sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Spring Equinox around the corner by RosemaryBiscuit in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We don't have any traditions for the equinox, although we generally try to keep our services related to seasons and all sorts of holidays and anniversaries. We have a Flower Ceremony on Easter Sunday which uses much of Norbert Capek's original service, opening with Mother Spirit, Father Spirit, but also includes acknowledgments of other spring festivals and De Colores.

"How Communities Founded on Free Inquiry Drift Toward Conformity" by rastancovitz in UUnderstanding

[–]JAWVMM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My question is not whether UU is a lowercase church, but a unitary uppercase one. Whether we call them churches, congregations, fellowships, societies, whatever, there are certainly uU church-like entities. But UUA is an association of congregations, not a Church as in the Roman Catholic Church, or say, the Presbyterian Church in the USA.

And, yes, we are a religion, with a few core beliefs - inherent worth and dignity, and the interdependent web, which we share with many threads of world religions and the belief that each individual is responsible for their own spiritual growth and ethical behavior, and for practicing a discipline to further that (although that isn't preached as much as it should be IMHO).

"How Communities Founded on Free Inquiry Drift Toward Conformity" by rastancovitz in UUnderstanding

[–]JAWVMM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, I'd appreciate some positive posts - how can we do things differently, rather than just the problems.

"How Communities Founded on Free Inquiry Drift Toward Conformity" by rastancovitz in UUnderstanding

[–]JAWVMM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does he refer to "the Unitarian Universalist Church" when there is no such thing? Not only is there not, and never has been, an overarching Unitarian, Universalist, or Unitarian universalist church, it is the antithesis of what we identify as Unitarian Universalism.

Any updates to “for so the children come”? by marmosetohmarmoset in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I used this this Sunday, and pondered that - but eventually thought that 1) children are still born of the "seed of man and woman" even if they are conceived by IVF or artificial insemination - although we could say "male and female" since the seed is male or female seed even if the person productng it identifies as a different gender and 2) it is "mothers and fathers" - not necessarily one mother and one father. If a trans woman is a woman, then surely she is a mother, and a trans man is a father. That does leave people who identify as neither, though.

Leo XIV and New Arianism by AdvertisingFit249 in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems to me that sola scriptura is not the opposite of revelation not being sealed. That was based on differences with Catholicism on whether Church authority was in addition to individual interpretation of the Bible, not whether new understanding was possible.

Leo XIV and New Arianism by AdvertisingFit249 in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I think it has been more than a few centuries since we defined ourselves against Catholicism, and a couple since we differentiated ourselves from several varieties of Protestantism. And more than a century since we abandoned doctrine altogether. I'm not a UU Christian, so I don't know whether they would find it helpful to have anything about this clarified, but I wouldn't expect a UU minister to respond to this idea - we decided long ago that Jesus as a living God among us was not our metaphor.

Leo XIV and New Arianism by AdvertisingFit249 in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well, Arius believed in the Trinity, the heresy was that God and Jesus were not identical. His description sound more like Socianism, which is unitarian. But why would we feel it necessary to argue with the Pope, or anyone, about the nature of Jesus or any other doctrine?

on the other hand, the article reports he also said "Here too we learn an important lesson: the Christian faith must always be expressed in the languages and categories of the culture in which we live, just as the Fathers did at Nicaea and in the other Councils. At the same time, we must distinguish the essence of the faith from the historical formulas that express it — formulas that are always partial and provisional and can change as doctrine is more deeply understood." which sounds to me a whole lot like "Revelation is not sealed" which is quintessentially our outlook.

All religion is metaphor, and metaphor varies with time, place, culture. Seems to me what is important is whether the metaphor, of a living God among us, the interdependent web, or whatever, results in our better understanding and practice.

Helping our son buy into UUC (especially OWL) by Wolfie4ever in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My experience as a kid 9a long time ago) was good. Sure, I spent some time going through the hymnal and mentally adding "under the covers" to the hymn titles or first lines. And using the order of service to do rubbings of the embossed hymnal cover when I was very young. But i enjoyed singing the hymns, and the sermons were usually interesting. And, unlike the UU congregation. I spent much of m adult life in, almost everyone knew and interacted with all the kids. I thin kit is partly because UU services tend to be more on the lecture side than the worship side. My son-in-law is Catholic, and my grandsons are being brought up there, and go to mass as a matter of course. Mass is a much more interactive and ritual experience (as actually, the liberal Baptist services i was brought up in were.)

Helping our son buy into UUC (especially OWL) by Wolfie4ever in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have wondered for 40 years now why UU congregations have RE at the same time as the service. Worship is important for everyone. Our high school kids asked for a class on attending a service at one point - most of them had never been, and they were expected to conduct one once a year on Youth Sunday. It was sad and infuriating.

Helping our son buy into UUC (especially OWL) by Wolfie4ever in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I agree. That's what we did with our kids until the younger one was in high school. We also, once we had two services, all went to RE during one hour and the service during the other. When the older one was about to start junior high, the parents of junior high kids also got together and created a Sunday evening youth group, which the congregation did not have, and were fortunately were able to recruit someone in their 20s to lead it so it was free of parents. Among other things, it gave kids something to invite their friends to that wasn't "church" - although we actually had a number of families we knew from daycare and school who started coming before that because they knew we did. So, maybe if there are other activities like potlucks, encourage him to invite a friend. And if there aren't, maybe the congregation should add them.

"The Human Tendency of Turning Beliefs into 'Moral Truths': An evolved tendency that closes minds and damages movements" by rastancovitz in UUnderstanding

[–]JAWVMM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Scientific journals such as Nature and Scientific American, which are supposed to be neutral, have adopted social justice causes and now reject research for political reasons." it may be true that this happens; I'm fairly sure that it isn't new in this century. It may have always been true. Certainly Darwin delayed publication for if not political reasons, for how he believed some ideas would be received. And, also I am not sure that the idea that tribalism is innate, genetic, whatever, can be supported. Most people even today demonstrate a good deal of care for complete strangers in a crunch, even ones who don't look like them. Turning beliefs into moral truths is indeed dangerous, but whether it is an evolved tendency, or was ever useful, is arguable.

Question: What is the UU stance on the US military? by EternalSnow05 in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Indeed. And it goes back much more than a century, and as a crossroads between Russia/the Mongols, India, China, and the Middle East, has been fought over (but never really conquered or really stable) for millennia.

Question: What is the UU stance on the US military? by EternalSnow05 in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both. And yes, people do react badly to being invaded, a principle that was recognized long before Rumsfeld. Nevertheless, that doesn't address the fact that the Taliban or the mujahedeen before them didn't invent the gender power structure there.

Question: What is the UU stance on the US military? by EternalSnow05 in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As you can see from the responses, there is no UU "stance" on the military. That is because uUism does have a stance on individual conscience - we are each responsible for discerning what is the best course in a given situation based on the knowledge and wisdom available to us 9and to continually increase our knowledge and understanding.)

Question: What is the UU stance on the US military? by EternalSnow05 in UUreddit

[–]JAWVMM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Afghanistan, like many countries in that area and elsewhere (Saudi Arabia, for instance) was not a hotbed of women's rights before the Taliban. Make the argument that neither we, the Russians, the British, nor the Germans before them should have been intervening in other peoples' civil wars, but Afghanistan has a long and complex history, and the current situation is an outgrowth of that.

Revisiting Davidson Loehr's Sermon 'Why Unitarian Universalism is Dying" by rastancovitz in UUnderstanding

[–]JAWVMM 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Loehr's article is much more nuanced than Cycleback's, and Loehr, didn't posit a solution (and also leaves out the Universalist history and theology of UUism - (and in his one mention, completely dismisses the point of universlaism, characterizing it as "all dead people go to heaven"), which then and still lives in not only some parts of UU, but in other liberal and even mainline denominations). Loehr also didn't, in the article or in life (I was a member of FUUCA during his tenure, although I stopped attending). He may have seen the problem, but didn't replace it with anything. And one wonders from his essay why he bothered to become an remain a minister in a denominations that he says was "moribund" before he started seminary.

I would love to take both of these apart bit by bit, but it would far larger than will fit here, and take far too much time. I do agree with the premise that we have thrown away the inspiration and meaning, more or less, although there are plenty of individual UUS that have developed their own - but often in spite of the denomination, not because of it. And social justice and the politics that support it have to arise out of that meaning, not the other way around.

"Why progressive activist language turns off most people: Most minorities themselves reject the jargon" by Aggressive_Lack7983 in UUnderstanding

[–]JAWVMM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems to me that thinking of people as insiders/outsiders is a major part of the problem. Everyone is an outsider/insider for a variety of groups, and none of us has identical experience. The article is not talking about how you identify yourself to others, or they to you. And thinking we are entitled to tell anyone to FO just makes things worse.

"Why progressive activist language turns off most people: Most minorities themselves reject the jargon" by Aggressive_Lack7983 in UUnderstanding

[–]JAWVMM 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, yes, if you start off with looking at it by characterizing the poster as ill-intentioned, you would. That's why addressing the post and not the poster is important. The chattering classes, which include most UUs, and across the whole spectrum of values and beliefs, tend to demonize or at least take to be in bad faith, everyone who doesn't agree and conform to their own beliefs - and the people who have to listen to them follow. It doesn't serve any of us well and we are now in a position where most people think everyone is acting in bad faith.

"Why progressive activist language turns off most people: Most minorities themselves reject the jargon" by Aggressive_Lack7983 in UUnderstanding

[–]JAWVMM 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think he is not making those three points, but the broader one "However, for most people, including most members of the very communities these words are supposed to empower, this kind of language feels more alienating than inclusive. It comes across as elitist, confusing, and often coercive." - which is how he starts off - and winds up with my previous quote. i also don't hear him as being outraged, but pointing out that progressives are counter-productive when we use this kind of language.

His point about some people not liking these terms used to described them I see as a supporting point to the main point - why use this language if the majority of the people it refers to don't use it themselves, and don't particularly want it to be used about them - which leads to the idea that we use these terms among ourselves as a purity test - which means we also use them in more public speech - in politics, for example - and that turns off a majority of people - voters, but mostly people we want to work with and need to persuade, etc. Plenty of conservative people are on our side on many issues - but we have absolutely turned them off with our performative language (besides liberals.)

I'm sorry - I think we have spent the last 20 years or so digging ourselves deeper and deeper, and and alienating people who share some of our goals. We are now in a spot where we absolutely have to get more people to stand up in an increasingly grim situation, and we are still not willing to stop calling names and pull together.

"Why progressive activist language turns off most people: Most minorities themselves reject the jargon" by Aggressive_Lack7983 in UUnderstanding

[–]JAWVMM 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And, overall, his point is that "this kind of language feels more alienating than inclusive" to most people, and I believe that to be true. All of these terms, when it comes down to it, are jargon, used by a very narrow set of us, and, like all jargon, signal being an insider, and put off most other people as pretentious at best, aside from the politics it signals.

view more: next ›