Church of Jesus Without Jesus

"... sweeping the world"...
yes, these ultralib churches don't have a bright future...
but churches locked into literal views of the Christ Myths don't have bright prospects either...
literal-churches are only sweeping the relatively uneducated parts of the world...
somehow what's needed is church with the reality of the mortal man Jesus and with the meaning found in the unreliable Myths...
to keep the great spiritual value of the Christ Myths...
but keep the perspective that those Myths are just supernatural stories invented by superstitious ancient men...
so keep Jesus and keep Christ...
but make sure the reality of Jesus is distinct from the mythology of Christ...

faith hope love joy peace to all...
Forgive God...

"The thing most conservatives miss is that liberal/progressive Christianity actually demands more of you than traditional models because it doesn't provide you with the same certainties and assurances. In short it requires more courage to be a liberal."

Well, that's debatable, Nathan. Liberal Christianity doesn't provide you with the same certainties and assurances, but it hardly demands anything even close to the disciplines and sacrifices of the traditional models. Traditional Christianity demands that you avoid sin, repent and do penance when you do sin, and otherwise work to reform your life. Liberal Christianity preaches against only one sin, judgmentalism, and has pretty well thrown out all the old categories of sin and their relationship to one's salvation. Does it take more courage to lower one's carbon emissions and avoid criticizing--publicly, anyway--Jefferts Schori's vestment choices than it does to follow the Ten Commandments and the moral law as taught by ancient forms of Christianity? I tend to doubt it.

...or an episode of Dr. Phil, without the rigor

Great now I have to wipe off half chewed granola from my screen.

Man and life have no intrinsic meaning; it's simply "mate, spawn and die" (to sloganize Dawkins). Denying and rejecting an extrinsic source of meaning is itself meaningless if there is none. Trying to create meaning while denying the basis of meaning is meaningless.

This puts me in mind of that religion writer who got "queasy" watching a Huckabee sermon, because she realized he actually meant what he was saying, and wasn't just putting on a Sunday morning morality play. Sounds like this church would be much more palatable to her kind.

More:

Fr. Oscar Romero

Jean Donovan, Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, and Dorothy Kazel

This godless church bunch is too much for another liberal Protestant pastor quoted in the story, who said Rev. Gretta is nice and all, but they really have gone too far.

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." - GK Chesterton

Self-referential man-worship. It's no wonder why religions that offer answers without compromise are growing, while watery man-worship is declining.

How has Islam taken over the world? By making the case that Islam has answers. How did the great missionaries of Catholicsm convert the world? By unequivocally stating that there is no salvation outside the Church.

"Glorious Hope?"

Please.

If I want to go to church, I'll look for a house of God where the Lord is the focus of the service. If I need inspiration from man, I'll listen to Beethoven.

Glory, indeed.

It's all speciesism. Once you figure that out, there is really no point in living any longer. :^)

I've always felt that way about Unitarians. Don't misunderstand me, I find most Unitarians to be decent, moral, good people but their faith isn't a faith and their church isn't a church. It's really a question of language more than one of theology for me. I don't believe Godless/faithless "churches" can call themselves churches with any sense of intellectual honesty.

I don't think these kind of congregations are bad things but they aren't churches they are something else, a sort of hybrid between the worldy aspects of a church and a community group.

the knack liberal Protestantism has for making the Gospel "unutterably dull."

Judging by what I've read of Mark Shea's blog, he's a world-class authority on "unutterable dullness".

A note to sigaliris:

Although I read Rod's blog every day this is the first time I have posted. As a Canadian I had to chuckle at your interpretation of what the drunk at the hockey game was saying. I think what he was really saying was "board now", as in drive the opposing players into the boards, not that he was bored.

As for the story about the non-church in Toronto, I am not surprised to read about something like this coming out of the United Church. It is extremely liberal, and I have often wondered why they still call themselves a Christian church. They used to be a Christian church, but have sadly wandered far from their roots.

When a pulpit, not an altar, becomes the center of church worship, it's not long before the person behind the pulpit in fact becomes the church's center. Indeed, it's often because he/she is the center that he/she is behind a pulpit to begin with.

What is the point of this post? To prove that there are whack-jobs out there in Christendom? But surely we knew this already?

>>>
How has Islam taken over the world? By making the case that Islam has answers. Posted by: gjoe | March 26, 2008 9:10 AM
>>>

Well, that and "Convert or die, infidel!"

I guess you don't have to worry about losing your faith when you don't have any faith to lose.

Eric W has sharpened an interesting point that Dawkins himself ultimately gets ipaled upon. Dawkins finally exhorts humanity to "rebel" against its "selfish genes." But according to Dawkins' world view, there really is no rational basis for rebellion. Conversely, there is ultimately no rational basis for going with the flow. There is no rational basis for any human course of action.

"Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the Will of the Father"

Emphasis added; translation from memory, go look it up.

I really can't add anything to what the apostle Paul said, just a few years after the event:

1 Corinthians 15
The Fact of Christ's Resurrection
1Now (A)I make known to you, brethren, the (B)gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, (C)in which also you stand,

2by which also you are saved, (D)if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, (E)unless you believed in vain.

3For (F)I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died (G)for our sins (H)according to the Scriptures,

4and that He was buried, and that He was (I)raised on the third day (J)according to the Scriptures,

5and that (K)He appeared to (L)Cephas, then (M)to the twelve.

6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some (N)have fallen asleep;

7then He appeared to (O)James, then to (P)all the apostles;

8and last of all, as to one untimely born, (Q)He appeared to me also.

9For I am (R)the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I (S)persecuted the church of God.

10But by (T)the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I (U)labored even more than all of them, yet (V)not I, but the grace of God with me.

11Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there (W)is no resurrection of the dead?

13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;

14and (X)if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He (Y)raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;

17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; (Z)you are still in your sins.

18Then those also who (AA)have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are (AB)of all men most to be pitied.
The Order of Resurrection
20But now Christ (AC)has been raised from the dead, the (AD)first fruits of those who (AE)are asleep.

21For since (AF)by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

22For (AG)as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Ya gotta give it to Rod in one sense. When he talks and behaves in a way which is completely and totally opposed to everything Jesus taught, he's very up-front about it. (Yeah, I'm judgmental. Suck a lemon.)

One can certainly wonder at, if not approve of, his candor. He's not even pretending to be a Christian, at least not at that moment. (Can anyone be a part-time Christian?)

Now we all violate the teachings of Jesus all day every day, but this guy doesn't even have the awareness to be ashamed of it.

The idea that to behave like Jesus is more important than to believe Him to be God is more important than you are suggesting. It is one of the main points of divergence between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Kierkegaard can be seen as more on Tolstoy's side with his notion of the Paradigm, while he seems to be more like Dostoevsky when it comes to the place of Reason in knowing God. A good book on this subject is George Steiner's Tolstoy or Dostoevsky. I would also recommend Berdyaev's book on Dostoevsky. When Flannery O'Connor replied to Dorothy Parker that if God was just a myth or metaphor then to hell with belief in God, I'm on her side. The comment is to the point and witty, but it does not end all discussion unless you believe that one should stop learning. I probably won't agree with Ms. Vosper's book, but I may well read it. Strangely, that is how one learns. Posted by: Don | March 26, 2008 11:46 AM

I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater. (She just wrote that book, A Charmed Life.) She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual. We went at eight and at one, I hadn't opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say. The people who took me were Robert Lowell and his now wife, Elizabeth Hardwick. Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them. Well, toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. [Mary McCarthy] said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the "most portable" person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, "Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it." That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable.

- Flannery O'Connor in a letter dated December 16, 1955 to Elizabeth "Betty" Hester (anonymously referred to as "A"; the collection of letters between O'Connor and Hester was unsealed May 12, 2007)

Oh, Simon, don't forget the verses where he tells us to think ourselves better than other people because we have the "correct" beliefs.

So what, Askeptical? Does that mean that everyone who quotes Scripture is Christopher Hitchens? Where did you go to college? Or high school even?

Funny how some folks are only upset with me for being "judgmental" when I criticize liberal sacred cows. I don't believe any of you sensitivos have ever lit into me for coming down hard on George W. Bush.

But never mind. You know, I'm really, really not interested in hearing more gassing on about what a horrible, terrible, judgmental cretin I am. We know that quite a few of you believe that. You've made that clear. I am unwilling to watch another thread hijacked over this. If you want to make a comment about the substance of this post, fine. But if you want to speculate on the state of Your Working Boy's soul, or his style, then prepare to be unpublished. I write a blog that I want to be lively, interesting, and argumentative. I must be doing something right, because readership is going through the roof. If I took extreme care to avoid saying anything that might possibly strike some sensitive soul among out tens of thousands of readers as judgmental, I would end up producing mush.

For all of you who find me intolerably judgmental, nobody's making you read this blog. I welcome your prayers for the state of my soul (I surely need them, and always will), and I invite you to associate me with Evelyn Waugh's response to a woman who said she had no idea how a man who called himself a Christian could be so nasty. Waugh told her to just imagine what kind of monster he'd be without Christ. Just so.

Now, let's get back to discussing the meat of this post, and leave me, myself and I out of it.

>>>Waugh told her to just imagine what kind of monster he'd be without Christ. Just so.

Well, you were writing for the National Review during that period in your life, right?

I don't think saying "The gospel preached by this pastor is any gospel at all and is nothing but a set of particularly boring platitudes" constitutes anything like the "judging" Jesus warned against.

I would agree with that, up to a point. But Mark, re-read both the post and the comments. Do you detect, as I do, a flavor of "we're so much better than these Liberal Protestants"?

It would be possible, and would probably be meritorious, to post something like "here are the mistakes this congregation is making, let us be wary that we don't ourselves hide out from the resurrection in different ways. oh, and here's why the literal resurrection is so important in our lives." Instead of "see how foolish these people are, unlike us, who have it right."

Besides, Rod admits that he's being judgmental, in so many words. I can only agree.

I don't want to "hijack" the thread. But I would like to see a little more self-awareness among those posters who claim to be Christians, including myself. (I am certainly not free from blame on this score!!) Those who don't make the claim of Christianity have free license, I guess, to say anything they like.

On a more serious note, I think it's important that people who go around in public claiming to be followers of Jesus, as Rod does and as I do, try to behave in ways which first, do follow Jesus, and second, thereby give a good witness to unbelievers. I've talked to so many people who are desperately in need of Christ who say, and say truly, "Well, this and that public witness to Christianity says and does thus and such, and if that's Christianity I want no part of it." Remember what Jesus said about scandal and stumbling blocks. He wasn't just talking about pedophile priests and corrupt bishops, you know. I don't want to be a part of that bad witness, and I would ask all of you, and you Mark in particular, to call it to my attention when I start being judgmental or unloving.

(When did I get to be a spokesperson for the Dictatorship of Relativism?)

Hm. Interesting question, meh.

Both preachers seem to be in direct contradiction of the gospels, in very different ways, so they share that at least.

Myself, I'd rather hear "be good to other people (for reasons which are actually totally inadequate)" than "God damn [anyone]." The second message seems to me to be more seriously in violation of the teachings of Jesus than the first, but your mileage may differ.

Max, of course your seminarian has Paul on his side. Me too. The professor in the story seems to have lost his way.

There are much better and more logical philosophies by which to live one's life if Jesus didn't rise from the dead. If His bones were discovered, it would gut a lot of Christ's sayings of their validity, not to mention make the New Testament a lie.

I have to admit, this is a question I often think about when I am attending my very liberal, inclusive Episcopal church. At a certain point, it seems pointless say that one is a Christian if one doesn't believe in the Resurrection, or doesn't at least consider him or herself a follower of Christ.

My church considers that it has a ministry to skeptics and believers, but in recent years, it seems to have tilted in the direction of skeptics, just as it has swung to the Left politically. As a moderate agnostic, I have to struggle with this. And I also struggle with the fact that some of the people I most admire in my church don't in any way accept the literal truth of the Resurrection.

If the bones of Jesus were discovered tomorrow, I'd start bidding a sad farewell to ham and bacon. And wondering if the local modern Orthodox rabbi says it's ok to watch college football on Saturdays.

Dale,

LOL! So true.

jb

Swaggart does look a bit haggard these days, and Haggard has lost some of his swagger...

...but Christians and their leaders don't have the monopoly on hypocrisy or failure to according to their faith.

Ignoring ridiculous claims that they go back to the apostles, Unitarianism dates back at least to 1773. That's quite a long time, long before Dr. Phil. Consider this fact when alleging that it will all blow away any day now.

Error - and I do think Unitarianism is error, though I am now carefully avoiding saying that there's anything wrong with Unitarians - has a surprising staying power. Those of us who recognize the theological error here would be wise to consider just why this notion has persisted for 235 years so far. OK, that's a lot less than 2,000, but it's not a negligible number either.

They seem like complete flakes to me, with my (very limited) contact, and while I am in (sinfully) judgmental mode. (Did I ever say I wasn't a sinner? At least we have Truth in Advertising here.) But obviously there are a lot of people who disagree with me on that. Why is that? Can I just write all these people off because they're wrong and so they're bad people (or, just wrong people)? What's the attraction here?

Of course we may end up deciding that the attraction is Falsehood, and so write it off in the end. But the question deserves at least to be asked. In general, good attracts; evil repels. Especially as centuries pass. So what is it that operates for 235 years as an attraction? May it possibly be some good thing (non-judgmentalism, acceptance, clarity) from which we could learn?

Oh Susan, please. The bigotry has nothing to do with the fact that those cited behaved badly regarding sex.

The bigotry is found in two non-sequiturs:

First, the deliberate and complete disregard of the point made in order to slime Christianity as a whole based on the behavior of sinners.

This is not only a non sequitur, but it is ironic given that Christianity claims we are all sinners. Though not all in the same manner as Jaybird's point would require. And this leads into the second reason why the response was non sequitur.

Just because there are even tens of thousands, millions even, of Christians who have violated their vows of celibacy, it does not follow that ALL Christians violate that vow, or even that those who do, do so every time they are tempted.

Sure.

But I'm talking about witness.

Suppose someone came to you and said, "I have the answer to all life's problems!" and when you examined their own lives, you saw untreated drug addiction, divorce and untreated alcoholism.

Now of course those facts do not, of themselves, invalidate the message. But it does kind of make you wonder?

Jesus said (and I fully understand that I'm in trouble on this thread for quoting this guy, but whatever) "Consider the trees and the fruits. Can a good tree bear bad fruits? Does a bad tree bear good fruits? Do you gather figs from thistles?" (Free translation, from memory, look it up.)

Now this is just codified common sense, yes? Someone who comes to you and says, "I can make you rich!" who is himself living in a hovel, you say, Oh well.

You may think that unbelievers don't or shouldn't or something judge the message of Jesus by the way we who claim to be Christians live, but in fact they do, and we can't stop them. (And Jesus sanctions that view, by the way.) What we can do is strive to live in such a way as to give credit to the resurrection, or at a minimum admit it when we don't, and do penance.

Seen any bishops in sackcloth lately?

"Sure.

But I'm talking about witness."

Fine, but that's not Jaybird's point (i.e., belief in Jesus never kept anyone chaste), nor is it the point of my reply. In other words, that's not what we are talking about.

>>>>
They seem like complete flakes to me, with my (very limited) contact, and while I am in (sinfully) judgmental mode. (Did I ever say I wasn't a sinner? At least we have Truth in Advertising here.) But obviously there are a lot of people who disagree with me on that. Why is that? Can I just write all these people off because they're wrong and so they're bad people (or, just wrong people)? What's the attraction here?

Of course we may end up deciding that the attraction is Falsehood, and so write it off in the end. But the question deserves at least to be asked. In general, good attracts; evil repels. Especially as centuries pass. So what is it that operates for 235 years as an attraction? May it possibly be some good thing (non-judgmentalism, acceptance, clarity) from which we could learn?

Posted by: Susan | March 26, 2008 1:47 PM
>>>>

I spent a couple of years attending a Unitarian Church in Houston - the attraction was interesting people of above average education an intelligence, interesting discussion groups, and superb musical presentations.

"Judge not, that you may not be judged. For the measure you mete out to another will be measured back to you."

Susan, you are misusing or misunderstanding the word "judge", as if Jesus advocates indifference toward what people believe and do. Only persons can be judged, and only God can judge them (because only God truly knows what's in their hearts).

Ideas that are false, and practices that are wrong, can and should be criticized. And even the most cursory reading of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament illustrates this over and over again.

There is nothing inherently unChristian about saying, "Launching the Iraq War was a stupid and immoral act" (as I happen to believe). But it would be judgmentalism - prohibited by Christ -- for me to say or think some variant of, "Because George W. Bush launched the Iraq War, he deserves to go to hell."

"How is my simple statement of fact - that belief in the Ressurrection is no indicator of chaste behavior..."

But that's NOT what you said. If you had said that, I would have heartily agreed. Rather, you wrote, "As if belief in Jesus stops anyone from going out and getting laid in the first place..."

Your's is a universal statement that belief in the divinity of Jesus doesn't stop ANYONE from fornication.

"...any more or less bigoted than your insinuation that the lack of said belief would be an indicator of unchaste behavior?"

I never insinuated that, nor do I believe that. I emphatically deny that lack of belief in Christ's divinity, or even lack of belief in ANY divinity causes unchaste behavior. Indeed, that idea is stupid. So, any bigotry on THAT inference would be your's because you are the one to infer it, perhaps due to projection. Who knows?

Your's is a universal statement that belief in the divinity of Jesus doesn't stop ANYONE from fornication.

I suppose there are people who do take the strictures of their faith seriously enough to actually live by them, but statistically, only a very small minority of people in this country are virgins on their wedding day anymore, going back at least 50 years. Our own working boy has admitted on this blog that he failed to live up to that standard, and so did I back when I believed that stuff. Likewise, the rates of teen pregnancy, STDs and earlier-age-of-first-sexual-experience are all significantly higher among self-identified Evangelical/born-again teenagers than the general population. Likewise, divorce rates are higher among self-identified Evangelical adults than the general population. So sorry if it offends you, but I hardly think it's anti-Christian bigotry to point out that believing Christians are no better than the general population when it comes to actually living up to the moral standards of their professed beliefs.

I never insinuated that, nor do I believe that. I emphatically deny that lack of belief in Christ's divinity, or even lack of belief in ANY divinity causes unchaste behavior. Indeed, that idea is stupid. i>

Which of course must be why you told a stupid (and at any rate unverifiable) anecdote that basically makes that exact point - that without belief in a literal resurrection, there's no reason to be chaste?

So, any bigotry on THAT inference would be your's because you are the one to infer it, perhaps due to projection. Who knows?

Well, you're the one who first played the bigotry card, not me. But I won't accuse you of projecting here.

>>>>
Thanks, John E.
>>>>

You are welcome

>>>>>
It seems to me in light of that, though, that they should discard the name "Unitarian Universalist" as no longer being descriptive or prescriptive of the church/denomination as those terms were originally theologically defined.
>>>>>

I am sure they will take your opinions under consideration ;-)

>>>>
Why call one's self "Unitarian" and "Universalist" if neither the definition of the Godhead nor belief in the eternal salvation of all men (and perhaps also of all angels and demons, including Satan himself) are not part of the belief system?
>>>>

Too much trouble to change the signs in front of the buildings and to order new stationery?

>>>>
Why not simply call themselves "Humanists"?
Posted by: Eric W | March 26, 2008 3:16 PM
>>>>

Because Humanists are a subset of their membership, not the totality.

So sorry if it offends you, but I hardly think it's anti-Christian bigotry to point out that believing Christians are no better than the general population when it comes to actually living up to the moral standards of their professed beliefs. To the Christians here, this is a very serious challenge, and should be taken seriously by all of us. - Susan

Susan,

If written words count for anything, then those of us who post here a lot are going to have a lot to answer for:

Matthew 12: 36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (NASB)

Maybe for the sake of our souls, and for the sake of Rod's soul, we should stop visiting and posting here.

"Which of course must be why you told a stupid (and at any rate unverifiable) anecdote that basically makes that exact point - that without belief in a literal resurrection, there's no reason to be chaste?"

Jaybird, you're not really THAT obtuse are you? In any event you are still projecting your own prejudice into the joke.

The point of the joke is that for the seminarian in question, if EVERYTHING he believes is a lie (an his belief in the Resurrection is by extension a certain belief in the nature of everything), then he is left, in his mind, with nothing. Thus, let's screw and have fun. It does not follow that his hypothetical lose of faith would mean that OTHERS are left with nothing. That is another of your non sequiturs.

Furthermore, the point of the joke was not about sex at all; it was about the object and nature of Christian faith. That this point is too nuanced for you is no suprise given you penchant for faulty reasoning and erroneous conclusions.

My comment regarding your anit-Christian and biggoted comment stands. Your comment does not require erroneous conclusions to see its prima facie bigotry. There is no need for tortuous inferences or logically unsound conversions of statemtents.

Again, to slam Christianity because Christians make terrible Christians is overwhelmingly tempting to the bigot and the child. It shows a lack of nuance and/or a lack of good faith on the part of the "slammer". You statement, later protests on your part notwithstanding, was not one of statistics. It was a wholesale slam.

Bigot or child; it makes no difference really. The result is the same.

Eric W, we're answerable.

I was a frequent commenter, a few years ago, on a self-identified "feminist" blog. The content wasn't as trivial as that description suggests. This blog had some very good and enlightening discussions.

Then the blog owner, a cartoonist by profession (and a nice guy, by the way), sold the blog to a bunch of pornographers. (!!) The blog went on as before, except that at the bottom were the links to the pornography, and except that the blogmaster made some money, which he claimed he needed for the rent.

The really radical hate-men feminists marched off in a body instantly. Of course that they did that determined me to stay.

I sort of hung around for a while.....but then the real logic of the situation bothered me. Every time I posted, I was putting money in the pockets of these porn merchants, get it? So I quit.

The situation here isn't nearly this bad, but as you compellingly suggest, Eric, it's not clean either, not necessarily from Rod's side, but from mine.

Still pondering.

Bigot or child; it makes no difference really. The result is the same.

Well, you're certainly an authority on childish bigotry in these com-boxes, so I guess it takes one to know one.

Man, I just got PWNED.

"If I were looking for a church, and Max was introduced as a typical parishioner . . . maybe not so much."

Sig,

Good for you. Fortunately, I am many things, but I am not typical.

In any event, if I were to choose any church base on the people in the pews I would reject them all. For me, it is the doctrine and its veracity that make the difference, not my failure (and most everyone else's for that matter) to be exemplars of that doctrine.

But it's good to know that we can share spirits in one form if not the other. ;-)

Sorry for excessive italics.

Ya gotta wonder, too, about the Beliefnet censors.

Know that everything we say here, or try to say, is subject to the approval of these folks, and I don't even know who they are.

Get out, Francis, don't wanna hear it!

Society is sick, and getting sicker. Call a Church a place of worship and refusing to say Jesus or God, that's not a church that's a charity looking for cash tax free. It's not acceptable to be a Christian but it's okay to parade on public streets holding a banner espousing the wonders of being a member of the Communist Party. How much more damage will we allow Liberals Thinkers (oximoron)to do to our society, if we don't start speaking out--no screaming in rage at what's happening we shall one day be imprisoned for our beliefs. It's happening in Europe, call an abortion murder and you'll do serious jail time in Germany. Call Islam violent and you are off to jail for promoting hatred in England. In Canada the words of the bible is likely to "Hurt someone's feelings" ergo under section 13 you can be persecuted for quoting the BIBLE.

Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that encompasses many faith traditions. Unitarian Universalists include people who identify as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and others. As there is no official Unitarian Universalist creed, Unitarian Universalists are free to search for truth on many paths.

I was a UU for a few years. The beginning of the end came one evening when I overheard two coeds talking about religion. One told the other she was thinking of becoming a Buddhist. The other replied "Oh, you should check out the Unitarian Church. You don't have to believe in ANYTHING to be a Unitarian."

That hit me like a brick in the back of the head.

Right, Max. So what. Carry on.

There is no rational basis for any human course of action.
Posted by: La Dolce Vita | March 26, 2008 11:51 AM
>>>

Sure there is - pragmatic utilitarianism.

Of course! Why didn't I see it before? That is so much better than the joys and consolations of the Christian faith.

I mean, who could ask for any thing more than pragmatic utilitarianism! Why eat at the super buffet when you can have your nutritional needs met with fortified gruel?

Brace yourself for the stampede towards the satisfactions of atheism....Any day now.....

Oh Sig,

But it does make a difference in one's life; eternally even.

It just doesn't necessarily make us more likeable.

"The more I learn about scripture and its interpretations, about tradition and early Church history, the harder it gets to believe most of what I've been taught as fact. I have to be honest with myself and recognize that this is so. I still have my own empirical experience, though. Every good thing in my life has come from acting as if the original story of Jesus was true. Every bad thing has come from listening to people who tried to get me to do otherwise. - sig"

Respectfully, that's powerful testimony.

JohnE,

While you no doubt meant your comments to be sarcastic, I still have to agree with you. Yes, I think that those things are likely your problem but not all of them are problems in and of themselves. Reason & skepticism for instance are not a problem for anyone unless there is something wrong with the heart, with the emotional centers of the personality, an imbalance if you will.

If you think that I have made assumptions about you, then I can say likewise. Take for instance

"As I understand Christian doctrine, faith comes from hearing the Word of God. I have heard what Christians call the Word of God, and have oft studied it myself. And although Believers such as yourself proclaim that these text are self-evidently True, I yet remain unconvinced."

First, I would say that while faith may come from hearing the Word, it is not nearly so passive as you portray it. But the assumption that you make here is that Christians like myself (what kind of Christian am I exactly and how do you know, BTW) think that Scriptures are self-evidently true. There are those who may feel this way, but there are also many who would disagree with that notion. I personally have a tremendous distaste for what I call battles of the verses. As if just whipping out the verses proves anything much less proving them to be true.

There is more to it than that. But nothing comes from a heart that has not been healed of its excesses, its obsessions, its myopic perspectives. The first step toward an active as opposed to passive engagement with the Scriptures, is to work from the assumption that what we think is absolutely necessary may not be what is best for us. It begins as a kind of mental exercise which basically amounts to clearing one's slate, letting go and opening up. But the result is new imput, growth in unexpected directions, leadings where we would rather not go at first. None of this is possible while we are insisting on our own way. What it is not is any kind of capitulation or surrender of either reason or skepticism. It is something that anyone can do if they will it. But I wont ever claim that it is easy. It isnt easy to let go of our assumptions so that they can be re-examined. It requires an intense amount of work and introspection. But how can anyone justify a life unexamined ie a position set in stone at an early age and never re-opened for consideration again?

I have said before that I was a lot like you once. Most born again Christians would say the same. The difference in us is not a willingness to give up our reason and skepticism but that our hearts have been changed first. Our reason and our skepticism have not only approved of the change, they continue to guide us in our everyday lives and actions. There is a balance between heart and head that wasnt there before. It is a false assumption on the part of many atheists that faith requires the abandonment or supression of reason. What faith is is a counter balance to reason while reason is the counter balance of faith.

"But yet, I cannot. Mired in my unbelief, shackled by my skepticism, I cannot assent to that which I cannot, by my own puny reasoning, see to be true.

Perhaps, AnglicanPeggy, you will consider praying that my skeptical shell will be pierced and that I will find a modicum of the faith you are blessed with. I have prayed such prayers for myself at times, but naught has come of them. I perceive no response. Until such comes, I must make due with my gruel."

But you contradict yourself and your previous statements. First you say that you can't see how God exists through your own puny reason as if reason was what caused you to reject the existence of God. Yet, your claim that you have prayed for such evidence and received nothing is supported by an earlier description of yours as being the cause of your lack of faith.

As I have commented before, if you really stopped believing there is a God because he didnt answer your insistent prayers then what you describe was not an act of reason at all. It fails the reason test on two counts 1) You based your decision on emotions. Disappointment. Frustration. Digust. You might want to cast your decision in terms of a failed experiment that failed to produce results, but if there was insistence involved in the first place, there isnt any way that emotion wasnt involved. At no point do you seem to have re-considered what impact those emotions may have had on your judgement. 2) Your conclusion was that since God did not answer your prayers then there must not be a God is about as woundedly egocentric a conclusion as there can be. Forget about the testimonies of others. They must be delusional. Since it can't be logical for there to be a God for some and not for others, then there can't be a God at all because he hasn't fallen all over himself to appear at your insistence in a way that satisfies your criteria in order to earn your faith in him.

It is just not very rational to dismiss the experience of millions because you didnt get what you wanted when you wanted it how you wanted it. Does a good parent give in to a childs insistent demands? Pleadings threats etc? Or do they insist on a change in behavior before there is a reward? I doubt that you ever considered that God didnt answer your prayer because your heart/intention was all wrong. When all was said and done, it was wrong because your prayer was a pre-condition for your belief. In other words, the problem was that you were in effect closed to any other input. When those prayers weren't answered, you gave up. The proof is in your own actions.

There was and still is a more rational response for you to make. Instead of saying "I know there is no God (for anyone) because he didnt answer my prayer." you could say "I haven't had a religious experience of my own, but I will at least open myself to the possibility that there is a God because so many others have." You could try to learn the trick of opening yourself and look instead for balance to be brought into your thinking and into your heart and into all aspects of your life.

I was once something of one-note person. Dependent on my own intrenched habits. Caught in a ferocious loop of my own making. Now I am free and vistas have opened up before me that I wouldn't have been able to appreciate before. Everything is bigger and better outside the loop most especially myself (though still far from perfect). We all have the power of will to break out. Noone has to make due with same old gruel. Not even you.

>>>
While you no doubt meant your comments to be sarcastic, I still have to agree with you. Yes, I think that those things are likely your problem but not all of them are problems in and of themselves. Reason & skepticism for instance are not a problem for anyone unless there is something wrong with the heart, with the emotional centers of the personality, an imbalance if you will.
>>>

I can understand why you would think I was being sarcastic. As it happens, I wasn't. I note with interest that you point to an emotional or personality flaw as the basis of my unwillingness to assent to the Truth of Christianity.

I say 'with interest' because, as I have alluded to here in times past, I exhibit outwardly, and experience internally, characteristics to which todays Doctors of the Psyche give the labels 'Depression' and 'Aspergers Syndrome'. The question of whether or not these labels are any more useful than the 'melancholia' of a previous generation, or the idea that I am vexed by demons, I leave as an open question. In any case, it is clearly true that my responses are not within the 'norm'

>>>It requires an intense amount of work and introspection. But how can anyone justify a life unexamined ie a position set in stone at an early age and never re-opened for consideration again?

Well, to that I present the following objection - if a person commits to the work and introspection associated with any belief system for a long enough period of time, Islam, Scientology, Buddhism, Communism, one tends to find ones intellect acceeding to the truths claimed in that system of belief. This is not an accusation of weakness, just an observation on the human condition and human conditioning.

>>>
But you contradict yourself and your previous statements. First you say that you can't see how God exists through your own puny reason as if reason was what caused you to reject the existence of God. Yet, your claim that you have prayed for such evidence and received nothing is supported by an earlier description of yours as being the cause of your lack of faith.
>>>

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding - I do not reject the existence of God, I merely claim that I do not have evidence of the existence of God and cannot assent to the joys and comfort of Christianity.

>>>
As I have commented before, if you really stopped believing there is a God because he didnt answer your insistent prayers then what you describe was not an act of reason at all. It fails the reason test on two counts 1) You based your decision on emotions. Disappointment. Frustration. Digust. You might want to cast your decision in terms of a failed experiment that failed to produce results, but if there was insistence involved in the first place, there isnt any way that emotion wasnt involved.
>>>>

I don't follow your argument that insistence, or a strong desire to receive evidence from God that He exists invalidates my conclusion that I did not receive evidence of His existence. Again, please note that I am not claiming that results of my experiments in prayer shows that God does not exist, I am saying that I do not have evidence that he exists and that I must make do with the truths I can glean from human reasoning.

>>>>2) Your conclusion was that since God did not answer your prayers then there must not be a God is about as woundedly egocentric a conclusion as there can be.

That would be true if such were my conclusion. My conclusion is that I have no evidence of God. Perhaps you are equating the idea of "I do not believe in God" with "I believe there is no God". These are two different ideas.

>>>Forget about the testimonies of others. They must be delusional.

That is a possibility. What do you make of the testimonies of the devout Muslim or the devotee of Krishna? Is there sincerity evidence that their Deity exists?

>>>Since it can't be logical for there to be a God for some and not for others,

Perhaps the Calvinists are correct and God, for His own reasons, chooses some as the Elect and not others. Perhaps you are one of the Elect and I am not.

>>>then there can't be a God at all because he hasn't fallen all over himself to appear at your insistence in a way that satisfies your criteria in order to earn your faith in him.

Again, you conflate lack of belief with belief of nonexistence.

>>>It is just not very rational to dismiss the experience of millions because you didnt get what you wanted when you wanted it how you wanted it.

Perhaps, but then would it be irrational to dismiss the faith of the Muslim or Hindu?

>>>Does a good parent give in to a childs insistent demands? Pleadings threats etc? Or do they insist on a change in behavior before there is a reward?

Does a good parent fail to comfort a child when he cries out in fear and loneliness in the dark of night?

>>>I doubt that you ever considered that God didnt answer your prayer because your heart/intention was all wrong. When all was said and done, it was wrong because your prayer was a pre-condition for your belief. In other words, the problem was that you were in effect closed to any other input. When those prayers weren't answered, you gave up. The proof is in your own actions.

I asked for gnosis, I received none. I am certainly open for input. Perhaps some will come one day.

>>>There was and still is a more rational response for you to make. Instead of saying "I know there is no God (for anyone) because he didnt answer my prayer." you could say "I haven't had a religious experience of my own, but I will at least open myself to the possibility that there is a God because so many others have."

So many Muslims have, so many Hindus have, - but as I said earlier, I do not claim there is no God, I claim that I have no evidence of His existence.

>>>You could try to learn the trick of opening yourself and look instead for balance to be brought into your thinking and into your heart and into all aspects of your life.

I am open for gnosis at any time.

>>>We all have the power of will to break out. Noone has to make due with same old gruel. Not even you.

Well certainly I could break out and partake of celebratory feasts - I could partake of Pan and Aphrodite, I could feast at Allah's table, I could eat the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist.

But without gnosis, what reason do I have to choose one feast over another?

Is gnosis kosher?

gnôsis must be preceded by apokalypsis.

WHAT MAKES A GROUP OF PEOPLE A CHURCH IS THE PRESENCE OF GOD,JESUS CHRIST AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. WE AS HUMANS MAY NOT HAVE ATTAINED GOD'S STANDARD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS BUT THE STANDARD REMAIN THE SAME.

WE HAVE ALLOWED COMPROMISE IN THE CHURCH TO MAKING IT "YOU CAN STILL BE YOUR SELF EVEN WHEN YOU SERVE GOD": WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT NO SERVANT CAN DEFINE HIS MISSION STATEMENT TO HIS LORD RATHER THE REVERSE IS THE CASE. AS SERVANTS OF THE MOST HIGH,SERVANTHOOD REQUIRE THAT WE FOLLOW OUR MASTER WTTHOUT QUESTION; HE KNOWS THE WAY IN THE WILDERNESS.

MAY THE LORD HELP US RUN THE RACE THAT IS BEFORE US.

No church is gonna make everyone happy. I go to the Church of Religious Science and I know lots of folks think it's just a bunch of New Age ga-ga. It's not for me, and I find my particular church's Sunday blessing for all religious assemblies taking place across the metro area quite refreshing.
So maybe some people wanna meet that are more rational - GREAT! If you're not rational, then don't worry about it. Go meet with your Pentecostal folks.
My big hang-up with dogmatic Catholics, Evangelicals, and even Tom Cruise is that they're constantly condemning other faiths, other practices, and even Science. Why can't rationalism and faith be complementary?
I find religion to be beautiful whatever the metaphor or logos when it's practiced with the intent of LOVE.
One thing Ernest Holmes, the founder of Religious Science, says I love in particular: 'Tell me what you're for, not what you're against.' I for one support honest inquiry coupled with respect for life and oneself.
If we're promoting decent values, not only through our message; but through daily practice - mental, social, and physical - we can begin to address our own imperfections and make real change.
Condemning other theologies is just a release of a bunch of hot air, straight from the little egoic self. If you don't like somebody's theology, then don't attend their church.