we went to "church" yesterday

JPB precisely expressed my reason for using the term bible-thumper--those who think that their religious world view is the only correct one, and who preach to others about the defectiveness of their views. Precisely, it is motivated by the nasty attack on Unitarians launched by "real life," who trots out the bible-thumpers' favorite accusation, that those with whom they disagree are not real christians, just because they don't agree with the bible-thumper's theology.

And, of course, we have snottiness from Snood, who thinks religious beliefs and the expression of them ought to have a special, privileged immunity from all criticism. It requires no special privilege to take notice of the hatefulness of people who tout their dedication to "christian love."

0 Replies

hmmm, I use it occasionally. I know there have been many threads discussing the situation where the use of a word that is considered an insult by some is being used as a descriptive noun by others without intent to insult. I think 'thumper' falls into that category. I won't say that I ever use it as a compliment, but that doesn't mean it's intended as an insult.

Also, I have no problem with real life posting his thoughts on UU. They represent his opinion and have given me an opportunity to present additional information about UU that I otherwise wouldn't have shared. I think he has some misconceptions about the religion which he stated as fact, but I welcome the opportunity to have the discussion.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

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.

I think there are few if any ministers who tell their members 'how to vote'. But if the UU leadership takes official positions on political issues, (and they do), why do we seldom if ever hear the drumbeat of 'separation of church and state' against the UU, who are for the most part those of the Religious Left?

JPB wrote:

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.

There are many groups, as you know, with a congregational-style government where the leaders are chosen by local members.

Which brings up an interesting question: How does one become a member?

Since there is no 'creed' held in common, on what other basis is one admitted or denied admission to a UU congregation?

Can one be expelled once admitted? And on what basis?

-------------------------------

Now it should be obvious why I questioned the use of the label 'Christian' to describe a UU. But for those who misunderstood it, the term 'Christian' implies a belief in Christ. If a group does not require a belief in Christ , or belief in the teachings of Christ, in order to hold membership, then in what way is it a 'Christian' group? The answer should be clear. It is really not a 'Christian' group in any meaningful sense of the term.

0 Replies

It's not clear at all. What do you mean by "a belief in Christ?" Someone could beleive that the putative Jesus existed, and that he proposed a philosophy the application of which could redeem one's soul--and do so without subscribing to your interpretation of scripture, and without subscribing to a belief that the putative Jesus was/is god. This reminds me of Joe's insistence that someone must believe Jesus was/is god in order to be considered a christian. That is a particularist view, and a subjective view. It is not objective proof.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

hmmm, I use it occasionally. I know there have been many threads discussing the situation where the use of a word that is considered an insult by some is being used as a descriptive noun by others without intent to insult. I think 'thumper' falls into that category. I won't say that I ever use it as a compliment, but that doesn't mean it's intended as an insult.

Also, I have no problem with real life posting his thoughts on UU. They represent his opinion and have given me an opportunity to present additional information about UU that I otherwise wouldn't have shared. I think he has some misconceptions about the religion which he stated as fact, but I welcome the opportunity to have the discussion.

C'mon, JPB. The term was used pejoratively. The liklihood that its used as a simple objective description is slim generally, and nonexistent when used by the individual who introduced it to this thread. Call a spade a spade.

0 Replies

Just can't get over your obsessive hatred, can ya?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Just can't get over your obsessive hatred, can ya?

Doesn't Setanta mean "mighty wind" in cherokee?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It's not clear at all. What do you mean by "a belief in Christ?" Someone could beleive that the putative Jesus existed, and that he proposed a philosophy the application of which could redeem one's soul--and do so without subscribing to your interpretation of scripture, and without subscribing to a belief that the putative Jesus was/is god. This reminds me of Joe's insistence that someone must believe Jesus was/is god in order to be considered a christian. That is a particularist view, and a subjective view. It is not objective proof.

hi Setanta,

In regard to the UU specifically, it matters not.

The whole point is that NONE of the views which you described are required for membership in the UU. None at all.

It doesn't matter what variation you come up with, NONE of those are required either.

One could say 'Is one a Christian if he believed Christ was a truck driver?' It wouldn't matter. UU membership is (supposedly) 'creedless' . That was the point I made specificallly in regard to the UU.

Hope you're having a great day.

0 Replies

No, "real life," you claimed that UU members were not christians. Now, some many not be--but others could well be. If you go to the UUA web site, they clearly state that Jewish and Christian traditions underpin their beliefs. Yes, they are creedless, and state as much. However, your statement was global, you didn't qualify it. So, it is entirely possible that some, and perhaps even many members of UUA are christians. Your statement does not take that into consideration. This is one of the reason why organized religion disgusts me--the absolutism. And, of course, i am particularly digusted by those, such as perfervid Muslims or Christian fundamentalists, who are willing to assert that they are the guardians of truth, and all others are apostate.

0 Replies

We are a multi-faith group. As of 2006-JAN, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters: belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists and what form it takes, etc.(WWW.religioustolerance.org)
FROM THE UU CHURCH......THEY ARE AN INCLUSIVE GROUP OF ABOUT EVERY RELIGION OUT THERE........

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

We are a multi-faith group. As of 2006-JAN, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters: belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists and what form it takes, etc.(WWW.religioustolerance.org)
FROM THE UU CHURCH......THEY ARE AN INCLUSIVE GROUP OF ABOUT EVERY RELIGION OUT THERE........

Which therefore means that "real life" is incorrect to state that no UUA member is a christian.

0 Replies

sentanta depends.........according to the bible and to Christ...a christian is one who is born again and seperate from the world and other religious teachings that contradict the bible.........so if these in this church are christians why are they doing what the bible says not to do.........

0 Replies

No, that is what you claim the bible says. You are indulging in exactly that type of particularist absolutism which i have deplored. There is absolutely no good reason for me to assume that you know the truth in these matters more than does anyone else.

0 Replies

What at least one reference has to say about who is a Christian.

Range of definitions of "Christian:

There are also many distinct definitions of the term "Christian" (pronounced 'kristee`ân). Different people have defined a "Christian" as a person who has:

Heard the Gospel in a certain way, and accepted its message, or
Become "saved" -- i.e. they have trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior), or
Been baptized as an infant, or
Gone to church regularly, or
Recited and agreed with a specific church creed or creeds, or
Simply tried to understand and follow Jesus' teachings, or
Led a decent life.
Following these different definitions, the percentage of North American adults who are Christians currently ranges from less than 1% to about 75%.

Within a given denomination or wing of Christianity, there is usually a consensus about who is a Christian, and who is not. However, there is often little agreement among members of different faith groups on a common definition of "Christianity."

Visitors to this web site send us many E-mails daily that comment on its contents. About 80% are positive. But among our negative and sometimes angry Emails, and occasional death threat, the two most common topics are the proper definition of "Christian" and our use of BCE and CE format to identify years instead of BC and AD.

What people can agree on, and what they cannot:
With a bit of effort, one can sometimes collect a random group of adults and have them reach a consensus on a definition of:

Who is an Evangelical Christian, or
Who is a Roman Catholic, or
Who is an Eastern Orthodox believer, or
Who follows the Historical Protestant faith, or
Who is a Pentecostal, or
Who is a Mormon, or
Who is a Jehovah's Witness,
etc.

But it is probably impossible to have any large group of adults reach a consensus on precisely who is a "Christian," and who is not.

There are on the order of 1,500 denominations, para-church organizations, and other groups in the U.S. who consider themselves to be Christian. 1 Added to this are thousands of independent Christian congregations which are not affiliated with a denomination. One could assemble a random group of adults and ask each individual to sort the 1,000 groups into two piles: those which are "truly" Christian, and those that are not. In some cases, an individual will select their own faith group as the only truly Christian denomination, and define all of the other 999 as sub-Christian, quasi-Christian, or non-Christian. Other individuals might say that all 1,000 denominations are Christian. Most likely, a given individual will select most of the 1,000 groups as Christian, and reject the others. There is no possibility of reaching a common definition which would identify which groups are "truly" Christian.

Source

0 Replies

Intrepid's source wrote:

There is no possibility of reaching a common definition which would identify which groups are "truly" Christian.

This is precisely why i objected to the statement by "real life," and why i am both amused and disgusted when bible thumpers begin ranting against Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians, or any other group, claiming that they aren't christians.

0 Replies

I shall be looking into joining the Mormons.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote

Quote:

No, that is what you claim the bible says. You are indulging in exactly that type of particularist absolutism which i have deplored. There is absolutely no good reason for me to assume that you know the truth in these matters more than does anyone else.

you can deplore it all you like but the bible teaches absolutes....Look at the first commandment from God......Look at Christ's words
what does it take to be a christian (disciple of Christ)
john 3:16,18 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 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.
john 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
matthew 7:13-14Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
matthew 10:38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

Now those are just a few of Christ's teachings that say You have to believe in me...You have to follow me........You have to born again....I love those people that say 'Christ taught love and caring for those in need and thats all you have to do" then reject all the other teachings that Christ taught ....you have to follow them all...you cant just pick and choose ....

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Setanta wrote
Quote:
No, that is what you claim the bible says. You are indulging in exactly that type of particularist absolutism which i have deplored. There is absolutely no good reason for me to assume that you know the truth in these matters more than does anyone else.

you can deplore it all you like but the bible teaches absolutes....Look at the first commandment from God......Look at Christ's words
what does it take to be a christian (disciple of Christ)
john 3:16,18 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 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.
john 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
matthew 7:13-14Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
matthew 10:38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

Now those are just a few of Christ's teachings that say You have to believe in me...You have to follow me........You have to born again....I love those people that say 'Christ taught love and caring for those in need and thats all you have to do" then reject all the other teachings that Christ taught ....you have to follow them all...you cant just pick and choose ....

Once again, you put forward you opinion, and claim it is the absolute truth. Not only do i have no reason to believe you know the truth absolutely, i get more and more evidence over time that you are a close-minded fanatic.

0 Replies

setanta I was just responding to your accusation that i just "claim" what the bible says. I gave you verses in that bible that say what i say....Instead of debating or even being mature enough to read those verses and see that im correct, (on what a person who wants to be a christian must do) you then go to insults..."Narrowminded fanatic" I find it hypocriticial that you call me narrowminded as a slur yet you yourself aren't openminded enough to see that NOt everyone believes as you do........I know people dont all believe as i do....they have that choice and i dont scoff or call them names. I just have a set of beliefs based on the whole bible that will not be swayed....and i agree with reallife those guys cant be christian... if they think everyone will be saved and you dont have to believe Jesus was the Messiah who died and rose from the grave......etc...etc the uu church believes all will be saved and you can be an athiest and its alright......those are contradictions to what Christ taught and how can one be a disciple of Christ if they reject the foundation of his teachings.....i wouldnt be so presumptous to want to become a buddhist and still reject the basic tenants of their faith....that is ridiculous.....

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

I gave you verses in that bible that say what i say....

Which translation/edition of the bible are you using, Kate? Why have you chosen that translation/edition to follow?

0 Replies

we went to "church" yesterday

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know