Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

For those who're interested in learning more about Unitarian Universalism,
there is a conference devoted to the topic.  It's on NOTED::UU.
Press <KP7> to add it to your notebook.

Peace,
Richard

    I've always perceived the UU church as a sort of generic church.
    Sort of a place for people who want to go to church but aren't that
    interested in believing in anything. But I've never been that
    interested in looking into it very deeply so there may very well
    be more to it than that.
    

    			Alfred

    For me, the UU church was not a last stop safety net before leaving
    religion altogether.  It was just the opposite; it was the means for my
    re-entry into religion.  A few years ago, having been a atheist for
    quite a long time, I found myself interested once again in religion;
    but I was very uncomfortable with the concept.  The only church I would
    consider trying was a UU church.  It was through my experiences there
    that I found a new appreciation for religion; one of the religions that
    I came to value and appreciate was Christianity.  This was no small
    doing, because my earlier experiences with fundamentalism had soured me
    on the faith.  I began attending UU worship as a humanist, and came out
    of it a believer in God; I thus changed my entire outlook towards
    religion, thanks to my experience with Unitarian Universalism.

    I never did join a UU church or fellowship, but I was a regular
    attender for a while, and I still have a very positive feeling about
    the denomination.  It is definitely not true that UU attenders aren't
    interested in believing anything; actually, individual UU's believe a
    lot of things, and are often quite strongly committed to what they
    believe.  The point, of course, is that different individuals often
    believe believe *different* things, at least on matters of theology. 
    What UU's share in common is not a single theological doctrine, but a
    commitment to the process of theological self-discovery.  It is
    interesting reading the UU magazine and seeing the advertisements for
    the various sub-groups within the denomination, representing paganism,
    Christianity, and other theologies.

    I am very grateful for my experience with the denomination, and
    although I am a Quaker now, I have attended UU worship from time to
    time.

    -- Mike

    Mike,

   Thankyou for you comment.  It is very similar for me.  I attend UUA
   services and find the beliefs to be very strongly held.  I also 
   recognize for some the mileage may vary.  

   I might add the term safety net comforting, as someone who was driven
   out of the burning building to preserve myself(figuritively speaking)
   and my spritual life.

   Peace,
   Allison

I would like to emphasize that when I suggest that the Unitarian Universalist
church serves as a religious safety net, I mean it in no derogatory way.

I can see how the UU church might serve as a re-entry vehicle as well.
Thank you for your insights, Mike V. and Allison.

Peace,
Richard

    I love the UU church and would not consider joining any other church. 
    I have many believes that I hold very strongly.  I cherish that
    religion is a lifelong search for truth and that my beliefs will change
    over time.  They will get deeper and richer.  I will not outgrow the UU
    church because of my love for religious diversity which is shared by
    the church.
    
    I just attended a one week conference at a UU conference Center in Rowe
    Mass.  We celebrated a different religious tradition each day of the
    week.  Native American, Budhist, Hindu, Christianity, and a Create your
    own service on the last day.  One Monday we worship the Great Spirit
    and on Thursday we Worship Christ.  Unfortunately we did not have a
    Pagan ceremony.  I commune with God as I understand God in each of
    these celebrations.  For me the diversity is wonderful and it is the
    truth beneath the diversity that I seek.  
    
    
    Patricia

    Patricia,
    
    That sounds wonderful!!!  Was it held at the Rowe Conference Center?
    I didn't realize that was run by the UU.  Had recently wanted to attend
    a workshop there led by Barry and Joy Vissell (The Shared Heart), but
    unfortunately it was out of our price range (even with bartering).
    
    Ro
    

    Ro
    
    The Rowe Conference Center is affiliated with the UUA but not actually
    run by the UUA.  This was my first time attending and I will be back.
    
    Patricia

Re:  473.6

Hi Patricia,

  >One Monday we worship the Great Spirit and on Thursday we Worship Christ.  
  >Unfortunately we did not have a Pagan ceremony.  I commune with God as 
  >I understand God in each of these celebrations.  For me the diversity is 
  >wonderful and it is the truth beneath the diversity that I seek.  

You make it quite clear here that it is not Jehovah you seek.  Jehovah
is a jealous God who *abhors* the worship of anything or anyone else.
Wanting to enjoy a Pagan ceremony as if it's just another flavor or
color of something revolts my sensibilities and my love of God.  I
can not find any reconciliation of this desire with God's express will.
It is, in fact, a direct refusal to submit to the first commandment in 
the Ten Commandments.

This is not meant to offend you (although I expect it will).  It is
meant to enlighten you as to what a disciple of Jesus loves and hates.
This is not particularly controversial stuff (even for C-P); most any 
mainline (and certainly any moderate/conservative) church understands and 
accepts this.


Collis

    Collis, Pat's spirituality may very well revolt your sensibilities and
    your love of your god.  By the same token, your own perspective on
    religion may equally revolt other people's sensibilities.  

    Also, while your altruistic effort at enlightening her will no doubt be
    appreciated, I don't know that you offered any new information about
    what you as one particular disciple of Jesus happens to love and hate. 
    Since she considers herself a Christian, I suspect that what she as a
    disciple of Jesus loves and hates differs from your own loves and
    hates in certain areas.

    -- Mike

Hi Collis (.9),

    Interestingly, I read Patricia's note and had the opposite reaction
    that you did.  Rather than 'revolting', I found it loving and
    refreshing.  You see Collis, I believe that Patricia was worshipping
    God, the one God at the retreat.  Pat was seeking the unity, the
    oneness - that we are all one with God - there is no separation.
    
    I like you Collis, but I found the words in your note extremely
    offensive.  As a Christian, I would have participated in those
    activities right along with Patricia.  And I truly believe in my heart,
    that Jesus would also participate in ceremonies that honored the Great
    Spirit, who is his Father, the One God.  As for Pagan ceremonies, to me
    they represent worship that not only honors the Father - the male
    aspect of God, but the Goddess, the Mother, the female aspect of the
    God.
    
    My perspective as a disciple of Jesus...
    
    Ro
    

Is there a claim that Unitarian Universalists are Christians?

I always thought they, themselves, consider themselves "Universalists", not
Christians.

Do they use the title "Christian" even though they do not worship only
one God in Trinity and Unity?  Even though they do not affirm the divinity
of Christ?

/john

    I have heard that about 10% of Unitarian Universalists consider
    themselves Christians.
    
    -- Mike

    /john
    
    When the UU church broke away from what is now called the
    congregational church back in the early 18th century, they
    were indeed Christians. In fact according to what I learned
    from the interpreter at Sturbridge village, they were more
    evangelical less rigid than those they separated from.
    
    Over time, the church has evolved so that you will find a mix
    of those who believe that Christ is God's son and are attracted
    to the social/political message and those that do not so believe but
    are spiritual searchers, and are also attracted to the program.
    
    Bonnie

Re:  473.10

  >Also, while your altruistic effort at enlightening her will no doubt be
  >appreciated, I don't know that you offered any new information about
  >what you as one particular disciple of Jesus happens to love and hate. 

Hi Mike,

I anticipated (the predictibility of responses to what I say in this 
conference is very high) that there would be inneundo that I was
simply sharing a personal perspective.  Which is why I explicitly
noted that what I was sharing is not only clearly stated in the Bible,
but is actually the beliefs of active conservative and moderate
Christians.  The fact that you ignored this in my note was also
predictable (unfortunately).

  >Since she considers herself a Christian, I suspect that what she as a
  >disciple of Jesus loves and hates differs from your own loves and
  >hates in certain areas.

The point is (as you are well aware) that the standard is not the 
subjective standard of self (which is the standard that members of this
conference constantly wish to move towards as your statement implies)
but that the standard is *external* - it is God and what God has revealed
to you, me and others who are willing to listen.

Yes, I know I should probably go to the pulpit topic at this point,
but the acceptance of *anything* as "Christian" (or "following Jesus")
revolts me *because* it revolts God.  Pagan (explicitly *non-Christian*,
non-Jewish or non-Moslem) worship is now equated with worshipping God.  
This is considered just another alternative way to God.  

I am not ashamed of what I have said, because I am not ashamed of the
true gospel.  Let anyone who preaches a different gospel be condemned -
or be converted.  It *is* an exclusionary gospel which says "Jesus only".

I plan on continuing to make occasional comments about this issue.  It
just won't go away.  My God *DEMANDS* this.

a_friendly_but_revolted_Collis

Re:  .11

Hi Ro,

Yes, Ro, I know you had a very different reaction to Pat's note.
You believe as Pat does.

Although I like you, too, and enjoy our conversations, I am not
under the illusion that we have a common ground about the nature
of God.  Our beliefs are poles apart - so far apart that I accept
that we worship different gods.

Just as you believe that Jesus was being worshiped, I know that
Jesus was revolted at those who refuse to accept what He has
revealed about Himself.

And, yes, the gospel is foolishness and an offense to some.  I'm
not responsible for that, God is.  I actually tried very hard to
not be offensive in my initial reply.  What it comes down to is
that to believe the prophets and proclaim what they proclaimed *is*
to be offensive.

In friendship,

Collis

    Collis, I think we do recognize that you consider your own beliefs to be
    in sync with God's in this matter.  I did not ignore the fact that you
    feel this way; I simply happen to disagree with it.  You state, as a
    fact, that the "standard" is what God has revealed to you and everyone
    else, but of course that assumes that everyone here shares your premise
    about what God has revealed.  Therefore, what you are sharing with us
    is a *personal* perspective on God's will.  It is a perspective that
    you are convinced is right, but it is a personal pespective
    nonetheless.
    
    -- Mike

    But Collis, I find common ground even if you don't!! ;')
    
<<under the illusion that we have a common ground about the nature
<<of God.  Our beliefs are poles apart - so far apart that I accept
<<that we worship different gods.
    
    I believe there is only one God - perhaps I just see God from a
    different vantage point than you.  One not being a better view, just
    different.  How can we be worshipping 'different' gods when there is
    only One!!!  We also both believe that Jesus is the Son of God.  We may
    interpret his message differently, but we both have very real
    relationships with him.  So to me, that is the common ground - the love
    we both have for God and Jesus.  Hopefully, that is enough of basis to
    recognize each other as children of God.
    
    with love,
    
    Ro
    

    How can one claim to follow Jesus and worship a pagan god at the same
    time?

    Patricia said that she communes with God as she understands God in each
    of these ceremonies.  So, without speaking for her, it appears that it
    isn't a matter of worshiping a pagan god, but of worshiping God.
    
    -- Mike

    Um, I gave a simple answer to that in my earlier note to Collis (.12, I
    think).  Once again, if I participated in a Pagan (and obviously you
    and I would disagree on the definition of pagan.  I define it not in
    the modern terms of 'heathen', but more back to the latin roots of
    country folk)...it would be to honor the earth as a creation of the
    father/mother one God.  If I joined in prayer in their ceremony, it
    would be recognizing that they are human beings celebrating the same
    God they created all of us, no matter what name they called him.  They
    don't have to recognize Jesus for me to do that as long as I do in my
    heart.  In my opinion, God knows and reads my heart/soul and that's what
    matters.  If I'm somehow in error then God will know that it was out of
    a deep love and respect for his creation that I actrf from and somehow
    he'll forgive me!  ;')
    
    Ro
    
    
    

    I agree with you there, Mike.  The way I look at it is that the one God
    goes by many different names just as the world has many different terms
    for the word "sky" depending on what language is being spoken. 
    Neverthless, "sky" is still the same concept regardless of how we name
    it.  So it is with God and the expression of the divine presence.  It
    remains the same regardless of what we choose to name it.
    
    Nanci

Re:  "Personal perspective"

Certainly there is a personal perspective aspect to anything
that is shared here.

To continue to insist that what is shared here is merely
personal perspective is to deny the proclaimed truths of
God in the Bible as well as the validity of the beliefs
of those who believe the same.  

Even those who are unwilling to acknowledge God's authorship
of the Bible will usually admit the collective belief in
and acceptance of the Bible by a formidable (by size and
belief) group of conservatives/moderates.  If you will admit
to this, then the perspective is a collective as well as
personal perspective.  In truth (from our collective perspective :-) )
it is God's perspective as well.

Perhaps it will be at least another week before I'm accused
of only having a "personal perspective".  I wouldn't bet on it.  :-)

Collis

>    When the UU church broke away from what is now called the
>    congregational church back in the early 18th century, they
>    were indeed Christians.

Huh?

The specific reason that Unitarian churches were formed (from both Anglican
parishes such as King's Chapel, Boston and from Congregational meeting houses)
was a direct denial of the doctrine of the Trinity (Unitarian vs. Trinitarian)
and a specific denial of the deity of Christ.

Universalism is a philosophy of universal salvation -- a denial of the
existence of a state of separation from God.

How can someone who denies that Christ is God claim to follow him?

/john

>How can someone who denies that Christ is God claim to follow him?
    
    	Oh, get with the program John. You don't have to believe in
    anything to be a Christian. You just have to be a nice guy.
    
    		Alfred
    

    Give me a break, Collis.  I insist that what you share here is a
    personal perspective precisely because you continue to present your own
    theological opinions as if they were the only conceivable theological
    formulations.  The fact that you agree with other people does indeed,
    as you point out, make it a collective as well as a personal
    perspective, but it is nevertheless *your* personal decision to
    formulate or accept a belief that others may or may not have.  No
    matter how many people agree with you, your opinion is still yours.  It
    is you who has made the decision to believe what you believe about God,
    the Bible, and Jesus.
    
    You state that by pointing out that what you state is *your* opinion, I
    am denying "the proclaimed truths of God in the Bible as well as the
    validity of the beliefs of those who believe the same."  Well gee, if I
    accepted your premise that your beliefs are the expression of God's
    truths, then certainly I would accept your conclusions.  But I don't
    accept your premises, do I?  And yet you use premises not everyone here
    shares to your justification for criticizing people who don't share
    your premises.  Yes, that certainly makes a lot of sense to me.
    
    You feel duty bound to preach at any theological perspective other than
    your own, because God calls you to do this.  Okay, fine, but don't be
    surprised when people are annoyed and offended when you tell people you
    are repulsed by what is near and dear to them, to what they have given
    a lot of thought and consideration to.  Perhaps you think that by
    "correcting" us you will make us all come to our senses, as if your
    perspective were something that we had just forgotten to consider until
    you in your infinite kindness brought it up to us.  Well, dude, all I
    can say is good luck in your proselytizing endeavors; maybe deeply
    offending people really does convert some people to your way of
    thinking, which perhaps as far as you are concerned makes up for all
    the people you piss off.
    
    -- Mike

OK, then the Muslims are Christians, too, since they believe:

	1. in the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus
	2. that he was the greatest prophet after Mohammed
	3. that God miraculously saved him from death on the cross.

But not that he was the Messiah, God Incarnate.

/john

    First of all, it doesn't strike me as all that difficult to follow
    someone as a disciple without believing that person is divine.  Second
    (contrary to Alfred's sarcastic comment), I haven't run across anyone
    here who claims that being a Christian doesn't require believing
    anything.  In fact, I don't define myself as a Christian precisly for
    that reason, even though I have been strongly influenced by
    Christianity.
    
    I find it interesting how Alfred attacks this notes file for allegedly
    having a "clique" because whenever a minority opinion is expressed, it
    is attacked with hostility.  Yet look what has happened in this topic. 
    Two people with theological opinions other than his own (Patricia and
    Ro) engage in a friendly discussion about Unitarian Universalism, and
    suddenly they are subjected to a barrage of attacks on their beliefs
    here, including by Alfred himself.
    
    Now tell me who is being hostile to other belief systems in this notes
    file.  Sort of puts the lie to Alfred's complaint, doesn't it?
    
    -- Mike
    

    A study of religious history quickly reveals that there have
    long been pockets of people called Christians who did not believe
    in the deity of Jesus.  That stance failed to negate their acceptance
    of Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Moslems believe that Jesus's revelation has been superceded by a later,
    final one.  It is possible for people to believe that Jesus's role and
    revelation have ultimacy and primacy over all others, and was not
    superceded by any others, without believing that Jesus was divine.
    
    -- Mike

If you believe that Jesus' role and revelation have primacy over all
others, how can you worship pagan spirits?

And do Unitarian Universalists even believe that Jesus' role and revelation
have primacy over all others?

They certainly claim that everyone is going to get into the kingdom of heaven
(Universalism), and that isn't at all clear from anything that Christ said.

/john

    I don't know of any UU Christian who "worships pagan spirits".  There
    are UU pagans, but I don't know enough about what they believe to say
    whether that is an accurate description of what they believe.  As for
    UU Christians, what they worship is God; involvement in pagan
    ceremonies is in all likelihood for them a way of exploring and
    expressing their relationship with God.
    
    The answer to the question of what Unitarian Universalists believe
    about Jesus's role and revelation depends on which one you talk to. 
    As I mentioned, about 10% of UUs are Christians, so those individuals
    would presumably give Jesus primacy over all others.  The other 90% are
    likely to give a different opinion.
    
    Also, it may not be true that all UUs believe that everyone wil get
    into the kingdom of heaven, for the simple reason that a lot of UUs
    don't even believe in heaven, or a kingdom of heaven, or an
    afterlife--in other words, such Christian concepts don't apply to them. 
    Universalism, as it was practiced in the 1800s, did believe in
    universal salvation, but modern Unitarian Universalism is characterized
    by such diverse theological perspectives that it is impossible to
    identify a single belief that all of them have.  I do think it is
    probably fair to say that most UUs reject the concept of eternal
    damnation, however.
    
    -- Mike

    473.28: I haven't run across anyone here who claims that being a
    Christian doesn't require believing anything.

    473.29: A study of religious history quickly reveals that there have
    long been pockets of people called Christians who did not believe in
    the deity of Jesus.  That stance failed to negate their acceptance of
    Jesus as the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One.

    I'm having some trouble comprehending the above statements.

    I want to offer if "Christian" is to mean anything, then it at least
    means "one who follows what Jesus Christ taught".  If we can't get past
    this hurdle, then any discussion of "Christian" in this file is
    meaningless.

    As a corollary, if one asserts that "what Jesus Christ taught" is lost
    or unknowable, then the word "Christian" is without meaning. 

    It seems that in CP the term "Christian" is defined in steps by the
    negation of beliefs:

    1. One can be a Christian and _not_ believe Jesus is God.

    2. One can be a Christian and _not_ believe Jesus is the way, the
    truth, and the life.

    3. One can be a Christian and _not_ believe in the Blessed Trinity.

    4. One can be a Christian and _not_ believe that he is an inspirational
       teaching on morality.

    and this list could be extended indefinitely.

    RE: .28 I don't see my note as being anywhere near as hostle as
    those of Richard about Pat Roberson. And both of us pale by comparison
    to your own hostility. Especially towards me.
    
    		Alfred

[Ooops.  Duplicate data deleted.  Remainder saved for the record.]

    The following purposes and objectives which were stated at the time of 
    the actual merger of both Unitarian and Universalist faiths (which took 
    place at Symphony Hall, Boston, Massachusetts in May of 1961):

	1.  To strengthen one another in a free and disciplined search for
	    truth as the foundation of our religious fellowship;

	2.  To cherish and spread the universal truths taught by the great
	    prophets and teachers of humanity in every age and tradition,
	    immemorially summarized in the Judeo-Christian heritage as love
	    to God and love to man;

	3.  To affirm, defend and promote the supreme worth of every human
	    personality, the dignity of man and the use of the democratic
	    method in human relationships;

	4.  To implement our vision of one world by striving for a world
	    community founded on the ideals of brotherhood, justice and peace;

	5.  To serve the needs of member churches and fellowships and to
	    extend and strengthen liberal religion;

	6.  To encourage cooperation with men of good will in every land.

    C-P as a conference makes no claim about what it means to be a
    Christian.  Note 8.7 contains the working definition of "Christian" for
    purposes of this notes file, which was intentionally worded as broadly
    as possible.  An example of a much narrower working definition can be
    found in GOLF::CHRISTIAN.
    
    This question of the litmus test that defines Christianity was brought
    up when the notes file was started.  Many people prefer a much narrower
    definition, for reasons that don't particularly make sense to me, but
    in any case I don't think that Unitarian Universalism claims to be a
    Christian denomination.  Its beliefs are inclusive enough that some UUs
    do describe themselves as Christians; most do not.
    
    -- Mike

    /john
    
    I was not aware of the history you cited.... as I said, what I learned
    was from a history inerpreter at STurbridge.....and he gave us the
    impression that the Universalists were very on fire for God and were
    pushing a much more personal and non 'predestined' relationship with
    God... i.e. that a person was not born going to heaven or hell but
    that they could make a difference in what they did in their life.
    Perhaps what you are talking about is the unitarian creed and he
    was talking about the universalist creed?
    
    thankyou
    
    Bonnie

    Patrick
    
    The way I would put a response to your note .33
    
    is that one can be a Christian and believe that God and Jesus did
    not limit their revelation to just Palestine in the time of 
    the beginnings of the Christian minstry, but that He/They appeared
    to many peoples throughout the earth and the subsequent years have
    blurred the revelation so that modern Christians can't always see
    God's face in others beliefs.
    
    Yet, so prominant a Christian appolgist, of the 20th century, as
    C.S.Lewis, argued that God accepts all services to good in the name
    of any 'god' as services to him and rejects any services to evil
    in His name as services to the adversary.
    
    If one believes, as I do, that there is only one God, then one can
    say that people of different origins, esp those who have not met
    Christ, can find Him and the Lord, in different ways... God does
    not wait on human missionaries to reach out to humanity... and
    those people may see God with a different face or aspect than we
    do depending on their cultural experiences, but I don't know how
    to say they have not seen God. The only other answer is that they
    have only encountered the adversary. I don't personally think that
    God is that limited, or that unloving to His creation.
    
    Bonnie

Never cared much for C.S. Lewis' stuff, myself.

Peace,
Richard

PS Is there a reason you've stopped signing your entries, Brother Sweeney?

    cousin Patrick, I've read and reread most of Lewis's works, and
    at this point I don't see the similarity, but I'll take your
    word for it.
    
    But the one lesson I got from Lewis, was that God accepts actions
    out of love and actions to Him and I hold to that. That His 
    incarnation isn't limited to our feeble experience. 
    
    Bonnie

It was a beautiful day in New England yesterday, and Pam had been wanting to
take a cruise out to the Isles of Shoals.

So we took the "Star Island Stopover" cruise out of Portsmouth.

The Star Island Corporation runs a religious conference center primarily
serving Unitarian Universalists on Star Island and allows day visitors to
enjoy the grounds for a few hours during a ferry boat stopover.

I spent a few minutes in their bookstore.  Various books about ecology,
feminism, spiritualism, Zen, Unitarian Universalism, the islands, etc.

And there was one book:  "Literary Guide to the Bible."  But if you wanted a
Bible while on your religious retreat, you better have brought one with you.

My impression is that these are God-fearing people who are looking for God
everywhere, but avoid giving any special importance to what either Judaism
or Christianity have taught to be the revealed truth about God.

/john

Can a UU poke his nose into this discussion?

It's hard to generalize about "What UUs Believe", as the
denomination encompasses people and churches of a wide variety
of beliefs.  As has been pointed out, a portion (I had never
heard the 10% figure before) call themselves Christian UUs, and
are proboably the theologically conservative part of the
movement.  If you want to know something about (almost) all UUs,
go back to the Principles and Purposes created at the 1961
merger of U and U.

One also shouldn't assume that the forces and ideas that originally
caused the Universalist and Unitarian movements to come into
existence (in the US, about 1780-90 and 1820-30 respectively)
are those that form the core beliefs of the denomination today.
So it is well to say that Universalists were once known for a belief
in unversal salvation, but that would be misleading today, as has
been pointed out, as many UUs believe that there is no afterlife.
By the way it is interesting the note that the term "unitarian"
was originally used as a term of derision by those who disagreed
with the breakaways, but as with others (cf. "Quaker", "Shaker")
it stuck.


Ben

Re: Star Island

/john - I hope you enjoyed your day there, and saw something
other than the bookstore.

You stumbled across a favorite subject of mine, as I have been
going to Star Island since before I can remember.  The Star
Island Conference center is jointly owned by the UUs and the
United Church of Christ.  The conferences during the summer each
have an existence of their own, and are not organized by the
UU or UCC churches, although most of the attendees belong to
one or the other of the churches.  I expect if you had been
there during one of the UCC weeks, John, the books in the
bookshop might have given a somewhat different impression!


Ben

.44 & .45,  Welcome to our little cliq...er...conference, Ben. :-)

Hope you'll introduce yourself in Topic 3.

Peace,
Richard

    Greetings Friends,
    
    I've been out of the conference a while and have just returened. It looks
    like I missed a lively conversation here.  My thanks specifically to
    Mike and Ro for defending me while I was away.
    
    Fortunately, I am mellowing. I am becoming confident enough in my own
    beliefs and in My God that I am no longer hurt by charges of being a
    "heathen". 
    
    My spiritual journey is a very serious
    one and a very personal one.  I will continue to wrestle with what it
    means to be a Christian and then define for myself whether I am one or
    not.  For some reason which I don't even understand that continues to
    be an important question for me.
    
    I would suggest a wonderful book by Harvey Cox titled Many Mansions-A
    Christians dialogue with other Faiths.  If Bishop Spong, Paul Tillick,
    Harvey Cox, and James Luther Adams all have considered themselves
    Christians then perhaps it is a group that I could belong to.  None of
    them define adherence to any particular creed as the litmus test for
    Christianity.
    
    And what did our friend Jesus Christ really say.  The first and
    greatest commandment is to love the Lord with all your mind and soul
    and heart and the second like it to love your neighbor as yourself.
    
    Well that certainly is a statement that I find inspiring and worthy of
    committing my effort to even if I do have a hard time following it.
    
    Since I absolutely do not consider the bible to be the word of God nor
    do I believe that intermediaries such as priests and Popes have a
    more direct connection than us common folk, then I believe adherence to
    doctrine is impossible.  Who would define the doctrine.
    
    I am very troubled by all the hatred of Pagan worshippers cited in the
    old testament.  I find particularly offensive a story in Kings about how
    the "prophet Elisha"  invited all the Pagan worshippers in town to worship
    with him.  After participating in the worship service with them, he had his
    troops ambush them and kill every last one of them.  I do not believe
    that God chooses one people over another people and then orders the
    "chosen people" to exterminate the other.
    
    Many people prefer to use the term "Earth Based Worship" to avoid the
    term Pagan.  I have a need right now to meet that term and understand
    it head on.  Ro correctly interprets my believe that all Gods and
    Goddesses are one God.  The Great Spirit, The Holy Spirit, The Great
    Mother, the Cosmic Christ and perhaps even Holy Mary are all different
    ways to commune with the same God.
    
    I know, love, admire, and respect people who define themselves as UU
    Pagans, UU Christians, UU Humanists, UU Jew, UU Agnostics, and UU Atheists. 
    Many including the UU Atheists are deeply religious.  I also know,
    love, admire, and respects persons who consider themselves Catholics,
    Protestants, Jewish, Hindu etc.  What I admire and respect in all
    deeply religious people is the extent that they live the message of
    their religion and not just preach it.  And it is the message of love,
    peace, and justice that is the unifying bond among them all.
    
    
    Patricia
    
    
    

    I have been thinking of this note and on the nature of dialogue both
    within this conference and within the world.  The question I have is
    "Is dialogue possible."

    I was looking over an article that I wrote for my church's newsletter. 
    It was a reflection on a program we ran titled "what it means to be a
    UU"  This was a one session event.  The minister asked each person
    present to introduce themselves and state one essential religious
    question each was struggling with.  We spent the evening talking about
    the questions.
    
    Afterwards I concluded the "Being a UU was about a community of people
    coming together with their minister and each other in a loving,
    supporive affirming environment  to search for answers to life's questions.
    That being a UU was not about the answers but it was about the
    questions and the intensity of the search"
    
    Earlier this summer I spent two weeks on a business trip.  The other
    person traveling with me was on the Board of Directors of his church
    a UCC.  I am on the board of directors of my church a UU church.  The
    governing styles of both churches is Congregational.  We participated
    in a lot of dialogue.  A particular conversation that was revealing was
    when he asked me whether UU's believe in God.  Some do was my answer. 
    And some are Christians, and some are humanists, and some are Pagan,
    and some are Agnostic, and some just don't care to be labelled.  He was
    incredulous.  Likewise when I asked him what he believed and he
    actually believed in the Virgin birth and the physical bodily
    ressurection I was incredulous.  After many days, I decided that we had
    more in common because of our common levels of involvement in the
    process than difference based on objects of belief.  I suspect though
    that he may not agree.
    
    So a fundamental difference is that to be a UU I think means to be more
    concerned with the process of searching than the particular answers
    found.
    
    So the question of dialogue is "can real dialogue exist between a group
    who believes that the process is the key element versus a group who
    believes that the answers are the key element."  The search within UU
    may also be shaped by the church's origins from the radical wing of the
    Protestant Reformation.  A tradition that firmly asserts that there are
    no intermediaries between a person and his/her God.  Not even the
    Bible.  A person's faith will be directly shaped by that's person's
    direct encounter with God as understood by that person. And to me that
    is the key element in the nature, intensity, and honesty of the search.
    That search is to me the most important element of faith. 
    
    This perspective allows me to comprehend more similarities than
    differences in religious beliefs.  I have a good friend from the church
    who is Pagan and considers herselve a witch.  I have another friend who
    considers himself Christian.  Both are very intense in their beliefs
    and their search for meaning. Both have much more in common than a
    person who believes that truth is revealed in a book or through a Pope
    and another person who believes that truth has to be discovered by each
    individual through a life long process.
    
    So is real dialogue possible between Conservative Christians and Religious
    Liberals.  
    
                                  Patricia 
    
    

    Something that struck me about your note, Patricia, was something that
    I think drew me to the Religious Science Community.  It seems to me
    that in both your spiritual community and mine, the emphasis is not so
    much on what the ultimate truth is but the quality of each individual's
    relationship to God and the rest of creation.  When I came to the
    church of Religious Science I was looking for a community in which I
    could freely express and explore my personal relationship to God and
    all creation.  I had always felt that relationship as a real Presence
    in my life but it felt to me that the more traditional churchs tried to
    put that relationship into a box of their own making and therefore
    limited it.
    
    FWIW - 
    
    Nanci

    Nanci,
    
    your brief note did capture the essence of my thoughts.  I would be
    very interested in hearing more about the Religious Science Community.
    Perhaps a note on it would be helpful.
    
    
    Patricia
    

    Patricia - 
    
    You're probably right.  I should start a note on Religious Science. 
    I'll take some time and try to gather my thoughts on it.  It's so
    difficult for me to put my faith into words without comparing it to
    something else.  For some reason I think more clearly in comparison
    mode than declaration mode.  ;-)
    
    Nanci
      

    Patricia .48,
    
    I'm similar to a UU then in that I experience more value in the process
    of faith unfoldment and the questions that guide me in this, than in
    the acquisition of ultimate truths or answers.
    
    It seems to me that every answer which has been revealed to me
    inevitably engenders another question that urges me to probe deeper
    into both my self and my relationship with the Divine.
    
    I feel that your question "Is dialogue possible?" between so-called
    'liberal' and 'conservative' groups THE most critical question of our 
    time.  I experience Christian-Perspective as one avenue which attempts 
    to explore both the possibilities and the implications of this all-
    important question.  
    
    Openness, honesty, respect, and a shared commitment to embark on the
    sometimes painful and difficult search for understanding and/or common 
    ground is essential in establishing a healthy dialogue process, imo. 
    
    Thanks for sharing your evocative thoughts,
    
    Karen

    This is the covenant of my church association the UUA.  This covenant
    deeply inspires me.    The covenant defines the five sources of the UU 
    faith as defined by   the General Assembly in 1986.  These are:

        o Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder,	
        affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of spirit and
        an openness to the forces that create and uphold life;

        o Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to
        confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion,
        and the transforming power of love;

        o Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our
        ethical and spiritual life;

        o Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's
        love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

        o Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of
        reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries
        of the mind and spirit.

    
    David,
    
    This appears in the basenote, however thought I might bring it here
    again.  
    
    While it does not encompass my own detailed personal beliefs, overall 
    there are the beliefs that I subscribe to as a person living in a 
    diverse world.
    
    Cindy
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    From the UUA Publication "What do Unitarian Universalists Believe?" 
    
    	1.  We believe in the freedom of religious expression.  All
    individuals should be encouraged to develop their own personal theology,
    and to present openly their religious opinions without fear of censure
    or reprisal.
    
    	2.  We believe in the toleration of religious ideas.  All
    religions, in every age and culture, possess not only an intrinsic
    merit, but also a potential value for those who have learned the
    art of listening.
    
    	3.  We believe in the authority of reason and conscience.  The
    ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, or a document, or
    an official, but the personal choice and decision of the individual.
    
    	4.  We believe in the never-ending search for Truth.  If the
    mind and heart are truly free and open, the revelations which appear
    to the human spirit are infinately numerous, eternally fruitful,
    and wondrously exciting.
    
    	5.  We believe in the unity of experience.  There is no fundamental
    conflict between faith and knowledge, religion and the world, the
    sacred and the secular, since they all have their source in the
    same reality.
    
    	6.  We believe in the worth and dignity of each human being.
    All people on earth have an equal claim to life, liberty, and justice
    -- and no idea, ideal, or philosophy is superior to a single human
    life.
    
    	7.  We believe in the ethical application of religion.  Good
    works are the natural product of a good faith, the evidence of an
    inner grace that finds completion in social and community involvement.
    
    	8.  We believe in the motive force of love.  The governing
    principle in human relationships is the principle of love, which
    always seeks the welfare of others and never seeks to hurt or destroy.
    
    	9.  We believe in the necessity of the democratic process. 
    Records are open to scrutiny, elections are open to members, and
    ideas are open to criticism -- so that people might govern themselves.
    
    	10.  We believe in the importance of a religious community. 
    The validation of experience requires the confirmation of peers,
    who provide a critical platform along with a network of mutual respect.
                                  

What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with a Unitarian?



Someone who knocks on your door for no reason at all.

    Reposted from Cindy Painter's note 473.54
    From the UUA Publication "What do Unitarian Universalists Believe?" 
    
    	1.  We believe in the freedom of religious expression.  All
    individuals should be encouraged to develop their own personal theology,
    and to present openly their religious opinions without fear of censure
    or reprisal.
    
    	2.  We believe in the toleration of religious ideas.  All
    religions, in every age and culture, possess not only an intrinsic
    merit, but also a potential value for those who have learned the
    art of listening.
    
    	3.  We believe in the authority of reason and conscience.  The
    ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, or a document, or
    an official, but the personal choice and decision of the individual.
    
    	4.  We believe in the never-ending search for Truth.  If the
    mind and heart are truly free and open, the revelations which appear
    to the human spirit are infinately numerous, eternally fruitful,
    and wondrously exciting.
    
    	5.  We believe in the unity of experience.  There is no fundamental
    conflict between faith and knowledge, religion and the world, the
    sacred and the secular, since they all have their source in the
    same reality.
    
    	6.  We believe in the worth and dignity of each human being.
    All people on earth have an equal claim to life, liberty, and justice
    -- and no idea, ideal, or philosophy is superior to a single human
    life.
    
    	7.  We believe in the ethical application of religion.  Good
    works are the natural product of a good faith, the evidence of an
    inner grace that finds completion in social and community involvement.
    
    	8.  We believe in the motive force of love.  The governing
    principle in human relationships is the principle of love, which
    always seeks the welfare of others and never seeks to hurt or destroy.
    
    	9.  We believe in the necessity of the democratic process. 
    Records are open to scrutiny, elections are open to members, and
    ideas are open to criticism -- so that people might govern themselves.
    
    	10.  We believe in the importance of a religious community. 
    The validation of experience requires the confirmation of peers,
    who provide a critical platform along with a network of mutual respect.
                                  

Note 473.53      Unitarian Universalism as religious safety net         53 of 56
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "waiting for the snow"              21 lines  12-NOV-1992 13:37
                                -< UU Covenant >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is the covenant of my church association the UUA.  The covenant defines the five sources of the UU 
    faith as defined by   the General Assembly in 1986.  These are:

        o Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder,	
        affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of spirit and
        an openness to the forces that create and uphold life;

        o Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to
        confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion,
        and the transforming power of love;

        o Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our
        ethical and spiritual life;

        o Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's
        love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

        o Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of
        reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries
        of the mind and spirit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mike,
    
    
THis is in response to your note in 1003 
    
    The Calvinist Church in New England was the Congregational
    Church.  In the 18 hundreds the Calvinist Church split in two.
    The liberal church was named the Unitarian Church.  The Orthordox
    church was the Calvinist Church.  At approximately the same time the
    Andover Theological School was founded which was latter merged with the
    Newton Theological School to become Andover-Newton.  The Andover school
    was founded because the orthordox were dismayed because the Unitarians
    took over Harvard with the election of a series of Unitarian
    Presidents.
    
    
    The Unitarian Christians(Chandler, Emerson, and Theodore Parker are the
    most famous)  believed that their was one God, the eternal father(yes
    they were sexist at the time).  They believed there was no biblical
    justification for the trinity or for the Divinity of Christ. 
    Chandler's sermon on Unitarian Christianity strategically given was the
    origin of the Unitarian Movement in the United States as a separate
    movement within Christianity.
    
    
    I grew up in Boston in the United Church of Christ Faith.  UUC was a
    merger of Congregational churches with other churches.  I don't know
    which.   In my religious journey I follow the route of Channing. 
    Leaving the UCC church and joining the UU church.  
    
    Unfortunately I know more about Unitarian History than Universalist
    History.
    
    THere is a UU family joke about Universal Salvation.
    
    "Unitarians believed that Mankind was too good for God to condemn and
    Universalist believed God too good to condemn mankind."  Both
    Unitarians and Universalists were Universalists.  A Unitarian Christian
    is the opposite of a Trinitarian Christian.  I do not know what
    Universalists believed about the Trinity.  As each organization
    evolved, doctrine about the trinity became moot.
    
    Today the UU Faith Community is intentionally a community without a
    creed.  There is no set of beliefs a UU must profess to.  Each UU is
    responsible for their own Faith Journey.  The community has a
    responsibility in supporting each member in their individual journey. 
    
    There are loosely defined principles and purposes which unite us as
    UU's.  Each UU views those differently but for me they pretty much
    define my World View.  There is a note on UU's in which they are
    recorded.
    
    Today most UU community are not identified as Christian churches
    although there is an association of UU Christian churches within the
    movement.  There is a small percentage of persons within most UU
    churches who consider themselves UU Christians.  There are also UU
    Jews, UU Humanists, UU Pagans, UU Budhists, and UU-don't give me a
    label.  It is our intention to be an inclusive community. 
    
                                  Patricia
    

Patricia,

What is the UU view towards atheists? Most of the we believe statements
encompassed tolerance toward different religions, but not necessarily toward
non-religion. The one section on humanists was kind of ambiguous, saying to heed
science but not worship it.

Steve

    Atheists are full participants and an important part of the UU community.
    In fact one of the criticism of outsiders to the UU community is that we
    are just a bunch of humanists.
    
    As a community of Faith, the UU community would challenge an atheist to
    define what it is that gives meaning to their life.  What are the
    things worth living for, worth dieing for.  A good arguement is that
    Secular Humanists may in fact be the most devoted, unselfish
    individuals.  They pursue heaven on earth without the carot of eternal
    life awaiting them.
    
                                    Patricia

re: .60 POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"

Patricia,

Interesting concept, I'll need to think about this. Thanks for the information.

Steve

RE:         <<< Note 473.60 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

    

>  .  They pursue heaven on earth without the carot of eternal
>    life awaiting them.
    
 
 ..until the arrive at eternal life wishing they had grabbed that carrot..

 "for what shall it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own 
  soul"..



 Jim

    Jim,
    
    Do you remember the parable about the man with two son's and asks them
    to go out and work the field for him.
    
    The first says yes father, I will go, and then does nothings.
    
    The second says no, I don't want to do it, then does it anyways.
    
    Then Jesus asks which has done the will of the Father.
    
    Well, that could be transformed to the two twentieth century men.
    
    One says, God, I don't believe in you, but goes out and takes care of
    the poor, sick, needy, and prisoners.
    
    The others says, God, I believe you are my Lord and Savoir, and sits
    meditating their navel while the poor sick and hungry remain poor sick
    and hungry.
    
    Which do you think will inherited the Kingdom of Heaven?
    
    Do you not believe that only good trees can bear good fruit?
    
                           Patricia 

re .63

That parable is not about belief, it is about obedience.

/john

    re .64
    
    Precicely!!

Thus it doesn't say anything about the necessity of belief.

Certainly those who are in heaven will believe.

Otherwise they will think they are in hell, and possibly prefer to be
sent there.

/john

RE:         <<< Note 473.63 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

       
   > One says, God, I don't believe in you, but goes out and takes care of
   > the poor, sick, needy, and prisoners.
    


   "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish
    their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteous-
    ness of God.." Romans 10:3


>    The others says, God, I believe you are my Lord and Savoir, and sits
>    meditating their navel while the poor sick and hungry remain poor sick
>    and hungry.
 

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe
 in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
 Romans 10:10

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" Roman 10:13.


   
 >   Which do you think will inherited the Kingdom of Heaven?
    
  
     Based on the above, what say ye?  God has established the plan of
     salvation.  While I certainly believe that any one who is saved should
     exhibit the fruits, that some do not does not allow me to question or
     usurp His plan, as your example seems to indicate.


 Jim

    Neither parable says anything about the necessity to believe.
    
    A person's action will emanate from what is in their heart.  If the
    heart is good(The Good Tree) the fruit will be good.  If the heart is
    evil the fruit will be bad.  Only God knows what is in the heart. Bible
    believers are making themselves into false gods, by pretending to know
    who will inherited the kingdom and who won't and judging or implying
    judgement against others.
    
                                Patricia

    Jim,
    
    Feel smug quoting Romans if you like.  From your exegisis of Romans it
    is  directly contradictory to what is in Matthew.  Remember, it is in
    Matthew where Jesus says whatever you do to the least of mine, you have
    done to me.  Where Jesus says the greatest commandment is to Love. 
    Where Jesus says that Good trees only bear good fruit.
    
    

>    Neither parable says anything about the necessity to believe.

Oh?  What does "doing God's will" mean if not "obeying his commandments"
including the first commandment.

/john

RE:         <<< Note 473.69 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

       
   > Feel smug quoting Romans if you like.  From your exegisis of Romans it
   > is  directly contradictory to what is in Matthew.  Remember, it is in
   > Matthew where Jesus says whatever you do to the least of mine, you have
   > done to me.  Where Jesus says the greatest commandment is to Love. 
   > Where Jesus says that Good trees only bear good fruit.
    


    Smug?  Certainly no more smug than .68 referring to Bible believing 
    Christians as "false gods".  Perhaps you'd care to explain the passages
    in Romans?

    Also, remember it is in John where Jesus says "no one comes to the Father
    but by me"..though, I realize many conveniently deny the authority of
    that passage..


    Jim
    

RE: .62/.67 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Dig a little deeper"

>> ..until the arrive at eternal life wishing they had grabbed that carrot..

Frankly, I wouldn't be real interested in a heaven ruled by the God that is
ruling the earth. If he runs heaven the same as earth you might all be in for a
shock...

Arguments in the following notes simply serve to solidify my position. From your
point of view God doesn't seem to be interested in good people, his main goal
seems to be filling heaven with sycophants.

Steve

>Frankly, I wouldn't be real interested in a heaven ruled by the God that is
>ruling the earth.

The current ruler of this earth is Satan, not God.

/john

RE<<< Note 473.72 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>

RE: .62/.67 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Dig a little deeper"

>>> ..until the arrive at eternal life wishing they had grabbed that carrot..

>Frankly, I wouldn't be real interested in a heaven ruled by the God that is
>ruling the earth. If he runs heaven the same as earth you might all be in for a
>shock...


As John Covert points out, Satan rules the earth right now..



>Arguments in the following notes simply serve to solidify my position. From your
>point of view God doesn't seem to be interested in good people, his main goal
>seems to be filling heaven with sycophants.

 There are mumblety billion people on this earth, each with their own idea of
 what defines "good people"..how do you judge what is a good person?  Where is
 the line between a "good" person and a "bad" person, and who defines what that
 line is?  As pointed out earlier, God speaks to those who go about establishing
 their own righteousness (Romans 10:3).  God says there are none who are
  righteous..no, not one (Romans 3:10)..He establishes the line, and none are
 on the good side, apart from Jesus Christ..



 Jim

re: .73 COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

>>The current ruler of this earth is Satan, not God.

So God is losing? I thought this was impossible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .74 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Dig a little deeper"

>>how do you judge what is a good person?

If anyone could tell I would assume that it would be God. With all of his
infinite powers he seems to have chosen the method "Believe in me and you are
good, no matter how horrific your actions may be, don't believe and you are bad,
no matter how saintly your actions may be."

Pretty much the standard definition of sycophant. 

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

"These nouns denote persons who lavish praise or attention on others, usually in
the hope of gain."

Steve

No, God is not losing.

/john

    
    From the UUA Publication, "What do Unitarian Universalists Believe?" 
    
    	1.  We believe in the freedom of religious expression.  All
    individuals should be encouraged to develop their own personal theology,
    and to present openly their religious opinions without fear of censure
    or reprisal.
    
    	2.  We believe in the toleration of religious ideas.  All
    religions, in every age and culture, possess not only an intrinsic
    merit, but also a potential value for those who have learned the
    art of listening.
    
    	3.  We believe in the authority of reason and conscience.  The
    ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, or a document, or
    an official, but the personal choice and decision of the individual.
    
    	4.  We believe in the never-ending search for Truth.  If the
    mind and heart are truly free and open, the revelations which appear
    to the human spirit are infinately numerous, eternally fruitful,
    and wondrously exciting.
    
    	5.  We believe in the unity of experience.  There is no fundamental
    conflict between faith and knowledge, religion and the world, the
    sacred and the secular, since they all have their source in the
    same reality.
    
    	6.  We believe in the worth and dignity of each human being.
    All people on earth have an equal claim to life, liberty, and justice
    -- and no idea, ideal, or philosophy is superior to a single human
    life.
    
    	7.  We believe in the ethical application of religion.  Good
    works are the natural product of a good faith, the evidence of an
    inner grace that finds completion in social and community involvement.
    
    	8.  We believe in the motive force of love.  The governing
    principle in human relationships is the principle of love, which
    always seeks the welfare of others and never seeks to hurt or destroy.
    
    	9.  We believe in the necessity of the democratic process. 
    Records are open to scrutiny, elections are open to members, and
    ideas are open to criticism -- so that people might govern themselves.
    
    	10.  We believe in the importance of a religious community. 
    The validation of experience requires the confirmation of peers,
    who provide a critical platform along with a network of mutual respect.

                                  
    The following are the purposes and objectives stated at the time of the 
    actual merger of both Unitarian and Universalist faiths (which took 
    place at Symphony Hall, Boston, Massachusetts in May, 1961):

	1.  To strengthen one another in a free and disciplined search for
	    truth as the foundation of our religious fellowship;

	2.  To cherish and spread the universal truths taught by the great
	    prophets and teachers of humanity in every age and tradition,
	    immemorially summarized in the Judeo-Christian heritage as love
	    to God and love to man;

	3.  To affirm, defend and promote the supreme worth of every human
	    personality, the dignity of man and the use of the democratic
	    method in human relationships;

	4.  To implement our vision of one world by striving for a world
	    community founded on the ideals of brotherhood, justice and peace;

	5.  To serve the needs of member churches and fellowships and to
	    extend and strengthen liberal religion;

	6.  To encourage cooperation with men of good will in every land.

Re: Note 473.77     
TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon"                      72 lines   5-SEP-1995 19:13
    
Z    	1.  We believe in the freedom of religious expression.  All
Z    individuals should be encouraged to develop their own personal theology,
Z    and to present openly their religious opinions without fear of censure
Z    or reprisal.
 
This would negate likemindedness.
       
Z    	3.  We believe in the authority of reason and conscience.  The
Z    ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, or a document, or
Z    an official, but the personal choice and decision of the individual.
 
Just out of curiosity, what type of society do you think there would be 
without standards or without laws.  I see this bullet as damaging because
you are in essence trusting a persons reason and conscience and as frail
humans, these two elements are not always consistent, i.e. Hitler, Stalin, etc.
   
Z    	4.  We believe in the never-ending search for Truth.  If the
Z    mind and heart are truly free and open, the revelations which appear
Z    to the human spirit are infinately numerous, eternally fruitful,
Z    and wondrously exciting.
 
I agree here!!
   
Z    	5.  We believe in the unity of experience.  There is no fundamental
Z    conflict between faith and knowledge, religion and the world, the
Z    sacred and the secular, since they all have their source in the
Z    same reality.
 
As an outsider, I would categorically reject this thought.  There is very much 
a conflict between faith and the world.  There are many times a conflict 
between knowledge and faith.  In fact, bullet 1 would provide the very making
for this scenario.  Jesus Christ spoke a few times on being separate from the
world.
   
Z    	6.  We believe in the worth and dignity of each human being.
Z    All people on earth have an equal claim to life, liberty, and justice
Z    -- and no idea, ideal, or philosophy is superior to a single human
Z    life.
 
Does the Unitarian Universalist Church include human beings in utero when they
penned this bullet?  I think it very much applies since abortion is rooted in
ideals and philosophy.
             

Z	5.  To serve the needs of member churches and fellowships and to
Z	    extend and strengthen liberal religion;

What is liberal religion?


These remarks and questions are intended to be brought forth respectfully.

-Jack

.78

Z       3.  We believe in the authority of reason and conscience.  The
Z    ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, or a document, or
Z    an official, but the personal choice and decision of the individual.
 
>Just out of curiosity, what type of society do you think there would be 
>without standards or without laws.  I see this bullet as damaging because
>you are in essence trusting a persons reason and conscience and as frail
>humans, these two elements are not always consistent, i.e. Hitler, Stalin, 
>etc.

Odd, one of the base precepts of our country is that religion is a matter 
of personal choice, dating back to the writings of Madison and Jefferson. I 
think perhaps you might have taken the quote to imply that all behavior is 
up to the individual, when it is specifically talking about religion?

    I did.  Now I understand better and agree with bullet three.  Thanks.
    
    -Jack

                                                                       
    Jack,
    
    For every UUer, you'll probably get a different response for your
    questions.  Unfortunately I don't have time to get into this here - I
    just put them in as an FYI, to counter an earlier comment about
    'praying to 'To Whom It May Concern', which I have no idea where that
    came from, but alright...
    
    In any case, Jack, what I see the spirit of all the statements about
    UUism as being, is that you personally would be welcomed into UUism, 
    instead of being rejected because of your beliefs. Granted, religions
    are made up of people, and people are not perfect, however in general
    we try to welcome all who wish to be with us in the spirit set forth
    by the statements in .77.
    
    Btw, I do not believe that UUism itself takes any official specific 
    stand on abortion, however it is true that the majority of *people* in 
    UUism do tend to lean more toward pro-choice.  Yet I also know that
    these same people would prefer not to have abortions happening at all,
    which is why there is an excellent sex education curriculum offered by
    the UU Religious Education department to, I believe, youths in their
    teen years (Patricia, do you know more about this?).  I've seen parts 
    of the syllabus, along with the teacher training, and it's quite good. 
    
    Cindy 

    Is any one in here planning on attending the UU New England gathering
    in  November?
    
                                     Patricia
    

Note 9.1996

>I am absolutely certain that I have nowhere near the hostility
>towards UUism that you obviously have towards the Church founded
>by Jesus Christ, as you constantly demonstrate in your slanderous
>attacks on the catholic faith and its followers.

In all fairness to Patricia, there's been a time or two I recall her coming
the the defense of Roman Catholicism and its adherents.  Can as much be said
of those critical of Unitarian Universalism?

Shalom,
Richard

ZZ    Can as much be said
ZZ    of those critical of Unitarian Universalism?
    
    I am reminded of an interesting story.  It seems there was this
    moderately known Methodist seminary on the east coast.  This seminary
    was operated under the leadership of a Godly man, a democrat to boot,
    and a man who is known known as former president Woodrow Wilson.  This
    University held themselves firmly to the Westminster Confession and
    stood by that solid, sound faith doctrine for many years.
    
    It seems there was an opening in one of their theological departments 
    and for whatever reason, the seminary had a very difficult time finding
    the right candidate.  After an extensive search they found the man who
    was an expert in the particular field they are looking for.  However,
    he was a proponent of liberal theology and did not hold to the precepts
    of the Westminster confession.  They hastily took him on anyway and
    within two years, the school had renounced the Westminster confession
    and became a wishy washy, liberal theological grave.  The school to
    which I refer is none other than Princeton University.
    
    I see a great parallel here with this example and institutions such as
    the UU who don't practice the principle Jesus gave us.  The principle
    of seperation.  It isn't so much I don't defend an institution because
    I don't want to.  I see folly in the practice of getting in bed with
    Paganism.
    
    -Jack   

	It's nice to know that you take something totally unrelated and apply
it to the UU Church. I was hoping one of your New Years resolutions would have
been that you would stop lumping everything into catagories and look at reality
for a change. 



Glen

    Glen, I was hoping one of your resolutions would be to stop your
    confounded whining and reading replies incorrectly.
    
    Of COURSE my analogy is unrelated, but it is very applicable to
    organizations who lose their focus and dabble into areas to which they
    should not be dabbling.  My point here is that we are called to be
    separate from worldly fare, and this principle is brought out
    throughout scripture.  But this of course is something you disagree
    with because the concept of scripture being God breathed doesn't fit
    into your scope of living.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 473.86 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Of COURSE my analogy is unrelated, 

	If it is unrelated, why did you tie it into the UU church in your last
paragraph?

| but it is very applicable to organizations who lose their focus and dabble 
| into areas to which they should not be dabbling.  

	Again, you tied it into the UU church in your last note. Unrelated
things don't go together. And who are you to define what a denomination should
or should not dabble in? If the denomination is not yours, and the denomination
isn't causing you harm, then please don't tell them what they should or should
not dabble in. You don't want to see dabbling in a certain area, then join a
denomination that doesn't dabble there.

| My point here is that we are called to be separate from worldly fare, and this
| principle is brought out throughout scripture.  

	If only you would live by the rule you state. There would be no
problems from any religion. But where you don't live by that rule, please don't
try and throw it up to anyone. And I don't mean you specifically not following
the rule, I mean everyone in general. Think about it. Religion is so much a
part of the worldly fare. When you help the poor, you are part of the worldly
fare. When you speak out against something, hold rallies, anything, you are
part of the worldly fare. There is no getting out of it. So that's why it
behooves me to ever see that statement written, cuz I'm not sure there are too
many people who ever follow it. And what it seems to illustrate to many people
is that many religious people try to put themselves in a class above the rest
of the humans of this world, which is something that isn't true. Yer all no
different than anyone else.



Glen

ZZ    Again, you tied it into the UU church in your last note. Unrelated
ZZ    things don't go together. 
    
    Not true Glen!  For example, Jesus calls us the Salt of the Earth. 
    Salt and people are unrelated.  Jesus referes to himself as the Bread
    of Life, however, we know that bread and a person are two distinct
    things.
    
    Princeton University is very much in parallel with any organization
    such as a church, who was given a mission from Christ and through
    dabbling with Paganism has deviated from that mission.
    
 Z   And who are you to define what a denomination should
 Z   or should not dabble in? If the denomination is not yours, and the
 Z   denomination
 Z   isn't causing you harm, then please don't tell them what they should or
 Z   should
 Z   not dabble in. You don't want to see dabbling in a certain area, then
 Z   join a denomination that doesn't dabble there.
    
  As the Church under Christ, we were called to likemindedness and we are
    called to take upon ourselves the burdens for one another.  I am not
    telling you who or what to dabble with, I am merely pointing out the
    dangers of what happens when such practices take place.  Therein lies
    my Princeton example.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 473.88 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Not true Glen! For example, Jesus calls us the Salt of the Earth. Salt and 
| people are unrelated.  

	Do you believe that the Salt He talked about is the same salt that you
seem to be referring to? 

| Jesus referes to himself as the Bread of Life, however, we know that bread 
| and a person are two distinct things.

	Do you think that the Bread He is talking about is the same bread you
seem to be referring to?

	Jack, words have many meanings. You KNOW what was meant by those words.
They did not mean bread and salt. (although salt is bad for you! :-)  So please
don't try and compare those two phrases to your story that you tied the UU
church to.

| As the Church under Christ, we were called to likemindedness and we are called
| to take upon ourselves the burdens for one another.  

	Until you deal with your own burdens, please don't deal with what you
believe to be other people's.



Glen

    Glen:
    
    If anything it was an indictment against the Methodist's running the
    seminary.  Jesus used the words salt and bread figuratively there,
    however, the analogy connotes the same meaning.  Salt has savor and
    bread gives life.  We as a church are called to be a Holy priesthood.
    Sin is always present but God desires a repentent heart.  We are called
    to admonish one another toward holiness.  In other words Glen, if a
    brother or sister errs, it is the duty of another believer to point it
    out in love.  As John the Baptist stated, "Herod, it is not right for
    you to have your brother's wife!"  Cost him his life!!!  
    
    So don't give me this tripe about worrying what another church is
    dabbling in.  I do worry, because we are called as a church to be
    ambassadors for Christ.  I see Paganism as a deterrant from that goal
    and YOU are identifying with believers.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 473.90 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>



| So don't give me this tripe about worrying what another church is dabbling in.
| I do worry, because we are called as a church to be ambassadors for Christ. 

	Then offer it up to Him to have it taken care of. 



Glen


ps	Paganism...are you tying that into the UU church now?

    Glen:
    
    I know people outside of this conference who attend Covens under the 
    approval of the UU Church.  So yes, I would say the evidence is there.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 473.92 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| I know people outside of this conference who attend Covens under the
| approval of the UU Church.  So yes, I would say the evidence is there.

	You don't need to name names.... but mention what you believe to be a
Coven, and what they are all about. 



Glen

    Coven - An assembly of 13 witches.
    
    Sorry Glen but last time I checked, the practice of Wicca was
    considered an abomination before God.  And that's an opinion based on
    pretty solid evidence.
    
    -Jack

    Glen,
    
    I don't want to put words in Jack's mouth, but I believe he means
    circles, which are a group of pagans meeting, unless he is speaking of
    "high church" pagans, in which case Coven is appropriate.  
    
    There is an organization within the UU church known as CUP which is a
    pagan organization.  However, as can be seen it is a separate group in
    most cases from the main congregation.  
    
    meg

    Jack-
    
    If you are truly going to make pronouncements about the practice of
    wicca, and wiccans in general, I wish you would get your information
    from something other than ScienceFiction/fantasy books.
    
    If breathing eating and living are abominations (and the practice of
    wiccans encompasses that), then there are a lot of abominations god
    doesn't like floating around.
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    As a wiccan, how has your faith molded your outlook on...
    
    -Sin.
    
    -Jesus and his death on the cross to pay for the debt of sin.
    
    -Your need to be made Holy before a Holy God.
    
    Just one liners are fine.  You answers may tell alot as to what
    paganism yields in the hearts of a person.
    
    -Jack

	See, Jack.... even others tell you to take your head out of the fog. :-)

	Jack, if what Meg said is right, then you wouldn't be able to apply
what you said to all UUers, which is what you did. Which is what you always do
with everything. You don't seem capable of taking things on an individual
basis. Just the lump sum method. 

	Meg, do you know where I could look up the info? I'd like to find out
as well. 



Glen

    Glen, it doesn't matter.  Meg stated that CUP is separate from the main
    congregation, and I knew that.  However, the UU church still doesn't
    seperate itself from promoting paganism!
    
    -Jack 

| <<< Note 473.99 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Glen, it doesn't matter.  Meg stated that CUP is separate from the main
| congregation, and I knew that.  However, the UU church still doesn't
| seperate itself from promoting paganism!

	Jack, if they are seperate, and you knew that, how can you apply it to
the whole denomination? Man.... you really take the cake!


Glen

    Glen, although thegeneral congregation is separate in their beliefs,
    the UU Church under it's political auspices condones Pagan Worship. 
    Otherwise, circles or covens would not be associated!
    
    -Jack

Glen, the UU church supports virtually _any_ personal choice in religion.

As I stated elsewhere, the UUs are so inclUUsive, that they would allow
someone (probably even as a pastor) within the Church to teach that Jesus
is God and someone else to teach that Jesus is God on Tuesdays, Thursdays,
and Fridays, and that Jerry Lewis takes over on the other days.

And if you believe that Haile Selassie is God, and that's where you are on
your spiritual journey, than that's what you can teach as a UU.

/john

    Jack,
    
    Sin is a concept I don't have.  Harming others, including myself is a
    concept I have.  
    
    Sacrifices, particularly blood sacrifices are repugnant to me.  I'll
    leave that to the more bloody patriarchal faiths.  
    
    Three I also have a disconnect with.  She is there and always there as
    is her consort.  I live my life to the best I can as a human, and in
    the joy of her creation and the world I was gifted into.  
    
    meg

    Meg, thanks for proving my point.  It was for Glen's benefit if he is
    in fact a Christian.
    
    Glen, if a church has no unity in faith, a doctrinal base, or a core of
    common belief regarding Jesus Christ, then it is not a church.  If you
    are truly seeking that which profits then you may want to check other
    options.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    You forget, I am not a UU, nor do I play one on late-night TV.  
    
    I can't speak for them, address your questions to Patricia.
    
    meg

    Do you think she'd mind if I called her?  Does anybody know where
    they're staying right now??

| <<< Note 473.101 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Glen, although thegeneral congregation is separate in their beliefs,
| the UU Church under it's political auspices condones Pagan Worship.
| Otherwise, circles or covens would not be associated!

	PLEASE STOP WITH YOU'RE ALL INCLUSIVE DUE TO WHAT A SECTOR MIGHT DO
ANALOGIES! They are totally baseless.


Glen

    Okay Glen...how about this...
    
    There are certain UU churches that are condoning the practice of
    Paganism.  You might want to write to the governing body of the UU
    National headquarters and report this to them so that they can set
    these churches on the path of living Holy and spotless before God.
    
    This ought to suffice since as you say, this is not inclusive of the
    whole national church.  Good nough?!

	Much better, Jack....except for the writing stuff. A church makes it's
congregation of what the people want. Plain and simple. If that weren't the
case, we would only have one denomination, which we don't. AND, at the very
least, we would only have one form of a denomination, not several. You see, it
doesn't bother me that there are differences between individual denominations.
It does seem to bother you, though.

    Very much so when they fall under the umbrella of the Christian Church.
    
    I am reminded of yet another interesting annecdote.  D.L Moody ran a
    camp in Massachusetts called camp Northfield.  He used to have
    evangelistic outreaches and many souls were converted to the savior.  
    One evening, Moody was walking back from the local grocerette when he
    happened to come across this drunkard lying in the gutter with an empty
    bottle of cheap wine.  The drunk was incoherent but was able to sit up
    and say to Moody, "Hey....I rrremmeber you...you converted me last
    niiigght at your meeting."  D.L. Moody's response was, "Well, it sure
    must have been me who converted you because it certainly wasn't the
    Lord!"  I find it interesting the concept brought out here about
    seperation from the world.  The drunk was not seperated but he wanted
    to identify as a part of the church.     
    
    If you check out the book of Revelation some day, you will read the
    account of Christ's message to the seven churches.  There were two
    churches called Pergamum and Thiatyra that were severely rebuked for
    their dabbling in Pagan worship and practices.  Nevertheless they were
    churches and recognized as such.  So, how can one who is truly seeking
    the bread of life be unequally yoked with non believers Glen?
    
    -Jack
    
  										

	Jack, how can you work, associate, be friends with, anyone else but a
Christian that meets "your" criteria? It's the same thing. All these people
exist in this world. Do we ignore them? I say no. Do we push them away? I say
no, as then how will they ever get to know about Christ if all the Christians
are pushing them away? 



Glen

    I recall a man named Lot who asked the same question.  He set up his
    tent outside the walls of Sodom and within a short period of time, not
    only owned a house in the city but was also considered a chief elder.
    No Glen, you don't ignore anybody at all.  You don't push them away
    either.  You practice the precept Christ gave to the disciples which
    was..."Come out from among them and be ye seperate."  "Present
    yourselves as living sacrifices, Holy and pleasing to God which is your
    spiritual worship.  Be not conformed to this world, but be ye
    transformed by the renewing of your mind..."  
    
    What is your plan in doing this and how will you implement this
    objective?

    The UU church does not "condone" Pagan Worship.
    
    The UU church fully embraces diversity including Pagan Worship.
    
    The UU church is committed to helping each member on their own
    spiritual journey and offering support to those journey's regardless of
    the direction that the individual chooses.
    
    CUUPS, The convenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans, is a sub group
    of Unitarian Universalism, similiar to the UUCF, the Unitarian
    Universalist Christian Fellowship.  CUUPS groups usually meet
    separately, but most UU churches conduct diverse forms of religious
    worship, with many of the churches holding one or more Pagan service
    during the year.  Bigotry should not be allowed in the UU churches.
    
    The stigma attached to the words Pagan and Witch unfortunately
    influence Unitarian Universalism.  Not all UU's are comfortable with
    those words.  I have actively promoted that bigotry against Paganism is
    just as unacceptable as anti-semitism.  I also have the priveledge of
    knowing one UU minister(not associated with paganism) who resigned from
    the cities interfaith clergy association when the association rejected
    the request for membership of a Pagan member.  The organization
    reconsidered and Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, UU, and Pagan now meet
    together.
    
    Stawhawk and Margot Adler are excellent authors discussing what
    Paganism is.  A review of the literature clearly shows that there is
    nothing scary and there is much that is beautiful in Paganism.  There
    is much in Paganism that is useful to Christianity and can be
    incorporated into Christian practices without in any way diminishing
    those practices.

	Shhhhheeeee's baaaack! :-)  Hope you had a great wedding and honeymoon! 

	I knew you would clear up this mess. :-)

 ZZZ    I knew you would clear up this mess. :-)
    
    Not even close Glen, the first two lines contradict each other. 
    Patricia, things haven't changed a whole lot but good to have you back.
    I started a new string on separation and would be interested in both
    your replies!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    There is no contradiction Jack.
    
    THe word "condone" means "to forgive, overlook, or disregard (an
    offense) without protest or censure.
    
    The UUA fully accepts paganism as a spiritual path.  There is nothing
    to forgive, overlook, or disregard.

| <<< Note 473.115 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Patricia, things haven't changed a whole lot but good to have you back.



	Yes, Jack still states his opinions as some sort of fact, so not much
has changed. :_)


Glen

>    THe word "condone" means "to forgive, overlook, or disregard (an
>    offense) without protest or censure.

It also means "permit, accept, allow".
    
/john

| <<< Note 473.118 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| >    THe word "condone" means "to forgive, overlook, or disregard (an
| >    offense) without protest or censure.

| It also means "permit, accept, allow".

	John, it might have those meaning in the dictionary as well, but the 
only meaning that is relavant is the one the UU's use. 

	Gay has several meanings too. But you use the one that applys to the
given situation. Hell, you have even stated before that words from the Bible
meant something different back in those days. 


Glen

    obfuscation alert! obfuscation alert! 

| <<< Note 473.120 by ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| obfuscation alert! obfuscation alert!

	Your reply does seem to describe your knowledge on this subject.

    Glen said hell.

:-)

>| It also means "permit, accept, allow".
>
>John, it might have those meaning in the dictionary as well, but the 
>only meaning that is relevant is the one the UU's use. 

No, the one which is relevant is the one (from the dictionary) which the
first person who used the word in this topic intended by it.

If we do not accept the common meanings of words in the dictionary, we
cannot possibly carry on a discussion.

/john

| <<< Note 473.124 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| No, the one which is relevant is the one (from the dictionary) which the
| first person who used the word in this topic intended by it.

	John, you take the cake. Anyone can get what another person, group,
wrong. I mean, you and I are always doing it. Even if you don't want to admit
it. :-)

| If we do not accept the common meanings of words in the dictionary, we
| cannot possibly carry on a discussion.

	John, the ONLY correct meaning is the correct one, not the one you wish
to give it (which at times could be right). You can not set the parameters and
expect others to follow it, just because you say this is how it is. You have to
go by what was intended, ONLY. 



Glen

    
    
    John is absolutely correct; we must share a common and objective
    meaning in the use of words or we cannot communicate meaningfully.
    
    jeff

    re: .125
    
    Deflection alert, deflection alert! (obfuscation, too, but I used that
    word once in this topic, already  8^) )
    
    

    
    
>    John is absolutely correct; we must share a common and objective
>    meaning in the use of words or we cannot communicate meaningfully.
    
>    jeff
    
    You guys are collectively amusing.
    
    John has shown a distortion in the word "condone" and then suggested
    that we need to use the correct meaning.  After John's distortion, you
    applaud and say it is necessary to correct communication.
    
    It does not take a linguistic genius to understand that the word
    "condone" carries a negative connotation.  Only something that is seen
    as negative can be "condoned".
    
    When Jack Martin suggested that the UU's condoned Paganism, he was
    clearly communication his negative opinion of Paganism and the UU
    acceptance of something he perceived to be negative.
    
    My retort that the UUA does not "condone" Paganism but fully accepts it
    as a healthy spiritual path, refutes Jack's negative overtones.
    
    Jack's statement that my two sentences were contradictory, suggested
    that he did not comprehend or accept the difference between "condoning"
    something and "fully embracing something".
    
    Amusing!

    
    It seemes to me you and Jack were in violent agreement: the UU
    church accepts paganism, a faith system not accepted by mainstream
    Christian churches. Jack's use of the word is correct, from his point
    of view, just as you might say the Roman Catholic church condones
    discrimination against women.
    
    Eric

| <<< Note 473.126 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| John is absolutely correct; we must share a common and objective
| meaning in the use of words or we cannot communicate meaningfully.

	Jeff, I don't think anyone disagree's with that. But the meaning HAS to
be what the UU's mean it to be, not what you, John, or anyone else want to make
it.

Introducing CUUPS:

The Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans

History

The Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans had its beginnings at the
1985 Unitarian Universalist General Assembly in Atlanta, Georgia. A
spontaneous Summer Solstice ritual and subsequent networking led to a
commitment to explore the possibility of an ongoing organization. Work over
the next two years resulted in the beginnings of a continent-wide mailing
list (now numbering over 4000), the first issue of a newsletter, PAGAN
NUUS, and the bringing of Margot Adler as a General Assembly speaker to
Little Rock, Arkansas in June 1987. At the organizational meeting in Little
Rock, the Statement of Purpose was adopted, and the interim steering
committee established the year before (including a number of UU ministers
and ministry students) was confirmed as the first Board of Directors. In
October of the same year, the Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans was
recognized as an Independaent Affiliate Organization of the Unitarian
Universalist Association by a unanimous vote of the UUA Board of Trustees.

Denominational Significance

The formation of the Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans strengthens
the religious pluralism that is intrinsic to the entire Unitarian
Universalist religious movement by the institutional recognition of
Contemporary Paganism, a movement which is gaining increasing currency bot
within UU congregations themselves and in the borader communities that they
serve -- it is estimated that the Pagan-identified community in North
America (in addition to Native Americans) now numbers upwards of 200,000
individuals, many of whom are note affiliated with any "mainstream"
religious organization, and who are a potentially vast source of input of
membership, talent, and support for the UU Association and member
societies.

What the Future Holds

Contemporary Paganism is one of the fastest growing religious movements in
North America. Both as a primary religious community for individuals of
virtually all religious backgrounds, and as a focus of special spiritual
attention, Contemporary Paganism is touching many Unitarian Universalists
at a very deep level -- not just those on the fringes of our movement, but
also a large number of deeply committed UUs with along histories and
substantial investment in the UU movement, as well as a not insignificant
number of UU young people. (A suprising number of one-time LRY memers can
now be found in the non-UU Pagan community!) Contemporary Paganism is
reaching the unchurched and the come-outers across the religious spectrum.
It is a grass roots movement, coming largely from the laity (although a
significant number of ministers are identifying with it, both privately and
publicly). It is a movement in which men are also being given an
opportunity to participate -- and to take leadership roles -- in work
involving feminist and goddes-oriented spiritual values. And it is the
first time since the Inquisition that Pagans are being welcomed into a
mainstream religious body. That Pagan-oriented UUs and Jewish and Christian
UUs can worship together under the same roof is a tremendous step forward
for religious pluralism, with far-reaching implications fnot just for
Unitarian Universalism, abut for the whole of Western religion, and,
indeed, the future of life on Mother Earth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The spiritual world is like the natural world -- only diversity
     will save it. Just as the health of a forest can be measured by
     the number of different plants and creatures that successfuly
     make it their home, so only by an extraordinary abundance of
     disparate spiritual and philosophical paths will human beings
     navigate a pathway through the dark and swirling storms that mark
     our current era.

     Margo Adler

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

     When we understand that the earth is alive, and know ourselves as
     part of that life, we are called to live our lives with
     integrity, to make our actions match our beliefs, to take
     responsibility for creating what we would have manifest, to do
     the work of healing.

     Starhawk

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

     Talk of mysteries! Think of our life in nature -- heaven is under
     our feet as well as over our heads.

     Thoreau

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet/Mail file converted on Wednesday, August 30, 1995 by by htmlize.pl,
version 1.2b3
Carl Hommel , notelrac@world.std.com

>But the meaning HAS to be what the UU's mean it to be

Why?  Jack used the word first.  He's not a UU.

/john

	Cuz if Jack's meaning of the word does not match the meaning the UU's
give to it, then Jack can not apply his version to the UU's.


Glen

I was going to quote this to answer one of Richard's questions.  But I get
    all choked up everytime I read this.  I thought I should post it again
    for all the readers who affirm a religion of reason, love, and cultural
    plurialism.  I guess it is because I do get choked up everytime I read
    it that I love the UU church so much.
    
                                      Patricia
    
    (Copied from the UUA Publication "What do Unitarian Universalists
     Believe?)
    
    	1.  We believe in the freedom of religious expression.  All
    individuals should be encouraged to develop their own personal theology,
    and to present openly their religious opinions without fear of censure
    or reprisal.
    
    	2.  We believe in the toleration of religious ideas.  All
    religions, in every age and culture, possess not only an intrinsic
    merit, but also a potential value for those who have learned the
    art of listening.
    
    	3.  We believe in the authority of reason and conscience.  The
    ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, or a document, or
    an official, but the personal choice and decision of the individual.
    
    	4.  We believe in the never-ending search for Truth.  If the
    mind and heart are truly free and open, the revelations which appear
    to the human spirit are infinately numerous, eternally fruitful,
    and wondrously exciting.
    
    	5.  We believe in the unity of experience.  There is no fundamental
    conflict between faith and knowledge, religion and the world, the
    sacred and the secular, since they all have their source in the
    same reality.
    
    	6.  We believe in the worth and dignity of each human being.
    All people on earth have an equal claim to life, liberty, and justice
    -- and no idea, ideal, or philosophy is superior to a single human
    life.
    
    	7.  We believe in the ethical application of religion.  Good
    works are the natural product of a good faith, the evidence of an
    inner grace that finds completion in social and community involvement.
    
    	8.  We believe in the motive force of love.  The governing
    principle in human relationships is the principle of love, which
    always seeks the welfare of others and never seeks to hurt or destroy.
    
    	9.  We believe in the necessity of the democratic process. 
    Records are open to scrutiny, elections are open to members, and
    ideas are open to criticism -- so that people might govern themselves.
    
    	10.  We believe in the importance of a religious community. 
    The validation of experience requires the confirmation of peers,
    who provide a critical platform along with a network of mutual respect.