JosephM Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) For many Christians, Jesus is the "way" to God. Metaphorically, Jesus could be said to be a sign pointing to Philadelphia or a road leading to Philadelphia. The atheist has typically concluded that Philadelphia does not exist, thereby, IMO, insinuating that Jesus doesn't point to or lead to anything real. So I question what it means to call one's self a Christian or a follower of Christ while saying that God doesn't exist. I don't at all deny that some of Jesus' teachings are good philosophy or decent morals or laudable humanitarian practices. But in my opinion, to be a Christian is more than this. Bill, i like your analogy Bill but i think you might be missing a point. An atheist in the way many here have responded seems to me not to deny Philadelphia exists but rather the organized religion traditional Christian definition of Philadelphia. Joseph PS Sorry Neon.. I see you answered Bill. i was posting at the same time. Edited July 26, 2012 by JosephM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Christianity, for all of its faults, has always claimed to be more than a philosophy or a moral code. It has, for better or worse, made the claim that Jesus somehow reveals or mediates God to us.It's not entirely true that Christianity has always been purely theistic. The Death of God theology was popular enough in the 70s that it wound up on the cover of Time magazine and around 54% of Unitarian Universalists (which has its roots in Christianity) self-identifies as secular humanist. With the exception of maybe Islam, almost every major religion in the world has had some form of atheistic school of thought in its ranks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Define God for me and I will tell you if I also believe in that personal concept. Do I believe in a God that hardened the heart of Pharoah or drowned everyone in the world except a few or destroyed cities just because a survey was not completed right? I would have to say no but there is something in the spirit of love that I believe to be bigger than us all and worthy of note and respect. I feel able to call that God and I am happy to believe that is God at work. Does that make me a Theist or an Atheist? I guess it depends upon the definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 An atheist in the way many here have responded seems to me not to deny Philadelphia exists but rather the organized religion traditional Christian definition of Philadelphia. Perhaps so, Joseph. It would be interesting to do a study of Jesus' own conceptions of God (his view, not Christianity's view) and his relationship to/with God, and then to compare that to most atheistic concepts of God. For instance, did Jesus believe that God was an interventionist, or did he believe that God was an enabler? Did Jesus believe that God has personal attributes or did he believe that God was an impersonal force, a ground of being? Did Jesus believe that God had a will, or did he believe that we are accountable only to ourselves for our attitudes and actions? If, after such considerations, we did conclude that Jesus had certain conceptions about God which guided his life and teachings, then we would need to consider whether or not we think Jesus was wrong or deluded about his conceptions. If we conclude that he was, then it certainly leaves the door wide open for us to reject his notions of God in favor of ...fill in the blank with any definition of God that we like. If we think him in some sense right as a reliable pointer to God, then perhaps Christianity would do well to "get back to Jesus" and discuss what that entails. But I don't find it sensible to say, "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in God." To me, that's like saying, "I'm a Christian, but I don't find anything about Jesus or Christ relevant to my life." What is the point of labeling the jar "pickles" if nothing inside the jar resembles pickles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Is it more Christian to say you follow Jesus but don't believe in God than it is for Christians to say they believe in God but they cherry pick the teachings of Jesus to back up their prejudices or act in hypocritical ways? Which do you think is more Christian? I don't know, NG. Again, it comes back to what we mean by "Christian" doesn't it? For me, I'm a big believer in (and, hopefully, a practicioner of) Jesus' Great Commandments. It may well be "cherry-picking", but I think these are the heart of his teachings. If they are, then for someone to say that they don't believe in the God that Jesus said we should love just doesn't make sense. Does it to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I find the term difficult. If we say Jesus was the Christ which I understand is Greek for the Messiah or annointed one. If we say we are Christian and believe that then are we not also saying we accept the OT concept of what an annointed or messiah means. The word Christian has many complexities and its modern sense is often different from the original sense as understood by the bible (IMO). I do not know how much of what is said to be Jesus' words were actually his words. Does recognising some of the teachings of Jesus to be a profound influence on ones life make one a follower of Jesus and therefore a Christian in a modern sense? I really cannot say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I don't know, NG. Again, it comes back to what we mean by "Christian" doesn't it? For me, I'm a big believer in (and, hopefully, a practicioner of) Jesus' Great Commandments. It may well be "cherry-picking", but I think these are the heart of his teachings. If they are, then for someone to say that they don't believe in the God that Jesus said we should love just doesn't make sense. Does it to you? My point is that there's lots of people who claim they believe in the god of the bible and that they're Christians yet they ignore the teachings of Jesus and use the bible to justify violence and hatred and discrimination of minorities. On the other hand, there are lots of atheists who act more Christ-like than most Christians do. Many Christians would say being gay and being Christian is incompatible with each other, so should gays also be excluded from Christianity? If you allow gays to be Christians, why not atheists when almost every other major religion in the world has atheistic sects? Why should what people believe be more important than how people treat each other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 My point is that there's lots of people who claim they believe in the god of the bible and that they're Christians yet they ignore the teachings of Jesus and use the bible to justify violence and hatred and discrimination of minorities. On the other hand, there are lots of atheists who act more Christ-like than most Christians do. Many Christians would say being gay and being Christian is incompatible with each other, so should gays also be excluded from Christianity? If you allow gays to be Christians, why not atheists when almost every other major religion in the world has atheistic sects? Why should what people believe be more important than how people treat each other? I personally have no issue with your view NG. I have read that although Bishop Spong does not call himself an atheist, he does not call himself a theist either. I think there is room for us all. However, I think with respect it does not really matter what I think. It matters what you think. Only you know what makes sense to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) My point is that there's lots of people who claim they believe in the god of the bible and that they're Christians yet they ignore the teachings of Jesus and use the bible to justify violence and hatred and discrimination of minorities. Much agreed, NG. This is one of the reasons that, for me, I don't turn to the OT or to Paul's writings as often as I do to the gospels. Yet, some of Jesus' own teachings are quite harsh and condemning, aren't they? On the other hand, there are lots of atheists who act more Christ-like than most Christians do. Again, much agreed. I just haven't found many of them who wear the label "Christian atheist". Many Christians would say being gay and being Christian is incompatible with each other, so should gays also be excluded from Christianity? And to those Christians (those who say that gays can't be Christian) I would ask, "Where does Jesus talk or teach against homosexuality?" If the issue wasn't central to Jesus, why make it central to Christianity? If you allow gays to be Christians, why not atheists when almost every other major religion in the world has atheistic sects? In the first place, NG, I just said that it wouldn't make sense to me to publically wear the label, "Christian atheist." My reason (and perhaps mine alone) is because I think Christianity *should* come down to, as Jesus said, loving God and loving others. Remove either of those two things and, for me, Christianity is gutted, it's had its heart cut out. Why should what people believe be more important than how people treat each other? On a certain level (that of humanism), I suppose it doesn't. How we treat each other (love one another) is very important and if Jesus' commandment in following him was just this and this alone, then I suppose this whole subject would be mute. But Jesus also spoke of loving God along with loving others. So if Christianity, at its best, does or should come down to loving God and loving others (at least as Jesus taught it), then it seems odd to me to remove one of these tenets from the equation. In my opinion, that is what atheism attempts to do. They want Jesus, but not God? I'm just not sure how that is done or how "Christian" that is. Edited July 26, 2012 by Wayseeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Perhaps so, Joseph. It would be interesting to do a study of Jesus' own conceptions of God (his view, not Christianity's view) and his relationship to/with God, and then to compare that to most atheistic concepts of God. For instance, did Jesus believe that God was an interventionist, or did he believe that God was an enabler? Did Jesus believe that God has personal attributes or did he believe that God was an impersonal force, a ground of being? Did Jesus believe that God had a will, or did he believe that we are accountable only to ourselves for our attitudes and actions? If, after such considerations, we did conclude that Jesus had certain conceptions about God which guided his life and teachings, then we would need to consider whether or not we think Jesus was wrong or deluded about his conceptions. If we conclude that he was, then it certainly leaves the door wide open for us to reject his notions of God in favor of ...fill in the blank with any definition of God that we like. If we think him in some sense right as a reliable pointer to God, then perhaps Christianity would do well to "get back to Jesus" and discuss what that entails. But I don't find it sensible to say, "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in God." To me, that's like saying, "I'm a Christian, but I don't find anything about Jesus or Christ relevant to my life." What is the point of labeling the jar "pickles" if nothing inside the jar resembles pickles? Interesting questions Bill but personally i am not interested in spending my lifetime researching and second guessing possible corrupted writings and trying to figure out exactly what Jesus believed. All i know is i read some of Jesus reported teachings, put them into practice and had some life changing experiences as a result. Through certain teachings attributed to him, i found an approach to God through the Spirit of those teachings that touched me and initiated what i see as a transformation in my life story and the world. I am now not a follower of a man but of a way to experiencing God, ... and whether Jesus existed or not now to me is not all that important even though i believe he did. What is important to me is the profound effect his teaching (not all his reported teachings) had on my life. I feel as worthy of being called a Christian as any but if one thinks not, that is their business. I am content with or without the label and as Pete pointed out it is the same for me.... I do not know how much of what is said to be Jesus' words were actually his words. Does recognizing some of the teachings of Jesus to be a profound influence on ones life make one a follower of Jesus and therefore a Christian in a modern sense? I really cannot say. But i have no objection to anyone deciding for themself and i feel no need to challenge their own definition of the label. Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 And to those Christians (those who say that gays can't be Christian) I would ask, "Where does Jesus talk or teach against homosexuality?" If the issue wasn't central to Jesus, why make it central to Christianity? Fundamentalist Christians see the entire NT as divinely inspired by God, so when fundamentalists interpret Paul as condemning homosexuality, they believe Paul is speaking by the authority of God as much as Jesus was in the the gospels. For fundamentalists, Paul is just as important as Jesus and liberal Christians who reject the authority of Paul are just as sinful as an atheist to the fundamentalist Christian. On a certain level (that of humanism), I suppose it doesn't. How we treat each other (love one another) is very important and if Jesus' commandment in following him was just this and this alone, then I suppose this whole subject would be mute. But Jesus also spoke of loving God along with loving others. So if Christianity, at its best, does or should come down to loving God and loving others (at least as Jesus taught it), then it seems odd to me to remove one of these tenets from the equation. In my opinion, that is what atheism attempts to do. They want Jesus, but not God? I'm just not sure how that is done or how "Christian" that is. As I said earlier in the thread, Jesus lived in a time and culture where atheism as understood in modern times as a disbelief in a supernatural god did not exist. Jesus would not have been familiar with any atheistic arguments against the existence of God so it is natural that he would have believed in the importance of loving God because everyone back then believed in God. Jesus' greatest commandments themselves aren't even original to him and he had gotten those teachings from the Jewish rabbi, Hillel, who said that the whole of the Torah was to love God and to love your neighbor. So as Jesus didn't know what atheism was, we can't say for certain what Jesus would have thought of someone who wanted to follow him but didn't believe in God because people like that didn't exist in his time at all. You can't condemn something that didn't exist back then. If you accept it's ok to reject Paul's teachings about homosexuality but insist that you must follow what Jesus taught about God, by what standard are you deciding what material in the NT must be followed to be counted as a Christian and what is acceptable to reject? Why is it ok to reject what Paul said about homosexuality but not cherry pick the teachings of Jesus? As for how you can be a Christian while rejecting the existence of God, this can be done by focusing on acting out the teachings of Jesus rather than focusing on belief. Rather than insisting that being a Christian should be about believing in a correct set of beliefs, being a Christian would be about bringing the kingdom of God to Earth through our own actions by following the teachings of Jesus instead of expecting a magical superhero to come out of the skies and save us from the bad guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 As I said earlier in the thread, Jesus lived in a time and culture where atheism as understood in modern times as a disbelief in a supernatural god did not exist. True, NG. The early church had to deal more with polytheism than with atheism. Jesus' greatest commandments themselves aren't even original to him and he had gotten those teachings from the Jewish rabbi, Hillel, who said that the whole of the Torah was to love God and to love your neighbor. ...who said it while standing on one foot. Jesus probably also melded it together from the OT. The wise amongst us know that truth is truth no matter where it comes from. If you accept it's ok to reject Paul's teachings about homosexuality but insist that you must follow what Jesus taught about God, by what standard are you deciding what material in the NT must be followed to be counted as a Christian and what is acceptable to reject? Weight. The weight of the teaching and practice. In other words, Jesus' teachings and practices have more to do with loving God and loving others than they do with, say, the correct form of baptism or the Lord's Supper or church growth or Paul's gospel of easy-believism. The majority of his parables, in some way, portray God as a broken-hearted lover longing for relationship with his creation or with how unjust and uncompassionate people can be with one another. This was his religion, calling people back to loving God and loving one another. Why is it ok to reject what Paul said about homosexuality but not cherry pick the teachings of Jesus? I think we do have to cherry-pick the teachings of Jesus. I believe Jesus was a man anointed by God, not a God-man who knew everything. So I can disagree with Jesus that epilepsy is caused, not by demons, but by physiological problems in the brain. But I agree with him that religion comes down to loving God and loving others. For me, to "cut out" Jesus' take on epilepsy doesn't affect the centrality of his message or ministry in the least. But to "cut out" his teachings on God does. It is the difference between removing a wart and amputating a leg. As for how you can be a Christian while rejecting the existence of God, this can be done by focusing on acting out the teachings of Jesus rather than focusing on belief. Sure it can, NG. But doing so is excision of the majority of Jesus' teaching (it is still cherry-picking) as Jesus had a lot to say about God, his and our father. I don't at all deny that we can take the Jeffersonian approach and cut up the gospels, removing every reference to God from the teachings of Jesus. But how much would be left? Rather than insisting that being a Christian should be about believing in a correct set of beliefs, being a Christian would be about bringing the kingdom of God to Earth through our own actions by following the teachings of Jesus instead of expecting a magical superhero to come out of the skies and save us from the bad guys. Again, I agree with you, NG. I don't hold to this kind of supernatural theism either. And that is, perhaps, the point. There are different kinds of theism. We don't have to pick only supernatural theism or no belief/experience of God at all. I suspect that atheists (at least the outspoken kind) reject supernatural theism, which I do also. But for whatever reason, they know of no other way to believe in or experience God than supernatural theism, so they claim that God doesn't exist. For me, Christianity comes down to loving God and loving one another. In fact, I'm reading a Methodist book right now called, "Three Simple Rules", which says, in essence, "Do no harm, do good, stay in love with God." Isn't this what Jesus did? I think our world would be a better place if we did this. In closing my part on this subject, I've been to a couple of UU churches in my area. They were...nice. They were welcoming. They said nothing offensive. But they didn't mention God, not even one time. Neither did they mention Jesus, probably because he did talk about God so much. But I'll give the UUs this much, they were honest. They don't call themselves Christian. Christianity was the roots of both the Unitarians and the Universalists. But except for very small pockets, the UUs are no longer Christian because God and Jesus are no longer their focus or message. I respect their humanitarian efforts and think they put many Christians to shame when it comes to social action. But I wouldn't call them a church or a religion. I'm not condemning them at all, just saying that I don't think they, in the best sense, "follow Jesus." They have intentionally left that behind. Perhaps this is what "Christian atheists" want to do also. I don't know as I don't really know any. I just think the term is, on the surface, an oxymoron, and that it requires more explanation than it is worth. If, for some people, it just comes down to "do no harm, do good", that is certainly a worthy and laudable thing, is it not? Thanks for listening and for the conversation, NG. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 In closing my part on this subject, I've been to a couple of UU churches in my area. They were...nice. They were welcoming. They said nothing offensive. But they didn't mention God, not even one time. Neither did they mention Jesus, probably because he did talk about God so much.But I'll give the UUs this much, they were honest. They don't call themselves Christian. Bill, I take issue with this comment. You are suggesting that those who do not conform to your personal definition of Christian are "dishonest." You are certainly entitled to define it as you wish, but to claim that others who differ with your definition are 'dishonest' is a step too far, IMO. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) George, the UUs are honest to their own convictions. The powers that be within their organization made the decision that they are not a Christian organization. Given that they are reticent to speak of God or Jesus, yes, I think they were wise to drop the Christian label. As to the label itself as it is used here, George, until such time as TCPC tells me what it believes a Christian is, all I have to work from is my own definition based upon what I believe Jesus taught. Edited July 27, 2012 by Wayseeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 George, the UUs are honest to their own convictions. The powers that be within their organization made the decision that they are not a Christian organization. Given that they are reticent to speak of God or Jesus, yes, I think they were wise to drop the Christian label. As to the label itself as it is used here, George, until such time as TCPC tells me what it believes a Christian is, all I have to work from is my own definition based upon what I believe Jesus taught. Therefore others are dishonest? I object. I think you are right that the Jesus of 30CE would differ with those here. In fact, that person, I think, would differ with almost everyone who claims to be a Christian today. But, perhaps, this very insightful person of 30CE would be an insightful and enlightened person of 2012 and would have modified his views based on history, experience and science. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Therefore others are dishonest? No, George. You are reading more into my post than what is there. The UUs are honest to their own convictions. This in no way implies that all others are dishonest. I am simply advocating for moderation. I don't think that, as seems to be implied here, a person can believe absolutely anything they want to believe and expect others to take their claim to be Christian seriously. If I claimed to be a Buddhist but knew absolutely nothing about the Buddha, his life, or his teachings, how seriously would people take my claim? Or if I claimed to be Buddhist but said that I didn't hold to Nirvana or Enlightenment, would most Buddhists take me seriously? You yourself said: I think that someone who sincerely identifies themself as a Christian is a Christian. This would almost certainly entail a theology or philosophy that centers on Jesus and recognition of the Bible as the primary religious text. Would it do to say that someone who sincerely identifies themself as a Buddhist is a Buddhist, even if they rejected the Four Noble Truths or the Eight-Fold Path? When it comes to Christianity, even you think that there must be *some* content to the label and that it "would almost certainly entail a theology..." Theology is a study of or belief in deity i.e. God (gods). IMO, this certainly doesn't make Christians or Christianity any better than others, it just makes them different. Distinction, not superiority. All I'm asking is, if an atheist DOESN'T believe in God (which most affirmed atheists don't), why would they want to wear the label that says that they follow Jesus who DID believe in God? What would they want to gain by calling themselves Christian if they reject Jesus' central teaching, the teaching that Jesus called the Greatest? Edited July 27, 2012 by Wayseeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) No, George. You are reading more into my post than what is there. The UUs are honest to their own convictions. This in no way implies that all others are dishonest. So, why bring it up especially in the context of you disagreeing that PCs are properly "Christians?" I think the point you were making is clear - UUs are honest in admitting they are not Christians in contrast to PCs. George Edited July 27, 2012 by GeorgeW 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Would it do to say that someone who sincerely identifies themself as a Buddhist is a Buddhist, even if they rejected the Four Noble Truths or the Eight-Fold Path? When it comes to Christianity, even you think that there must be *some* content to the label and that it "would almost certainly entail a theology..." Theology is a study of or belief in deity i.e. God (gods). IMO, this certainly doesn't make Christians or Christianity any better than others, it just makes them different. Distinction, not superiority. Jesus also taught that divorce was only acceptable if your husband was caught cheating on your wife but you weren't allowed to divorce for any other reason, even if you were being abused by your husband. And even if you got a divorce, you were required to live alone the rest of your life because remarriage in Jesus' eyes was a form of adultery. Do you accept Jesus' view that abused women should not be allowed to divorce their abusive husbands unless they're cheating on him? If you reject Jesus' views on divorce, why do you still call yourself a Christian? Why do you reject Jesus' teachings on divorce but you demand that we must follow everything about his theology? All I'm asking is, if an atheist DOESN'T believe in God (which most affirmed atheists don't), why would they want to wear the label that says that they follow Jesus who DID believe in God? What would they want to gain by calling themselves Christian if they reject Jesus' central teaching, the teaching that Jesus called the Greatest? Fundamentalist Christians say that to be a true Christian you must believe the entire bible is the word of God and you're not a real Christian if you don't believe in the entire bible. If you reject some parts of the bible as true but believe in other parts as true, why do you still call yourself a Christian if you're rejecting God's word? Don't you believe God's word? By what standard are you defining what parts of the bible must be believed to be a Christian and what parts it's ok to ignore if you don't believe in God's word? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) In closing my part on this subject, I've been to a couple of UU churches in my area. They were...nice. They were welcoming. They said nothing offensive. But they didn't mention God, not even one time. Neither did they mention Jesus, probably because he did talk about God so much. But I'll give the UUs this much, they were honest. They don't call themselves Christian. Bill, I think it would be a good idea if you read Wiki and a few UU church sites a little more carefully.. While they are inclusive of all religions, (pluralistic as is Progressive Christianity) including atheists there is still approximately 20% who identify as Christians within many UU churches. Individuals may or may not self-identify as Christians or subscribe to Christian beliefs in a UU church same as here on this PC site. While the UU has expanded beyond the traditional Christian understanding i believe it would be unfair to label their church for them. In fact some UU churches still identify themselves as Christian Churches. In UU churches there are mention of God, Jesus, Buddha and other teachers. One week might be a lesson from Hinduism another week a Christian message etc. The reason i know this is my brother is a member and actually is allowed to participate in the way of sermons and he uses the teachings of Jesus and others quite regularly. Secondly, if one truly loves others then in essence one is loving God. Isn't it harder to love your brother that you can see than to love God which you cannot see? Who among us can define God accurately other than sensing God's presence in another or oneself? Does the three letters of the word God speak louder than love? You yourself have said God is Love. if this is true than anyone who knows Love, even if the word God is never spoken knows God, Yes? Joseph Edited July 27, 2012 by JosephM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Why do you reject Jesus' teachings on divorce but you demand that we must follow everything about his theology? Where have I said anything about Jesus and his teachings on divorce? Where have I demanded that we must follow everything about his theology? Fundamentalist Christians say that to be a true Christian you must believe the entire bible is the word of God and you're not a real Christian if you don't believe in the entire bible. If you reject some parts of the bible as true but believe in other parts as true, why do you still call yourself a Christian if you're rejecting God's word? Don't you believe God's word? By what standard are you defining what parts of the bible must be believed to be a Christian and what parts it's ok to ignore if you don't believe in God's word? As I've said previously, it comes down to weight. Although I haven't talked about it before, was Jesus' central message about divorce law? Was that the focus of his ministry? Was that his gospel? Or was his gospel about responding to God's love and the offer of the Kingdom. about loving one another? I'm not a fundamentalist. The only thing that I am "fundamental" about is saying that I think Jesus' teaching on loving God and loving others is central to Christianity. And for that, I get rebuked here on this "Christian" forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Bill, I think it would be a good idea if you read Wiki and a few UU church sites a little more carefully.. While they are inclusive of all religions, (pluralistic as is Progressive Christianity) including atheists there is still approximately 20% who identify as Christians within many UU churches. Individuals may or may not self-identify as Christians or subscribe to Christian beliefs in a UU church same as here on this PC site. While the UU has expanded beyond the traditional Christian understanding i believe it would be unfair to label their church for them. In fact some UU churches still identify themselves as Christian Churches. In UU churches there are mention of God, Jesus, Buddha and other teachers. One week might be a lesson from Hinduism another week a Christian message etc. The reason i know this is my brother is a member and actually is allowed to participate in the way of sermons and he uses the teachings of Jesus and others quite regularly. Secondly, if one truly loves others then in essence one is loving God. Isn't it harder to love your brother that you can see than to love God which you cannot see? Who among us can define God accurately other than sensing God's presence in another or oneself? Does the three letters of the word God speak louder than love? You yourself have said God is Love. if this is true than anyone who knows Love, even if the word God is never spoken knows God, Yes? Joseph Joseph I love that statement. If love is from God and an atheist believes in love but not the concept of God are they still not moved by the same spirit of love even if they do not recognise it in the same way another does? 1 John 4:7-8. "7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.". There are atheists and Christians in the Quaker meeting I attend and during the meeting I would place a wager that no one could recognise who was Christain and who was atheist. If there is love among us is this not how it is. Love does not build walls (IMO). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Joseph, From the UUA FAQ at http://www.uufaq.com/ "Eventually our movement evolved beyond what one would consider a Christian church." Again, it's not about superiority, it's about differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 There are other voices:- http://www.uuchristian.org/S_Who2.html 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 This comes from my favorite source: "We affirm our common humanity with all human beings and our commitment to truly value each person regardless of how different they are from us. All: We celebrate our unity in our diversity We acknowledge that there is a longing for a spirituality which is person-centred, humane, truth-seeking, open to doubt and questioning, and in tune with our understanding of the natural world. We hope for one which supports human growth and development, encourages love of others, particularly those who are looked down on by society, and champions social justice. We believe that this should be the core of our faith and lives. All: We celebrate our unity in our diversity We acknowledge with gratitude that there are many people of all faiths, and of none, who have a strong commitment to seeking the truth, to loving others, and promoting social justice and human rights. All: We celebrate our unity in our diversity We believe that the lack of love and social justice in the world is at the root of most of the evil in the world. Those whose being has not been able to flourish in a spirit of love can become bitter, trapped in their own inadequacies and fears, and wish to prevent others who are different from them from flourishing by engaging in oppressive and sometimes deeply cruel acts. This makes unconditional selfless love and acceptance crucial to the healing of these deep wounds. All: We celebrate our unity in our diversity We affirm the integrity of creation. We recognise that human life is rooted in and dependent on the earth and that all of life is bound up in an amazingly complex evolutionary tapestry. Everything is interconnected and how we live and act has effects far beyond what we can see. We are called to respect the earth and life in all its diversity and to secure the earth’s bounty for present and future generations. We acknowledge that the oneness and wonder of the universe and human responsibility for the stewardship of the planet should be central to a life of faith. All: We celebrate our unity in our diversity We believe that no faith has an exclusive claim on truth. We recognise that we have much to learn from the ideas, actions and writings of other faiths. Dialogue with those of other faiths can be a rich and valuable experience for those of all faiths and of none. All: We celebrate our unity in our diversity We recognise that we need to be constantly open to new insights, knowledge and ideas and to embrace scientific progress where it improves our understanding of the world and our ability to protect and preserve it, but oppose it when it increases the ability to kill or damage living things or the planet. All: We celebrate our unity in our diversity We celebrate the opportunity to be able to meet, discuss and share with others from diverse backgrounds. We acknowledge that we are all richer and more fully human as a result. All: We celebrate our unity in our diversity" http://progressivechristianity.org/resources/unity-in-diversity/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I'm not a fundamentalist. The only thing that I am "fundamental" about is saying that I think Jesus' teaching on loving God and loving others is central to Christianity. And for that, I get rebuked here on this "Christian" forum. I don't really think anyone here is really rebuking you for " saying that I think Jesus' teaching on loving God and loving others is central to Christianity" nor do i believe that anyone here believes that it is not central to Christianity. (They are free to correct me if i am wrong.) Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.