I just wanted to mention to poor, ill-informed MJ that Unitarians' motto about sex is "Just Say Know." They teach sex education -- tirelessly. The congregation to which I belong has had a transexual pastor. Our chapel on Sunday morning is gayer than the closest coffee house. They have done more for women's reproductive rights than you ever will.

Isn't hating one religion for something another religion has done in past rather like hating that nice African American family next door -- because -- like -- you knew an African American once who was a twisty crack dealer? Or hating that nice gay couple next door because you knew a gay guy once who descended into drugs and madness?

I am not saying anyone who is not comfortable in Unitarian meeting should go to one. In fact the Unitarians would be the first to encourage you to follow your bliss, and if you would rather spend Sunday mornings hiking and skiing, they would eagerly encourage you to do so. To put it much more bluntly than they would, if you can't dig it, Unitarians don't really want you around.

The stereotyping of religions around here is revolting -- period. I have not heard such talk since the 1950s when my poor brainwashed Mormon parents would spout off their opinions -- mostly acquired in the temple -- about inter-racial marriage, blacks, and civil rights. It's a cesspool of ignorant ranting.

But hey! It's ignorant ranting about religions -- which is -- like -- cool man! Ignorant ranting is only -- like -- bad,, man -- if it is -- like -- aimed at gays -- or people of color -- or like -- you know -- or people who leave the Mormon Church -- NOT RELIGIONS.

I don't want to hear from one poster who has not done for the causes of justice and knowledge as much as the Unitarians, so do a little homework before you post. You had much better find out how much that is before you start spewing the hate -- because every post will followed by "What have you done for mankind, a more just world, or rational thinking lately -- because here is what the Unitarians have done."

All religions are human constructs. If Unitarians are more accepting and promote equality, it's because they are more secular than other religions. The Bible, which I assume they consider the word of God, is a nasty promoter of hate. If they don't hate, but see the Bible as their source of wisdom, they are hypocrites.

I'm not sure if there's much mumbo jumbo in Unitarianism, but that too is manufactured silliness.

You should probably learn at least a little bit about Unitarianism before you comment too much. No they do not consider the Bible to be the word of God for starters - their tenets are neutral on it. In fact they do not even state a belief in God - some congregations have a strong atheist slant. http://www.uua.org/beliefs/principles/index.shtml

The Bible as literature and a potential source of wisdom when not considered divine or scripture is pretty valid. Yes much of it is barbaric - but it was written in barbaric times.

Lots of Unitarians are athiesits, Ozproof. Just saying. Lots of churches which accept God and Jesus do not take the Bible literally either. You have a lot to learn.

I think I've learned enough about religion to know it's not ever absolute truth since it is human in origin.

The Bible is used sometimes. That's enough for me to reject UU.

ozpoof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> ... The Bible, which I assume they consider
> the word of God, is a nasty promoter of hate. If
> they don't hate, but see the Bible as their source
> of wisdom, they are hypocrites.
> ...

I have never met a Unitarian who would consider the Bible as the word of God. They do not see themselves as a Christian church, however some members might think of themselves as Christian.

Some UU congregations are humanist-based, others are new agey, some are theistic. There's no one doctrine or one belief, it depends on the personality of the congregation and the leanings of the Rev. Some are strictly not theistic. Most regard the bible as just stories, like fables, to teach history and one perspective about values. I get what you are saying as a whole, but it's not really accurate to paint UU as simply christian-lite. It's not.

In case you're interested in the wide range of UU perspectives so you can be more informed if you ever discuss UU again, here are some links:

bible - http://www.uua.org/publications/pamphlets/beliefs/151245.shtml
god- http://www.uua.org/publications/pamphlets/beliefs/151278.shtml

I agree that religion is a man-made construct. I believe god is a man-made construct too. But UU is openly a man-made conglomeration of paths, and not really doctrinal. It is still an organized faith, and all opinions about organized religion are applicable, of course.

I really think they should stop calling their congregations "churches' because there's a lot of connotation attached to that term and implies that it is christian.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2012 11:27PM by wittyname.

Like an exmo told me today, the Methodist church isn't even a religion. Having grown up Methodist I laughed. It hardly is. All delusions are not equally destructive.

+1 janeeliot

I see UU as a philosophical community under a tax-exempt religious charter. It's brilliant! And if of course I ever walked back into a church on a sunday, it'd be UU.

Yay! A group claiming tax exemption under false pretences. Hang on, are we talking Mormonism or UU here?

and if you think that it doesn't carry any of the ugly religious undertones that some of us despise look again.

I am so glad you and Oz are sush experts on Unitarianism.

I'd be careful about criticising others when you are still trapped in the best devised method to rob people of their individuality, self love and worth. Not to mention their money.

How can anyone be an expert on UU? It is a collection of people with often contradictory positions. Ridiculous.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2012 11:53PM by ozpoof.

What exactly am I trapped in? I think you are making some unfounded assumptions about me. On the other hand, you thought Unitarians are Biblical literalists which is dead wrong. You don't have to be an expert, I certainly am not, but you could google the subject before making comments.

There are no Biblical literalists in UU? Oh, I thought they were so accepting of all positions. ONE biblical literalist in a group calling itself a religion is too much for me.

They are accepting of all positions. Members are welcome to be bible literalists. Literal interpretation of the bible, however, is not a UUA position. Is it really so hard for you to accept that members can be what they want, that's not what UUA is about?

You keep trying to compare and contrast to LDS.

LDS tells you what to believe, UUA does not
LDS has their own scripture which they believe is the truest out there, UUA does not. They take from all sorts of things, from poetry to lyrics to bible verses and everything in between. All sources of inspiration are given equal weight.
The list goes on and on.
Compare and contrast LDS and protestant denominations, or catholicism or judaism. They ALL have similar features in their closed set of holy books. UUA does not share that similarity.
It should be called a society, not a church. For some reason you are unable to shift your preconceived notions because of that word, or because of your lack of interest in becoming a UU. The latter is fine. Nobody is asking you to, but lay down your bias and ire and save it for a true destructive organization. UUA does not need apologists, because they don't have doctrine they are trying to explain away or sanitize.

I don't know how much of an intellectual you are, but have you ever participated in a Great Books discussion group? I would equate my experience with UU (and I am not a member, I just attend from time to time, I really don't need or want to belong to a church, but sometimes I look for intellectual inspiration) with my experience in Great Books discussion groups. Various philosophies and ways to look at life, no question is right or wrong, so long as it makes you think and come to your own conclusions. There are no answers. That's what UUA is like, except that the demographic at UUA congregations is usually more fun, for me, than the people who tend to join great books groups.

So if I was a Biblical literalist and believed the Jews should have wiped out every non Jew when they returned to the promised land as they were commanded by God, and that the current MidEast problems are due to those Jews allowing some to live, and that the Palestinian people are vermin standing in the way of God's chosen people, I would be accepted ad having a legitimate voice and a part to play in UU?

If not, UU does not accept Biblical literalists, and should say so.

OMFG, that is the most ignorant and stupidist thing I have ever heard. Most Israelis are secular for your information and there is a lot more to the Mid East conflict than the Bible. Have you ever heard of the destruction of the temple, the Diaspora, pogroms, the Holocaust, the White Paper or the Balfour Declaration ? That is ust the beginning. Trust you to take a complex historical situation and make it all about the Bible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2012 12:42AM by bona dea.

Give me a break. It isn't for you, great.It isn't for me either, but that doesn't mean it is wrong, evil, wishy washy, supports atrocities or whatever.Your understanding of what Christians, at least many of them, think of the Bible is totally off too.Maybe you should actually talk to some moderate Christians and educate yourself.Maybe you should go on a rant about the Iliad or Shakespeare because there are plenty of atrocities in them too. You do understand that many believers do not take the Bible literally and even if SOME of the atrocities actually happened, the writers were simply reporting them, not condoning them.

I'm talking about people who use the Bible to attack and hate others today. If you are neutral on the divinity of the Bible, you do not condemn those who use it to claim God hates certain people. UU are wishy washy because like LDS apologists they can't stick to one position. If you believe all people are equal and worthy, you simply can't take a neutral position on the Bible.

UU hold the Bible up as inspired. If they didn't they would use other works of fiction in their ...... services. Do they take lessons from Twilight?

You better believe UUA condemns people who use the bible as a means for hatred. They aren't wishy washy on the bible, they just see it as another book worth taking inspiration from. Just like the sufist poetry, philosophy and everything else. Black and white thinking is a dangerous thing. You should rethink your position that an organization has to be for the bible or against it. When stripped of it's most-holy-book-ever-divine-inspiration status, there is really a lot to be learned from it, in the way that there's a lot to be learned from aesop's fables. It's not wishy washy to say that a book that is so important to so many faiths is completely worthless on all levels. You don't have to believe in it as anything other than fiction, but as fiction, there's still some good messages.

You are so willfully ignorant. Every claim you make is wrong, and the answers are there for you, you just refuse to believe them. Here's a hint, believing the truth about UUA does NOT mean that you should become a member. But at least you'd be an informed person who doesn't spout out idiotic things based on biases related to other religions.

Has anyone had an objective look at comparisons between UU and LDS?

People criticize Mormonism for not sticking to a position; Pinning down Mormon doctrine is like nailing jello to a wall. It seems the UU are worse.

Reading those links above made me feel like I was at FAIR. It's wishy washy bullshit. They even call the Bible inspired fiction. That's what LDS apologists who realize the BOM is a fraud want to call that book.

If they called themselves a think tank or similar, I would probably think twice about them, however, there is enough religious influence in UU to make me avoid them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2012 12:08AM by ozpoof.

Nobody is asking you to join, but it would be nice to know something about a subject before you start pontificating.It is a good rule of thumb.

I've read the links provided and I stand by my original statement.

UU declares neutrality on belief in the Bible as the word of God. Not good enough. It's like claiming they have no position on KKK publication. To do so is to tacitly accept what they teach. If you oppose hatred, genocide, discrimination, you say so. UU doesn't. They appease the religious in their midst.

Neutrality is not always an admirable trait.

Ugh, I've tried to approach this in a reasoned way, a good discussion amongst people with different opinions, which is good. Not everyone has to agree, but on this issue, you are willfully ignorant and stubbornly obtuse.

If your opinion is different than Bona's than you just aren't an expert.

I am not expert either, but I know enough to know that they aren't Fundies and your snide comments are not appreciated.

About the Unitarians. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the idea, I just reject the idea that they are somehow morally superior. Which is what the OP is stating.

I stand by my typical Bona BS statement.

And I stand by my view that you are a religion hating bigot who knows very little about any religion other than Mormonism. There is a wide variety of beliefs out there and you don't have to be an expert to know that.I'd be happy to have you prove me wrong, but I am not holding my breath.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2012 12:30AM by bona dea.

So much anger, so little substance.

Where the hell did I say that?

Where did the OP say that the Unitarians are morally superior? And to whom? I'd agree that they are morally superior to LDS and to bible beaters. They are not morally superior to good people who just don't have any need or desire to belong to a community.

She didn't