Ep. 80: Unitarian Universalism

[mrhvmd]

Dear Ms. Minick Rudolph,

My particular conditioned thought is that we are in complete accord on this subject and further discussion would probably only lead to redundancy as well as a restatement of prior views.

I have, for the first time, dug a little deeper into this site and found that the last podcast was on The Resurrection. I'm wondering if we should listen and compare notes. Discussion in the forum focused much upon life after life. I am reminded of the Apostles Creed: ".... the resurrection of the body and life everlasting..." I don't see much possibility of bodies resurrected, even the "sinless" body of Jesus. But what if matter in the universe arises out of consciousness, rather than the generally assumed opposite situation? Then would a resurrection in spirit not be a possibility? Care to comment Andy? (may I call you Andy?).

Michael R. Haas, DOG

[Get2B]

Wow. I've been tied up and just logged onto the board. And saw this great discussion about the show I was pleased to take part in. There's an overwhelming amount of material--I feel incapable of responding to it all, but really enjoyed the discussion and am grateful for the feedback. What a great amount of thoughtful discussion. Thank you.

[Get2B]

Wow. I've been tied up and just logged onto the board. And saw this great discussion about the show I was pleased to take part in. There's an overwhelming amount of material--I feel incapable of responding to it all, but really enjoyed the discussion and am grateful for the feedback. What a great amount of thoughtful discussion. Thank you.... Josh Hooper

[JosiahM]

Four thoughts:
1) Universalism and pluralism can tollerate any [i][/i] viewpoint except for exclusivity. I think this is what Norton and Emery were trying to get at. This was why Christianity was persecuted in the first centuries, because the Roman empire was held together by the pluralistic religion of polytheism. Christianit's exclusivity was seen as a threat then as it often is now. You really can't have your cake and eat it too, though: either you are accepting of Christianity's basic claim of exclusivity, or you are truly faithful to a universalistic mandate.

2) Let's say we had a room full of people in lab coats, in a lab. They were all highly qualified, and were all busy about their business. However, because they never wanted to cause acrimony, none of them actually came to any conclusions[i]. They simply tested, looked, examined, and [i]enjoyed the journey of discovery[i], while categorically excluding the possibility of actually arriving at a conclusion[/i][/i][/i]. Would such people be scientists? I think it would be more accurate to say they were "playing science." Likely, they have "real jobs" on the side - for whatever reason, they like to "play scientist" on the side. And who would want to stop them? Good, clean, harmless fun is hard to come by these days! This is kind of the feeling I get with the UU's. They don't really want to be religious, but they like "playing religion." I don't mean that disrespectfully though - I could see how it would fill a need that would otherwise be vacant in one's life, especially with the social aspect of it.

3) Oddly enough, I really appreciate the honesty of the UU church. Unlike liberals, they actually ADMIT that they are a cult (of the non- Jimmy-Jones variety! ), or a heretical sect of Christianity. This is refreshing because so many people who have exactly the same beliefs and practices as they do continue to call themselves Christians - many of them being teachers and pastors - which is just dishonest and frustrating to the historic Christians.

4) I am very moved by the image I get of a group of people, all hurt and disallusioned by the church, coming together for mutual comfort and healing. Something I often say to such people is, "Don't let the people you like the least keep you from what you need the most!" So often we allow one person who has wounded us in the past to dictate our decisions for the rest of our lives ("Well, my dad was Christian, and he beat my mom. Therefore I will never go to church.") It's a very hard thing to deal with a scarred past. I don't say this lightly, but, I would urge people to consider that sometimes daring to believe what their "enemies" believe(d) could be the highest statement of intellectual maturity and emotional freedom.

Blessings on you, though, UU crowd. I pray that you find healing, hope and comfort and that your seekings someday bring you to the one who is Life!

[mitchellmckain]

Four thoughts:
1) Universalism and pluralism can tollerate any [i][/i] viewpoint except for exclusivity. I think this is what Norton and Emery were trying to get at. This was why Christianity was persecuted in the first centuries, because the Roman empire was held together by the pluralistic religion of polytheism. Christianit's exclusivity was seen as a threat then as it often is now. You really can't have your cake and eat it too, though: either you are accepting of Christianity's basic claim of exclusivity, or you are truly faithful to a universalistic mandate.

Universalism and pluralism are two seperate issues and the opposite of exclusivism is inclusivism, not either of these. Universalism is the idea that everyone will be saved because God must ultimately be successful in saving everyone. The word particularism is sometimes used as an opposite for this. If there is an opposite of pluralism it would be called singularism. There are different kinds of pluralism. Certainly the simplistic statement of religious pluralism, that all religious paths are equally valid is not supportable in historical Christianity. However I think that the correct answer to that kind of pluralism is that no paths are valid. God and salvation is not something you can get to by following any path.

Furthermore exclusivity is a legalistic interpretation of Christianity that remakes it into a path to follow -- thus turning the essential message of the gospel inside out and backwards. People change Christianity into such a religion of men because they want to tell other people what to do and what to believe. That is when its not actually an attempt to manipulate people, to craft a tool of power or to con people out of their money.

Yes Jesus said no one comes to the Father except through Him. He is the one mediator between man and God. But Jesus is God and so what this really means is that the position of mediator is already filled by God Himself and thus people trying to occupy this position are deceivers. Indeed I think this is an anti-exclusivist message to say that any religious organization that pretends to control the access to God is at odds with the gospel and thus cannot be a Christian organization at all. Thus there is no room for any exclusivism in Christianity.

3) Oddly enough, I really appreciate the honesty of the UU church. Unlike liberals, they actually ADMIT that they are a cult (of the non- Jimmy-Jones variety! ), or a heretical sect of Christianity. This is refreshing because so many people who have exactly the same beliefs and practices as they do continue to call themselves Christians - many of them being teachers and pastors - which is just dishonest and frustrating to the historic Christians.

So I guess the question is whether you have the same honesty?