be as cold and hungry and in need of love as they were the day before the above about God was revealed. Human reality doesn't change. We continue to care, if we've always cared.

No, but are they living in conformity with their belief in that case? Why should I view human relationships as a reference point and which ones? I don't treat my relationship with you like I treat the one with my parents or my bosses at work or the way I'd treat it with a significant other.

Now you'll say your neighbors will be cold and hungry and in need of love. Where is love in a naturalistic universe? Please tell how it came to be. Also, they are cold and hungry. Where is the moral imperative to care for them?

You DON'T live life as a cosmic accident, die and become worm food, with that being IT. In between those steps of life, death and regeneration comes human experience, human knowing, human love, human ethics, human interaction, human politics and philosophy and literature and conversation. Some of my best friends are atheists. Some of my family members are atheists. Their lives aren't meaningless. Mine wasn't before I came to Christ, and I don't consider my belief in Christ now the ONLY thing that gives my life meaning. My family, my friends, my fellow humans and all of our shared experiences add richness too, richness that'll always be there and that's always been there, regardless of belief.

That's all I feel a need to say. :smile:

Yes, but what difference does it make? The universe dies in a cold death in X billion years and that is the end of it all. Nothing you do will last. No memory of anyone will last. You also assume all these things are valuable. Why assume that? What gives humanity more value than anything else?

[Storico]

No, but are they living in conformity with their belief in that case? Why should I view human relationships as a reference point and which ones? I don't treat my relationship with you like I treat the one with my parents or my bosses at work or the way I'd treat it with a significant other.

Now you'll say your neighbors will be cold and hungry and in need of love. Where is love in a naturalistic universe? Please tell how it came to be. Also, they are cold and hungry. Where is the moral imperative to care for them?



Yes, but what difference does it make? The universe dies in a cold death in X billion years and that is the end of it all. Nothing you do will last. No memory of anyone will last. You also assume all these things are valuable. Why assume that? What gives humanity more value than anything else?

You don't need to pick which relationships to take value from. They all have value, and they all give meaning to our lives. I wouldn't expect for a moment that you'd treat a relationship with a friend the same way you'd treat one with your parents, or a significant other. And yet, all relationships add joy to life, right? Not just in what they give you, but in what you contribute to them. The history you build with people cements a lasting relationship.

And then there's caring for people you've never even met. When I see need, and want, when others see it, we want to alleviate it and help it. Caring comes from seeing wrong and wanting right to happen. That sense of justice seems to be ingrained. If a neighbor (either on my street or in another country) is cold, hungry and alone, and if someone didn't believe in God, nobody would TELL them to help out. And yet, so many do help, and want to help. Similarly, people aren't forced to love. We choose it.

Love, in a naturalistic universe, would come from the experience of being with others who are a part of our community. It wouldn't matter if the earth dies a cold death in X billion years. We don't live X billion years from now. We live NOW. What we do now affects those who are here now. If we love those around us and they love us in return, what does X billion years matter? Not much. What if someone across the world blows up the planet next year? Does that make living this year any less worth it? No, don't think so. I'd still go right on living tomorrow like I'm living today.

Memory isn't all it's cracked up to be. So what if nobody remembers us? If our grandparents get Alzheimer's and forget us completely, does loving them or them loving us lose meaning? I don't believe so for a moment.

I DO understand what you're trying to say: God's the reason people love, whether they know it or not. Maybe you'd say God ingrains it in us to love, even if we don't know Him. Okay. But you yourself said that if Jesus isn't raised, life is meaningless. One of the NT writers agreed with you: if Christ hasn't been raised, eat and drink now, for tomorrow we die... or something similar. And yet, there's a problem...

As often as people say "life without God is meaningless!"... people without God find meaning.
As often as people say "if God doesn't exist, there's no moral reason to be kind or to love!"... people without God are still kind and they still love.

It's a human response, love is. It's a response we have to one another.

I don't for a moment believe that if you lost all your faith you'd turn into a monster that would give up on love, stop caring about people, and then drive down the interstate the wrong way. I think you know that too. You're a kind person. Kind people keep on being kind, faith or not.

[RumTumTugger]

You don't need to pick which relationships to take value from. They all have value, and they all give meaning to our lives. I wouldn't expect for a moment that you'd treat a relationship with a friend the same way you'd treat one with your parents, or a significant other. And yet, all relationships add joy to life, right? Not just in what they give you, but in what you contribute to them. The history you build with people cements a lasting relationship.

And then there's caring for people you've never even met. When I see need, and want, when others see it, we want to alleviate it and help it. Caring comes from seeing wrong and wanting right to happen. That sense of justice seems to be ingrained. If a neighbor (either on my street or in another country) is cold, hungry and alone, and if someone didn't believe in God, nobody would TELL them to help out. And yet, so many do help, and want to help. Similarly, people aren't forced to love. We choose it.

Love, in a naturalistic universe, would come from the experience of being with others who are a part of our community. It wouldn't matter if the earth dies a cold death in X billion years. We don't live X billion years from now. We live NOW. What we do now affects those who are here now. If we love those around us and they love us in return, what does X billion years matter? Not much. What if someone across the world blows up the planet next year? Does that make living this year any less worth it? No, don't think so. I'd still go right on living tomorrow like I'm living today.

Memory isn't all it's cracked up to be. So what if nobody remembers us? If our grandparents get Alzheimer's and forget us completely, does loving them or them loving us lose meaning? I don't believe so for a moment.

I DO understand what you're trying to say: God's the reason people love, whether they know it or not. Maybe you'd say God ingrains it in us to love, even if we don't know Him. Okay. But you yourself said that if Jesus isn't raised, life is meaningless. One of the NT writers agreed with you: if Christ hasn't been raised, eat and drink now, for tomorrow we die... or something similar. And yet, there's a problem...

As often as people say "life without God is meaningless!"... people without God find meaning.
As often as people say "if God doesn't exist, there's no moral reason to be kind or to love!"... people without God are still kind and they still love.

It's a human response, love is. It's a response we have to one another.

I don't for a moment believe that if you lost all your faith you'd turn into a monster that would give up on love, stop caring about people, and then drive down the interstate the wrong way. I think you know that too. You're a kind person. Kind people keep on being kind, faith or not.

Storico Honey, you are missing the point. Without God, there is no love. If there was no God, love would not exist. That is the futility of those who say there is no God. Their feelings of love, of right and wrong, etc. cannot be explained through naturalistic means. That is, not if they are being honest about their naturalistic worldview that claims to explain everything through naturalistic means. How can they explain the ultimate love of altruism? The only thing explains it is the God of the Bible who sent his Son as the way to be with him.

[sylvius]

Without God, there is no love. If there was no God, love would not exist. .


seems to be wrong, because of:

God is love,

love is not an attribute of God.



Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Whoever loves does know God.

[RumTumTugger]

seems to be wrong, because of:

God is love,

love is not an attribute of God.



Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Whoever loves does know God.

:clueless:

[sylvius]

:clueless:


whoever loves does know God, even if he does not agree with the things you believe in.

[Storico]

Storico Honey, you are missing the point. Without God, there is no love. If there was no God, love would not exist. That is the futility of those who say there is no God. Their feelings of love, of right and wrong, etc. cannot be explained through naturalistic means. That is, not if they are being honest about their naturalistic worldview that claims to explain everything through naturalistic means. How can they explain the ultimate love of altruism? The only thing explains it is the God of the Bible who sent his Son as the way to be with him.

As a Christian, I take no issue with that at all. :smile: I believe love does come from God. I wanted to clarify earlier (and was trying to clarify) that sometimes, people don't know about God, or don't believe in God, or don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus -- which isn't the same thing as saying God DOESN'T exist, or the resurrection DIDN'T happen, but some people still firmly assert that anyways. Some live their whole lives, not believing in God or knowing much about God. What I was trying to say earlier is that these people still DO love each other. They maybe can't explain where human love comes from (especially if they've never had to consider the question before), but they can still say "I'm not sure WHERE it comes from, but I do love people and my life does have meaning anyways."

Just curious: would you say to someone like that, that the love they feel comes from God even if they don't recognize it? That God lets us love one another even if we don't love Him? I guess that's definitely a possibility.

I've got a lot personally invested in a conversation like this. I know people and love them dearly who don't believe in God or in Jesus at all, and I see what they do every day... they love people. They say it's as natural to them as breathing.

If love's as natural to us as breathing, then maybe we can say it's ingrained in us.

I'd be happy to say it's God that does the ingraining.

[Shadow Phoenix]

As a Christian, I take no issue with that at all. :smile: I believe love does come from God. I wanted to clarify earlier (and was trying to clarify) that sometimes, people don't know about God, or don't believe in God, or don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus -- which isn't the same thing as saying God DOESN'T exist, or the resurrection DIDN'T happen, but some people still firmly assert that anyways. Some live their whole lives, not believing in God or knowing much about God. What I was trying to say earlier is that these people still DO love each other. They maybe can't explain where human love comes from (especially if they've never had to consider the question before), but they can still say "I'm not sure WHERE it comes from, but I do love people and my life does have meaning anyways."

Just curious: would you say to someone like that, that the love they feel comes from God even if they don't recognize it? That God lets us love one another even if we don't love Him? I guess that's definitely a possibility.

I've got a lot personally invested in a conversation like this. I know people and love them dearly who don't believe in God or in Jesus at all, and I see what they do every day... they love people. They say it's as natural to them as breathing.

If love's as natural to us as breathing, then maybe we can say it's ingrained in us.

I'd be happy to say it's God that does the ingraining.

Potter said what I was saying just as well. Yes. People have moral beliefs because they come from God even if it's not recognized. People have love because it comes from God even if it is not recognized. Yes. God loves us even if we don't love him and he lets us love one another because that love is to point back to him. People might think of love of man as the highest good, but to love God purely for who he is is the highest form of love for us.

If there is no God though, there really is no such basis. There's no good or evil. There's no free-will. There's no ultimate value. We are forced to agree with Protagoras and say man is the measure of all things.

Well, that's my piece. Now I'll sit back and see what our resident animorph has to say.

[Storico]

Heh, who might the resident animorph be?

Edit.... Oh. Meeeeow!

[RumTumTugger]

As a Christian, I take no issue with that at all. :smile: I believe love does come from God. I wanted to clarify earlier (and was trying to clarify) that sometimes, people don't know about God, or don't believe in God, or don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus -- which isn't the same thing as saying God DOESN'T exist, or the resurrection DIDN'T happen, but some people still firmly assert that anyways. Some live their whole lives, not believing in God or knowing much about God. What I was trying to say earlier is that these people still DO love each other. They maybe can't explain where human love comes from (especially if they've never had to consider the question before), but they can still say "I'm not sure WHERE it comes from, but I do love people and my life does have meaning anyways."

Just curious: would you say to someone like that, that the love they feel comes from God even if they don't recognize it? That God lets us love one another even if we don't love Him? I guess that's definitely a possibility.

Honey, of course people can love. God created us in his own image. But because of the fall it is an imperfect love. To have that perfect love we need to acknowledge and have the true life changing faith in Christ and what he did for us. So that we might continue to be with God in perfect love through all eternity which is what his Goal was.

I've got a lot personally invested in a conversation like this. I know people and love them dearly who don't believe in God or in Jesus at all, and I see what they do every day... they love people. They say it's as natural to them as breathing.

All the more reason to show them where that love comes from so they can more fully experience it.

If love's as natural to us as breathing, then maybe we can say it's ingrained in us.

I'd be happy to say it's God that does the ingraining.

Yes he does. But Storico there are no shortcuts. There is only one way that we can fully experience God’s love and that is through Jesus, the Son of God, 2nd person of the trinity, without whom we could not have come into existence. He was there in the beginning. He was with God and was God. Without Jesus, the love we have is not enough to carry us to eternity with God.

RTT.

[RumTumTugger]

Well, that's my piece. Now I'll sit back and see what our resident animorph has to say.

:whack: :apnick: stop corrupting our young friends.

[Rayado]

(Note: the first time I tried to preview this I accidentally removed all the text, and had to re-add every single quote tag.) :rant:

First, to easyboy: Okay, that makes a little more sense. It did kind of strike me as odd when I first saw it.



My explanation reflects my experience and study of UU, and not what you or I believe about UU. I am not a member of UU, but I share many of there beliefs concerning relationships with those who believe differentely. I will add that, because UU is predominately humanist, but not exclusively so, in the their beliefs, it is probably not a Christian Church. Many if not most UUs do not consider their fellowship as a Christian Church.
Of this I am well aware, not the least becuase of the resistance that comes from UU against orthodox Christianity. My problem is not with their claims to inclusivity, but when they are also just as exclusive and dogmatic as the beliefs they shun.

I would say yes, if your not too obnoxious pushing you faith on others. As I said I have known Christians who believe in the basic doctrines of Christianity, the Aposteles cred, etc, but still find themselves comfortable at UU.
I am not one of those Christians. I cannot sanction the idea that Neo-Paganism or Buddhism or Secular Humanism is equally valid as the work of Christ on the Cross. They are competing claims about reality that are in permanent ideological conflict by their very nature.

When UU says that they are not, in fact, in conflict, it is a challenge to all of the beliefs they claim to accept--not the least of which is Christianity. That they claim it isn't, when it is, is what I question.

What truth is, is not really the issue here.
It is the core of the issue.

Truth, being the accurate description of reality, is the very heart of the question of whether or not UU is valid. When reality is in question, truth definitely matters.

I was trying only to present the view of UU. In terms of truth theydo not believe that truth is absolute in any single belief or creed, and with this I agree with them.
I don't. Therefore, would my beliefs be accepted within the group?

From your point of view, of course absolute truth is as you believe it is and unchanged, but this fails to find concensous even within Christianity.
Not entirely. We say that truth is objectively discovered, and that it exists independently of any one person or group, be they close or far from it. Because it is objective it does not change--which does find consensus within orthodox Christianity. That which was true yesterday is still true today--although our understanding of it may change and get more (or, unfortuantely, less) accurate. It is not the fault of the revealer that those who interpret the revealed sometimes do so incorrectly.

Considering the diversity of the views of truth in the world, you would have difficulty demonstrating or much less proving your view as the absolute truth.
Quite the opposite, I say! And emphatically so.

If a particular worldview is true, it carries with it the force of demonstration, be it logical or experiantial. And since only falsehood can contradict what is true, a worldview or religion that claims truth--that just happens to be true--can answer all ojbections to it with the aid of reason. That which is true must be logical by nature. Likewise, if Chrsitianity was irrational, or worse--false--an objection to it would carry logical weight, thus proving part of Christianity false.

Reason is the aid of faith in that it dispels objections and ensures logical coherency. It is by reason that we can sift through the various claims to (exclusive, even on the part of UU) truth.

I believe God does represent truth, but the real world witness of the falliable human condition is that absolute truth is very illusive at best. With the UUs, truth is arrived at more by concensous of the human search for knowledge in the diversity of human beliefs.
I'm very leery of truth being a popularity contest. At best it's just 'buffet' picking and choosing only what you want to believe, or what makes you feel good--which gets us back into the territory of it being a communion of negation; agreement only on what we deny. Truth, on the other hand, is true, independent of who believes it--even if no one knows what it is.

This, again reflects your belief in your absolute truth, and not how mwmbers of UU relate to each other and those who believe differently.
It's more a matter of them saying one thing and doing the opposite.

Just as all humans in the diversity of faiths, some atheists a more tolerant than others, but no this diversity of beliefs does not represent a conflict within UU.
So it's not an emberassing inconsistency to claim 'inclusivity' while harboring the staunchly exclusivist--while at the same time decrying the exclusivity of Christians like Nick and I?

This reflects your view of absolute of absolute truth. I brought up the Baha'i Faith, because the concept of relative truth in the human perspective is shared with UU, but with the Baha'i Faith, revelation from God is real, universal, progressive, and relative to the human condition. The rest is the subject to another debate topic.And it suffers from the same internal and external inconsistency that UU suffers from as well.

By the way, the phrase "That's just your point of view" is a serious copout. I don't care what point of view something comes from. I want to know if it is true or not, which is exactly what it tries to evade. Which is why you'll never see me use it.

You're going to tell me there is an undistorted reflection out there somewhere? I'd pay real money to see that, and double to get a reserved parking space.
He walked the earth nearly two thousand years ago. When Jesus said he was the truth, he claimed to be the only accurate reflection of reality. I also think he was right when he said it.

What makes the difference? How are we to judge? I'm not sure, but I'm open to suggestions. That doesn't keep us from assigning principles, at least on a conditional basis. Most human morality is reflected in the golden rule. It's determined by how you, personally, would feel if you were on the receiving end of your own behavior. That's good enough to cover most interactions, I'm thinking.
But that doesn't take objectivity into account. It's not meaningful unless you have a reason to judge a person that gives the other person reason to question their behavior. We call it...a standard. You mentioned the Golden Rule; why should anyone else pay attention to you when you seek to correct them?

I've run into a recent neuropsych paper that claims to have localized portions of the brain that react sympathetically to fellow humans. It could be that our ideas of morality have a physiological basis. That's a kind of scary thought. If we can identify it, we can probably manipulate it. I can imagine humans bred and selected for lack of empathy. But, "evolution is smarter than you are," as the saying goes. If a lack of empathy was an advantage, we'd have it. Since we don't, it's not, give or take anecdotal counterexamples. You know, like Canadians, or Jack Bauer fans.
We're moving off topic. I will say this: if morality is strictly biological, on what basis do you have for justifying any behavior?

You do believe your god is the creator of the universe, don't you? I'd say that's the most readily apparent revelation about the character of its creator. And we don't understand it. Every new discovery tells us something about the creator. At the same time, each new discovery shows us that our former apprehension was in some way deficient.
As I mentioned to Shunya, is this the fault of the revealer or the interpreter? From what we see in Nature, it would be quite improper to accuse the revealer of goofing. Nature just plain works. And it's not like the interpreters ever claimed to get it perfect (nevermind the fact that we also happen to claim that the revealer stepped into history at one point and time to clarify a fair bit of it for us). Unless you'd like to blame Nature for playing hard to get?

Protons, neutrons and electrons. Fermions and baryons. There's a lab outside Chicago that supplies them as needed. At the level of the standard model, I can't see any theoretical reason why the transformation shouldn't be possible. And even if I could, that wouldn't rule out some more advanced model that could handle it.
Key word "supplies"--did you not understand the passage? Nothing was added to the water. Material was created at the molecular level: it was an act of creation. You are not assuming that all other things remain equal in your 'replication.' Fudging, as it were.

But that is almost completely beside the point: the ability to replicate a miracle far after it occurred does not rule out the fact that the miracle took place without the use of such technology. Such a claim is simply a red herring, much like the claim that miracles don't happen because the earth is so small compared ot the universe.

In either case, I take that tale as apocryphal. It probably didn't happen, and quite possibly is a syncretism from tales of Bacchus. Or perhaps Jesus was a stage magician, and did a switch. That would be a lot more likely than actually transforming water.
Likely? What does likelihood have to do with it? Did it happen or did it not?

I actually find that it is far more likely to have happened than not. I just can't see Jewish writers borrowing from Greek mythology; Jesus being a stage magician was already ruled out by the rest of the Gospels--not to mention that there's no evidence for such a claim; and switching, well, I don't see that as likely at all because the jars were stone. You just can't move stone jars that fast--oh, and these weren't exactly small jars either. So that is far less likely than Jesus actually turning water into wine.

Logic is not truly objective.
Oh really? Then what is it dependent upon?

The axioms of our proving systems are essentially arbitrary. We choose them and derive our theorems based on those choices. Certainly we have good tools, and we are developing better ones, but we cannot, even theoretically, approach a physical universe on the other side of the big bang, if that question is even meaningful.
For the Christian it is not a meaningful question, since we claim that was, in fact, the beginning of existence.

The physical universe on this side of the big bang, as derived by Heisenberg, is fuzzy at the edges.
And this affects logic...how?

Things exist. Things that exist do so consistently. They do not spontaneously appear (which would make life interesting, to say the least), and they do not spontaneously dissappear. (Shunya, are you watching? This is what it looks like to use reason to answer a competing truth claim.)

I don't know it exists except perhaps as an abstract form. I do know we lack abilities because new abilities are constantly being created. Each advance in our knowledge highlights our prior ignorance and suggests even more current ignorance.
Ignorance makes for a fine starting point but a very bad thing to base a truth claim upon.

What existence does any abstract entity possess? Do sets "exist"? Do numbers? We use them. That is enough.
They exist metaphysically. Numbers, being ideas, exist independently of us, and even the things they describe. But two always equals two. It will never equal anything other than two in the same time, place, and sense. Thus even metaphysical things are under the (competent) rule of logic and must follow it.

Truths can be created. Truths can be discovered. As to some abstract all encompassing collection of truths called "truth," by any meaningful definition, it does not exist.
Can you demonstrate the proposition that a truth can be created?

Godel incompleteness, you know. It is always possible to construct a "true" statement for any formal system that cannot be proved within the system. And recursively, any system in which the "true' statement can be proved will have its own deductive hole.
Explain. Being an English major, I'm not terribly familiar with advanced mathematical and symbolic logic--classical, yes, but not symbolic logic.

If you like, I can bump my "Rayado is a poopie head" thread. I'm kind of proud of that whole exchange. It takes real talent to get a mod warning for failing to be vicious enough when claiming to "hate you all." I'm betting that was probably unique for TWeb.
If I was a mod in this area I'd mod you for complaining about moderation outside of the Boiler Room. :glare: :hehe:

[Storico]

Honey, of course people can love. God created us in his own image. But because of the fall it is an imperfect love. To have that perfect love we need to acknowledge and have the true life changing faith in Christ and what he did for us. So that we might continue to be with God in perfect love through all eternity which is what his Goal was.

Very true. Every day, I'm glad that was his goal.

All the more reason to show them where that love comes from so they can more fully experience it.

Yup. Trying! That's all any of us can do... after that, we leave it to God. :smile:

Yes he does. But Storico there are no shortcuts. There is only one way that we can fully experience God’s love and that is through Jesus, the Son of God, 2nd person of the trinity, without whom we could not have come into existence. He was there in the beginning. He was with God and was God. Without Jesus, the love we have is not enough to carry us to eternity with God.

RTT.

This is one of those things, I think, that if you believe, by default you don't believe anything contrary to it. I've been thinking today about how hard it is to just give EVERYTHING to God, willingly, and how hard it is to really MEAN "Thy will be done", because automatically, it means "not what I want to do anymore. What YOU want to do." But all in all, yes. Even now I'm still trying my best to come to that place where I can say "there is ONLY one way", and it's so hard to say it and believe it, but I'm really trying. I'm just trying to hang onto God, trying to just TRUST Him, and trust that He DOES know what He's doing. :yes:

Faith's a looooong journey. I've got a long way to go. But that's okay. I wake up every day thankful for Christ. Any doubts are a sign that I'm human, but I can give those doubts to God. :smile:



PS: you told Nick not to corrupt your young friends. He's only 5 years older than I am, so I've GOT to wonder who corrupted him.... :teeth:

:hug: to Nick and RTT

[OU812]

I especially find it odd in the area of religion.

You said it, especially when people think that playing word-games is the equivalent of demonstrating a particular metaphysic...


It starts out with the belief that we can change religion because we are the masters of it. I am not the master of my faith. My faith is the master of me.

See above comment about word-games being construed as demonstrating a metaphysical claim..


Ah yes. Religion is man-made. By those standards then, mathematics is man-made. Tomorrow, we'll make 2 + 2 = 5 since we're in charge of it. The next day, we'll abolish the Law of Noncontradiction since logic is man-made. Because something is there where humans is does not mean it is man made. I claim my religion is God revealed and not made by man.

No, by your standard, "Religion is man-made, except for this religion".....otoh, who exactly is claiming one sub-set of mathematics or logic as being 'transcendent', while the remainder is 'man-made'???



I've said the answer on PALtalk before. If he didn't, I'd drive the wrong way down the interstate. Life is meaningless if Christ is not raised.

Wow. There must have been A LOT of suicidal people prior to Jesus.

[Shadow Phoenix]

You said it, especially when people think that playing word-games is the equivalent of demonstrating a particular metaphysic...

Talk is cheap. Demonstrate that such has been done.




See above comment about word-games being construed as demonstrating a metaphysical claim..

Christianity was not made by me. I am subject to it. It is not subject to me.




No, by your standard, "Religion is man-made, except for this religion".....otoh, who exactly is claiming one sub-set of mathematics or logic as being 'transcendent', while the remainder is 'man-made'???

Which mathematics and logic are true? It's simple. It's the ones that correspond to reality. Do you think the LNC doesn't?





Wow. There must have been A LOT of suicidal people prior to Jesus.

No. We had the prophecies that told us that Christ was to come. If Christ did not come, then God did not speak to us. If God did not speak to us, then God does not care about us if he exists at all. If God does not care, why should I?

[OU812]

Talk is cheap. Demonstrate that such has been done.

'Demonstrate' what, exactly?

As per the context of your discussion with taoist, it seemed that you were ultimately making a metaphysical claim or statement.....or at least making a 'loaded' one with several concurrent assumptions - for example, that "the problem" with the 'exclusive/inclusive' distinction made in regards to religion is the (paraphrasing) "assumption that all religions are man-made, therefore...".



Christianity was not made by me. I am subject to it. It is not subject to me.

Uh, right...except that saying what you said - here and what I responded to - is not the same as showing whether or not Christianity is a man-made religion (not that I'm saying that it is, just that you haven't really made an argument for it not being such a thing.....)




Which mathematics and logic are true? It's simple. It's the ones that correspond to reality. Do you think the LNC doesn't?

First, saying that something 'corresponds with reality' isn't the same as saying whether or not a belief system/philosophy/worldview is 'transcendentally conceived' or just 'man-made'....and, I have no 'problem' with the LNC, but that's beside the point.

Second, is the whole matter of making analogies between worldviews/religions and math/logic..




No. We had the prophecies that told us that Christ was to come. If Christ did not come, then God did not speak to us. If God did not speak to us, then God does not care about us if he exists at all. If God does not care, why should I?

Question: Who was the 'we' that had those 'prophecies'??


As for "If god does not care, why should I?", I won't 'go there'...

[Shadow Phoenix]

'Demonstrate' what, exactly?

As per the context of your discussion with taoist, it seemed that you were ultimately making a metaphysical claim or statement.....or at least making a 'loaded' one with several concurrent assumptions - for example, that "the problem" with the 'exclusive/inclusive' distinction made in regards to religion is the (paraphrasing) "assumption that all religions are man-made, therefore...".

Why yes. That is the assumption if one comes from such a position as I see the UUs coming from. They all have pieces of the truth but none of them have the truth. If you state all other religions are in error, then it is hard to attribute them to God.





Uh, right...except that saying what you said - here and what I responded to - is not the same as showing whether or not Christianity is a man-made religion (not that I'm saying that it is, just that you haven't really made an argument for it not being such a thing.....)

No, simply because I didn't come to this thread to argue that Christianity is true. I'm arguing why I don't agree with UU. A Muslim could argue against UU from his position and we could agree on many such grounds on where UU is in error.






First, saying that something 'corresponds with reality' isn't the same as saying whether or not a belief system/philosophy/worldview is 'transcendentally conceived' or just 'man-made'....

I disagree. If it corresponds, it is man-discovered. I say all truth comes from God and is eternally known by him. We are merely the discoverers of the truth.






Question: Who was the 'we' that had those 'prophecies'??


As for "If god does not care, why should I?", I won't 'go there'...

The Jews. I don't see any other basis for God revealing himself as such in any other religion. There is no revelation to go on if all is one and Buddhism classically is atheistic.

Any other examples are welcome to come forth.

I see the Jewish Scriptures as accurate time and time again. If they are not, then I see no hope anywhere else.

[OU812]

Why yes. That is the assumption if one comes from such a position as I see the UUs coming from. They all have pieces of the truth but none of them have the truth. If you state all other religions are in error, then it is hard to attribute them to God.

"They all have pieces of the truth" isn't necessarily the same as, "all religions are man-made"....it's more like the UU is saying, "no SINGLE religion, to the exclusion of others, has the 'sum total' of god's truth" , or what have you.

Imho, the UU aren't running off the assumption that "all religions are man-made".



No, simply because I didn't come to this thread to argue that Christianity is true. I'm arguing why I don't agree with UU. A Muslim could argue against UU from his position and we could agree on many such grounds on where UU is in error.

I understand.



I disagree. If it corresponds, it is man-discovered.

O.K.

"Man-discovered" doesn't mean, "man-made", though, (right?) and I don't think you meant to imply such........however, 'man-made' vs. 'transcendent' was part of the distinction that I was making previously. And 'man-discovered' doesn't quite equate to 'revealed by god', does it?

Which sub-set of math/logic was 'man-discovered', and which were 'man-created'??
(yes, I know your answer: "the 'true' math/logic is that which corresponds with reality". however, when a facile comparison is being made between math/logic otoh and worldviews/religions oto, you get 'inane' questions like mine...)



I say all truth comes from God and is eternally known by him. We are merely the discoverers of the truth.

Sounds like we can 'reason' what's 'the truth', then.....I'm just wondering how this 'squares' with the paradigm whereby one religion is 'true' because it has been 'divinely revealed'.



The Jews. I don't see any other basis for God revealing himself as such in any other religion. There is no revelation to go on if all is one and Buddhism classically is atheistic.

Any other examples are welcome to come forth.

O.K. So you've eliminated 'The Jews' from the 'suicidal quotient'.......what about everyone else who wasn't 'The Jews'/Ancient Israelites'?? Where was their 'hope'?

And btw, merely pointing out that a religion has 'revelation' in distinction from other religions which don't isn't the same as absolutely knowing 'who' or 'what' is behind that 'revelation......the 'dry' fact that there are religions with a 'revealed' god and religions without 'revealed' deities (or even, without 'personal' gods at all.....) doesn't say anything about the 'veracity' or ultimate origin of any religion in particular or religions in general.


I see the Jewish Scriptures as accurate time and time again. If they are not, then I see no hope anywhere else.

Which brings us back to: "where did that leave the non-Israelites??" (nevermind the implication that scriptural prophecies 'prove' anything on their own....and would Jesus' resurrection by implication be 'meaningless' had there been no 700 year-old prophecies? If so, why?)

[Shadow Phoenix]

"They all have pieces of the truth" isn't necessarily the same as, "all religions are man-made"....it's more like the UU is saying, "no SINGLE religion, to the exclusion of others, has the 'sum total' of god's truth" , or what have you.

Imho, the UU aren't running off the assumption that "all religions are man-made".

I get that simply because religions DO claim to be exclusive. It's not just Christianity. It's also Islam as well and Judaism. (Think Jews readily accept fellow Jews who claim Jesus as Messiah?) Every religion at its core has some non-negotiables. To say that those don't matter and that we'll put them all together is to say those non-negotiables are negotiable. As a Christian, if I am told I worship the same God as the Muslim, I take that as an affront to my religion in saying it's not true. If it's not true, then it can't be God-revealed.










O.K.

"Man-discovered" doesn't mean, "man-made", though, (right?) and I don't think you meant to imply such........however, 'man-made' vs. 'transcendent' was part of the distinction that I was making previously. And 'man-discovered' doesn't quite equate to 'revealed by god', does it?

Partially. I believe there are many things that we can discover that aren't told to us verbatim from the Heavens. Bluntly, ALL of creation is God's revelation of himself and as we explore the creation, we can discover more of who he is. It is a more general revelation however. I do believe God has revealed himself as logical, for instance, by making a universe where the laws of logic correspond to reality.

Which sub-set of math/logic was 'man-discovered', and which were 'man-created'??
(yes, I know your answer: "the 'true' math/logic is that which corresponds with reality". however, when a facile comparison is being made between math/logic otoh and worldviews/religions oto, you get 'inane' questions like mine...)

The same answer applies and thus I say the Christian worldview corresponds to reality. Christianity entails more than beliefs about God. It takes with it beliefs about the nature of the cosmos, the nature of man, the nature of good and evil, the nature of the afterlife, the nature of epistemology, etc. Why should religious truth be treated differently than philosophical truth or scientific truth or historical truth?





Sounds like we can 'reason' what's 'the truth', then.....I'm just wondering how this 'squares' with the paradigm whereby one religion is 'true' because it has been 'divinely revealed'.

I'm wondering how it differs. We can use reason to agree with what God has already revealed. Mortimer Adler was the one who said he was driven to Christianity by the force of its logic. Of course, I'm sure the person of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit was involved as well. If a person seeks truth and seeks it consistently, I do not doubt he will eventually come to Christ.





O.K. So you've eliminated 'The Jews' from the 'suicidal quotient'.......what about everyone else who wasn't 'The Jews'/Ancient Israelites'?? Where was their 'hope'?

I would say that my position is one that I hold after years of Christianity. Someone in a different worldview might disagree only because they think their worldview is the truth. I don't see how any other worldview corresponds though and in my case then, it's Christianity or nihilism.

And btw, merely pointing out that a religion has 'revelation' in distinction from other religions which don't isn't the same as absolutely knowing 'who' or 'what' is behind that 'revelation......the 'dry' fact that there are religions with a 'revealed' god and religions without 'revealed' deities (or even, without 'personal' gods at all.....) doesn't say anything about the 'veracity' or ultimate origin of any religion in particular or religions in general.

Many religions claim revelation of some sort. Islam certainly does. Of course, none of that proves anything. What we look at is the nature of the claim. For Christianity, I look to the resurrection of Christ. If that is true, then Christianity is true.




Which brings us back to: "where did that leave the non-Israelites??" (nevermind the implication that scriptural prophecies 'prove' anything on their own....and would Jesus' resurrection by implication be 'meaningless' had there been no 700 year-old prophecies? If so, why?)

The hypothetical I see as merely hypothetical. The fact is that they WERE revealed and apparently for a reason.

Also, who said Scriptural prophecies prove anything on their own? They're just written down until they reach the point of fulfillment. Because they were fulfilled, then we have hope.

[OU812]

I get that simply because religions DO claim to be exclusive. It's not just Christianity. It's also Islam as well and Judaism.

My point was to say that the UU presuppositions don't necessarily entail that "all religions are man-made", and your answers so far still haven't shown that to be the case, so I'm afraid that your first paragraph in this post will have to be considered as reflecting a case of us 'talking past each other'.....however I can still respond to sections of it at a time.

As to the bolded part about Islam and Judaism, yes, I realize that. I realize that Christianity isn't the only religion with exclusive claims; that wasn't my point, as I've mentioned already.



(Think Jews readily accept fellow Jews who claim Jesus as Messiah?) Every religion at its core has some non-negotiables. To say that those don't matter and that we'll put them all together is to say those non-negotiables are negotiable.

However, that doesn't get to the matter of whether that's saying all religions are "man-made"....


As a Christian, if I am told I worship the same God as the Muslim, I take that as an affront to my religion in saying it's not true.

Well, we can forget for the moment how you would go about justifying either way, the truth of whether or not you "worship the same god as the Muslim".....


If it's not true, then it can't be God-revealed.

That's great, but, how do we get down to discovering whether something is 'true', by your standards? I know your answer already somewhat; "It's true if it corresponds with reality" . But such a 'formula' used to assess the propositional truth of any given religions is hardly conclusive; it isn't as easy as you make it sound.


Partially. I believe there are many things that we can discover that aren't told to us verbatim from the Heavens. Bluntly, ALL of creation is God's revelation of himself and as we explore the creation, we can discover more of who he is. It is a more general revelation however. I do believe God has revealed himself as logical, for instance, by making a universe where the laws of logic correspond to reality.

However, would you agree that this instance of 'logical/natural revelation' has little bearing on 'salvation'/soteriology matters? Iow, does this knowledge 'save' one? And part of my comment, is to point out that this 'general revelation' doesn't speak to the veracity of any one religion necessarily, correct?


The same answer applies and thus I say the Christian worldview corresponds to reality. Christianity entails more than beliefs about God. It takes with it beliefs about the nature of the cosmos, the nature of man, the nature of good and evil, the nature of the afterlife, the nature of epistemology, etc.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the bolded part is true in that Bible was intentionally meant to 'speak for' all of those things you've enumerated ('the nature of the cosmos', 'man', etc. ).....we have knowledge (provisional as it is) about all these things quite apart - that is, independantly - from what the Bible suppposedly is meant to say on these matters.....therefore, I don't see that you've made a justification for basing an epistemic system solely on the Bible and Christianity.


Why should religious truth be treated differently than philosophical truth or scientific truth or historical truth?

"Why should mythological 'truth' be treated differently than philosophical truth or scientific truth or historical truth?" , or, "Why should folkloric 'truth' be treated differently than any of these??"

Because it's a case of 'apples and oranges' , for one, and a 'one size fits all' assumption as to the 'truth' or the 'nature of reality'.....


I'm wondering how it differs. We can use reason to agree with what God has already revealed. Mortimer Adler was the one who said he was driven to Christianity by the force of its logic. Of course, I'm sure the person of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit was involved as well. If a person seeks truth and seeks it consistently, I do not doubt he will eventually come to Christ.

What you had said previously to which I responded to, implied that 'divine revelation' wasn't totally necessary to understanding what is 'true', well, not apart from 'theological truths' anyway. That's the 'difference' that I was speaking of.


I would say that my position is one that I hold after years of Christianity. Someone in a different worldview might disagree only because they think their worldview is the truth. I don't see how any other worldview corresponds though and in my case then, it's Christianity or nihilism.

That doesn't at all address what I had asked; I had asked that if "there's no hope apart from Christ", where was the non-Israelites 'hope' prior to Jesus?



Many religions claim revelation of some sort. Islam certainly does. Of course, none of that proves anything.

Of course, that was my point.

What we look at is the nature of the claim. For Christianity, I look to the resurrection of Christ. If that is true, then Christianity is true.

That may be your idiosyncratic interpretation; for others, it would take more than the 'mere' fact of the resurrection to make Christianity true. (Peter's 'Matthean' confession, anyone?) And how would the resurrection by itself 'prove' who or exactly what Jesus was?



The hypothetical I see as merely hypothetical. The fact is that they WERE revealed and apparently for a reason.

A statement that isn't really an argument nor does it answer my question.

Also, who said Scriptural prophecies prove anything on their own?

Exactly...I had thought that you were implying such.

They're just written down until they reach the point of fulfillment. Because they were fulfilled, then we have hope.

Well, the exegetical 'technicalities' regarding the Biblical prophecies (and 'how' they're supposed to be fulfilled) is perhaps best left for another discussion. But would you say or are you saying that the fulfilled prophecy provides the 'foundation' or proper context of our faith? Technically, couldn't Christianity be 'true' even without 'fulfilled prophecies'??

[OU812]

Upped....

[whacky888]

I mean exactly what I said. Christ is the ONLY path to God. There is no other way. He said so Himself.

And, although lots of people are sincere in what they believe, it doesn't make them right, in fact, they can be "sincerely wrong".
I mean exactly what I said. Christ is the ONLY path to God. There is no other way. He said so Himself.

I will assume that your evidence is:

"No one gets to the Father except 'by' me"

Now, I will assume that your interpretation follows along the traditional line of thinking. The Word "by" being intrerpreted as "at my bidding".

Correct so far?

Then, someone may wish to explain this saying of Jesus.

But Jesus said, "No, but I shall go to the place from whence I came. If you wish to come with me, come!"
They all answered and said, "If you bid us, we come."
He said, "Verily I say unto you, no one will ever enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding, but (only) because you yourselves are full. (The Apocryphon of John)

Now, when Jesus said "Verily I say unto you", I would strongly recommend taking notice, because, if He says, "Truly", then you best believe it is True. It does not matter where He said it, so:

Anyone who wishes to reply, please do not use the "it's not in the Bible" babble.

Because, when it is written that Jesus says He is the Truth, then, everything He said anywhere, including the "hidden manna" has to be True, because, "scripture cannot be broken".

Remember, the same church that many Protestants will tell you is the "Mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth", or MYSTERY BABYLON, is the same church that put that Bible together.

When you call someone your very own personal Savior, as well as everyone else in the whole wide world, you might want have some ears to hear Him. When a mere four extremely redundant chapters are dedicated to this Savior of all mankind, you might want to look for this hidden manna. Because, in today's day and age of unlimited information, there is simply no excuse for not knowing Him.

"Seek and ye shall find".

I would seek everywhere. The "66" (how ironic) books in the canon contain but a smidgeon of the sayings of Jesus the Christ. There may be more magic tricks than His Words. It does not matter, however. Because, who listens to Jesus anyway?

Certainly not those people who go around "condemning" people to eternal hellfire for not believing exactly the way they do. This includes you mossrose.

Here's a little quiz for you.

Everyone knows where Jesus "ascended" to, right? So, tell me where. He went to sit somewhere. Where?

We'll go on from there.

peace

[Tara_Hallie]

Bump....

Just wanted to add a link to the history of the UUA for reference and to correct some of the misinformation out there.

The UUA has roots in Puritan New England. A very interesting read discussing the development of Calvinism and Unitarianism, the "Unitarian Controversy" and their eventual parting of ways (though, it seems that they work together even today on certain projects):
http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/unitariancontroversy.html

[shunyadragon]

My point was to say that the UU presuppositions don't necessarily entail that "all religions are man-made", and your answers so far still haven't shown that to be the case, so I'm afraid that your first paragraph in this post will have to be considered as reflecting a case of us 'talking past each other'.....however I can still respond to sections of it at a time.

The present UU position is more 'Transcendental Pluralism from the humanist perspective. It does not assume that ALL religions are necessarilly man-made, but assumes ALL religions are a very fallible human view of the Divine and spiritual realms, what ever they are or whether they exist or not. To the UU the human experience is universal and not exclusive to any one truth or belief. The only thing they will support with relative certainty is their humanist doctrine. IF a God or Gods exist from a UU perspective it would be more a Deist, Monist or Pantheist 'Source' or 'Sources,' maybe a woman or more than one women.

In contrast, the Baha'i Faith believes in a theistic Transcendental Pluralism, where the universal human experience is limited by the very fallible human nature, but the 'Source' some call God has a theistic relationship with ALL of humanity throughout history, and all possible worlds of all possible universes.