1
   

we went to "church" yesterday

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 06:22 am
Mame wrote-

Quote:
Sorry 'bout that.


If you were really sorry you would have chopped the post. You did submit AFTER you apologised.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 06:26 am
snood wrote:
Oh - does the old buzzard keep an early beddy-bye time?

Yeppers I do, is that a problem?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 06:29 am
dyslexia wrote:
snood wrote:
Oh - does the old buzzard keep an early beddy-bye time?

Yeppers I do, is that a problem?


Not with me -
so, what would've made the church visit a good experience for you?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 06:44 am
snood wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
snood wrote:
Oh - does the old buzzard keep an early beddy-bye time?

Yeppers I do, is that a problem?


Not with me -
so, what would've made the church visit a good experience for you?

By not ASSUMING I was an active participant in their rituals.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 06:45 am
"old buzzard"
kinda hostile don't you think?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 07:07 am
snood, I'm just guessing but I think we (you and I ) could sit on the patio with a cold glass of iced tea) and have a very pleasant chat but I fear that you have a very strong distain towards anyone who professes atheisism: sad really to to the concept of jesus like philosophy.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 07:14 am
dyslexia wrote:
snood, I'm just guessing but I think we (you and I ) could sit on the patio with a cold glass of iced tea) and have a very pleasant chat but I fear that you have a very strong distain towards anyone who professes atheisism: sad really to to the concept of jesus like philosophy.


Dys - I didn't mean any harm by "old buzzard". I'm sorry if that offended you. I think we'd probably find it easy to get along in person, as well. I don't think I've intentionally said anything to denigrate your atheism anytime lately - I'm very aware that is part of who you are. You said you attended a church service, and I was simply trying to figure out what might have made it pleasant for you. I don't attend church, and have been contemplating trying one out, so your recent foray was of interest.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 07:47 am
real life wrote:
I am glad if you met some decent, loving UU members and felt welcomed by them. But don't credit the UU. They officially had nothing to do with it. Laughing


You seem to have a dilemma accepting the notion of a non-creedal religion, real life. The mantra of 'deeds not creeds' is well known within UU. It isn't what you say, it's what you do that matters. And, while there is no scorecard to keep track of how one goes about being a 'good UU', there are certainly expectations of behavior and works as well as official positions on just about every social/political/economic topic. Read the Principles I posted, try to live by them for a week. It's more difficult than you seem to think.

UUs sometimes get a rap for not having enough meat in the sandwich. They talk a good talk but aren't as forthcoming with walking the walk. This is a fair rap in many cases and one that is often addressed from the pulpit. As in any religion, there are some who are more active in social outreach (the UUSC is an official organization within the UUA), some are more active politically, some come to church on Sunday morning for a spiritual fix and leave it at that. There are many who try to walk the walk.

UU thinks of itself as a 'free church' as opposed to a creedal church. The phrase was coined by James Luther Adams in this piece,

Quote:
I call that church free which enters into covenant with the ultimate source of existence,

That sustaining and transforming power not made with human hands.

It binds together families and generations, protecting against the idolatry of any human claim to absolute truth or authority.

This covenant is the charter and responsibility and joy of worship in the face of death as well as life.

I call that church free which brings individuals into a caring, trusting fellowship,

That protects and nourishes their integrity and spiritual freedom; that yearns to belong to the church universal;

It is open to insight and conscience from every source; it bursts through rigid tradition, giving rise to new and living language, to new and broader fellowship.

It is a pilgrim church, a servant church, on an adventure of the spirit.

The goal is the prophethood and priesthood of all believers, the one for the liberty of prophesying, the other for the ministry of healing.

It aims to find unity in diversity under the promptings of the spirit 'that bloweth where it listeth... And maketh all things new.


Many people find it easier to be told what to believe, how to act, what defines goodness. It some ways it's more difficult being in a free church, and practicing the Principles without specific definitions and codes of conduct. As to being a show about nothing, I couldn't disagree more.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 01:01 am
JPB wrote:
real life wrote:
I am glad if you met some decent, loving UU members and felt welcomed by them. But don't credit the UU. They officially had nothing to do with it. Laughing


You seem to have a dilemma accepting the notion of a non-creedal religion, real life. The mantra of 'deeds not creeds' is well known within UU. It isn't what you say, it's what you do that matters. And, while there is no scorecard to keep track of how one goes about being a 'good UU', there are certainly expectations of behavior and works as well as official positions on just about every social/political/economic topic. Read the Principles I posted, try to live by them for a week. It's more difficult than you seem to think.

UUs sometimes get a rap for not having enough meat in the sandwich. They talk a good talk but aren't as forthcoming with walking the walk. This is a fair rap in many cases and one that is often addressed from the pulpit. As in any religion, there are some who are more active in social outreach (the UUSC is an official organization within the UUA), some are more active politically, some come to church on Sunday morning for a spiritual fix and leave it at that. There are many who try to walk the walk.

UU thinks of itself as a 'free church' as opposed to a creedal church. The phrase was coined by James Luther Adams in this piece,

Quote:
I call that church free which enters into covenant with the ultimate source of existence,

That sustaining and transforming power not made with human hands.

It binds together families and generations, protecting against the idolatry of any human claim to absolute truth or authority.

This covenant is the charter and responsibility and joy of worship in the face of death as well as life.

I call that church free which brings individuals into a caring, trusting fellowship,

That protects and nourishes their integrity and spiritual freedom; that yearns to belong to the church universal;

It is open to insight and conscience from every source; it bursts through rigid tradition, giving rise to new and living language, to new and broader fellowship.

It is a pilgrim church, a servant church, on an adventure of the spirit.

The goal is the prophethood and priesthood of all believers, the one for the liberty of prophesying, the other for the ministry of healing.

It aims to find unity in diversity under the promptings of the spirit 'that bloweth where it listeth... And maketh all things new.


Many people find it easier to be told what to believe, how to act, what defines goodness. It some ways it's more difficult being in a free church, and practicing the Principles without specific definitions and codes of conduct. As to being a show about nothing, I couldn't disagree more.


Yes, that's part of what I find humorous about it.

The UU tries to have cake and eat it too.

While claiming officially to have 'no creed' (as if that were really possible) , they certainly do have 'published positions' on a number of topics (many of them political. I wonder how come we never hear the 'separation of church and state' folks go after the 'Religious Left' for their intrusion into the political process?)

Sorry if others , such as Setanta , don't see any humor in this. I try to keep a sense of humor about my own group as well as others.

Any time you have fallible human beings assemble into any kind of a group (church, political party, etc) that takes a position on anything of substance then you've got to have a sense of humor to appreciate human nature in all of it's awkwardness and contradiction.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 06:29 am
Quote:
The UU tries to have cake and eat it too.

That's because it's a bottom-up organization. When you talk about UUs as individuals being decent, loving and/or welcoming, you are also talking about the organization. There are no bishops, presbyters, or deacons. UU is a congregationally governed religion and the 'official positions' are the result of the votes of any member present at the annual General Assembly meeting where everyone has a voice, not just elected representatives or church appointed leaders.

Each church/fellowship has its own leadership structure with leaders chosen by the local members. Ministers, where present, are called by the membership and fired by the membership.


Quote:
I wonder how come we never hear the 'separation of church and state' folks go after the 'Religious Left' for their intrusion into the political process?

How so? The UU positions aren't telling the membership how to vote, they are an indication of how the membership has and will vote.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 06:42 am
JPB wrote:
You seem to have a dilemma accepting the notion of a non-creedal religion, real life. The mantra of 'deeds not creeds' is well known within UU.


This is the crux of the problem which bible-thumpers will always have with the philosophical viewpoint which you assert is forwarded by the Unitarians. (I say it in that manner because i don't purport to know enough about Unitarians to speak for them.) This is the comparison of the value of "faith" versus "works." Although most fundamentalists reject "Calvinism," and sneer at Presbyterians (the sect remaining today which most embraces and espouses Calvinist religious doctrine), they themselves (the fundamentalists) partake of one of the core doctines of John Calvin, the superiority of faith over works (i.e., of belief over deeds). Fundamentalists habitually display their ignorance, and in rejecting what they selectively view as Calvinism, display their ignorance. Calvin was the first to articulate the concept of the superiority of faith over works, and despite their protestations, fundamentalists firmly adhere to one of the core Calvinist doctrines by asserting the superiority of faith over works.

Essentially, the philosophy of the superiority of faith over works suggests that "god" will be more interested in the genuine fervor of belief of an individual than how said individual behaved toward his or her fellow humans in life. This was the first great hypocricy which disgusted me about christianity, long before i questioned the core assumptions of theism. We so frequently had sermons based on Matthew, Chapter 25:

The King James Version, Matthew 25: wrote:
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


I haven't the least doubt that bible-thumpers will attempt to insist that this passage means something other than it patently says. Nevertheless, it is plain that in this passage at least, the message is that the "righteous" are at least as responsible for assuring their good works as they are of their faith. But fundamentalists have rejected this concept, and hew to the line which was first introduced into Protestant theology by John Calvin, the superiority of faith over works.

It was precisely because i had heard this passage in Matthew worked into sermons so often that i first concluded that modern christians are so often disgustingly hypocritical--talking the talk but not walking the walk. In Matthew 23, the Pharisees are excoriated for their false public works, which did not represent genuine charity and humility, and that passage has also remained in my mind all these many years:

The King James Version, Matthew 23 wrote:
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.


Of course, i am no longer a theist, let alone a christian. I find my disgust at christian hypocricy arising anew, however, at the contemplation of the contempt expressed here for the Unitarians. We can now add them to the ever lengthening list of those condemned by bible-thumpers, who are always so eager to show their christian love, and who so often do so by denying that people with whom they disagree can possibly be christian.

Hypocrites.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 07:39 am
Set, the thumpers have been trying to burn Unitarians, and sometimes succeeding, since the days of Michael Servetus.

Thank you for your post and support.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 09:01 am
Bible thumper (also Bible basher) is a derisive term used to describe Christian fundamentalists, or anyone perceived as aggressively pushing their religious beliefs upon those who do not share them. As an insult, its target domain is broad and can often extend to anyone engaged in a public show of religiosity, fundamentalist or not.

How is it any different in using terms such as the above than what some have posted in this thread?

For me, I don't really care what religion anyone follows. I can only try to choose what is best for me. I don't think that many people are familiar with religions other than their own and rather than make comments about other religions they should concentrate on following their own.

The teachings of Jesus are the same. How people interpret them to their own ends is the cause of dissention.

If a particular denomination is not favourable, look to another. I have been to several other denominations, other than my own, and have seen things that I like and agree with and things that I don't particularly like and maybe don't even understand. There is no need to put my opinions of these churches out to others. People can make up their own minds.

I like my own religion because politics is kept totally out of it. That is important if we are to be truly Christian. Jesus did not belong to a political party....think about it.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 03:47 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Bible thumper (also Bible basher) is a derisive term used to describe Christian fundamentalists, or anyone perceived as aggressively pushing their religious beliefs upon those who do not share them. As an insult, its target domain is broad and can often extend to anyone engaged in a public show of religiosity, fundamentalist or not.

How is it any different in using terms such as the above than what some have posted in this thread?


Intrepid, if this was addressed to me, I take a much narrower view of the word thumper than your more inclusive list above. I don't believe I have ever called you a thumper, primarily because I don't think of you as one.

I don't understand what you are asking in your question. How is it different than what?

Edit:
Quote:
...That is important if we are to be truly Christian.

I gotta tell you though, Intrepid, that anyone defining for me who a true Christian is makes that person swing a lot closer to the thumper side of the scale in my eyes.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 04:06 pm
I have trouble believe the word "thumper" is that offensive to anyone...

http://patineal.tripod.com/cartoons/thumper.gif
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 04:19 pm
Actually, in rereading Intrepid's post, I'm wondering if he isn't equating the use of an insult by some against certain Christians to the derision of UU (or any religion) by Christians themselves.

If so, Intrepid, that was the point exactly. Thumpers (by my definition) make a point of deriding anyone who doesn't agree with them. They are the self-proclaimed keepers of "Truth".
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 09:05 pm
JPB wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Bible thumper (also Bible basher) is a derisive term used to describe Christian fundamentalists, or anyone perceived as aggressively pushing their religious beliefs upon those who do not share them. As an insult, its target domain is broad and can often extend to anyone engaged in a public show of religiosity, fundamentalist or not.

How is it any different in using terms such as the above than what some have posted in this thread?


Intrepid, if this was addressed to me, I take a much narrower view of the word thumper than your more inclusive list above. I don't believe I have ever called you a thumper, primarily because I don't think of you as one.

I don't understand what you are asking in your question. How is it different than what?

Edit:
Quote:
...That is important if we are to be truly Christian.

I gotta tell you though, Intrepid, that anyone defining for me who a true Christian is makes that person swing a lot closer to the thumper side of the scale in my eyes.


No, JPB, it was not directed soley at you. It was more of a generic post and not meant as a slight to anyone. No, you have not specifically called me a thumper and I appreciate that.

Different that making comments about UU or any other religion that someone does not understand or agree with.

I didn't think I was defining what Christianity was. I was merely pointing out that I thought politics should be separate from Christianity It is not my place to make judgement on one's religious beliefs.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 09:07 pm
JPB wrote:
Actually, in rereading Intrepid's post, I'm wondering if he isn't equating the use of an insult by some against certain Christians to the derision of UU (or any religion) by Christians themselves.

If so, Intrepid, that was the point exactly. Thumpers (by my definition) make a point of deriding anyone who doesn't agree with them. They are the self-proclaimed keepers of "Truth".


Thanks for re-reading. That WAS my point.

Except that I still don't particularly like the word thumper as it pertains to anyone.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Sep, 2006 09:21 pm
Intrepid wrote:


Except that I still don't particularly like the word thumper as it pertains to anyone.


Unless you're a rabbit and you have Bambi for a best freind.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Sep, 2006 05:19 am
Well, as everyone knows, the person who used that term here feels special privilege to insult with impunity all things religious, so - whadya gonna do?!?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 12:41:14