Are there any Christian Unitarian Universalists? (Jesus, reject, beliefs, hell)

[PeterGreen]

UUism owes its history to Christianity, of course. I think the idea that UUism is a mixture of all religions might come from an interpretation of the word "Unitarian." In fact, Unitarianism was a response to the Trinitarianism of traditional Christian faiths. I believe that tt wasn't until the merger of the Unitarian and Universalist faiths in the early 60's that doctrinal tests such as a belief in Christ were officially deemed unnecessary.

[applewuud]

There is a recognized group within the UU association known as the UUCF or UU Christian Fellowship. They encourage UU churches to retain more of their traditional Christian identity, and hold communion services at the UU General Assembly.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by PeterGreen

UUism owes its history to Christianity, of course. I think the idea that UUism is a mixture of all religions might come from an interpretation of the word "Unitarian." In fact, Unitarianism was a response to the Trinitarianism of traditional Christian faiths. I believe that tt wasn't until the merger of the Unitarian and Universalist faiths in the early 60's that doctrinal tests such as a belief in Christ were officially deemed unnecessary.

Incorrect. The name Unitarian does come from an anti-trinitarian stance. But our pluralism does not result from a misinterpretation of the word. It stems directly from our humanism. Our humanism resulted in the anti-trinitarianism. The anti-trinitarianism is secondary.

Humanism first. And as a result, we have historically been anti-doctrinal. Such tests are seen as a violation of conscience.

In fact, even the Universalists, who tend to be more Christian than the Unitarians were reluctant to have doctrinal tests.

"In 1803 the Universalist General Convention only reluctantly adopted the broadly worded Winchester Profession, to fulfill State requirements having to do with their churches' legal status."

http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/article...rationist.html

[des]

Hi,

I thought I'd confuse things further (or maybe not). Anyway, I go to a United Church of Christ and by talking to others in that church I've come to the conclusion that quite a few share my viewpoints.

I wouldn't be Christian by many commonly held assumptions about Christianity. For a list: I don't believe: in the trinity; in the virgin birth or any miracles (perhaps some as they could be explained as placebo effects); in the literal resurrection of Jesus; in substitutional atonement ("Jesus died for our sins"); etc.

I believe Jesus was a prophet who taught a brand of ideas that were so controversial he was put to death. The ideas include a lot of statements of social justice and equality that I would be very happy to claim I believe in, if only I thought I could live up to them. Along with that I think the disciples following Jesus' death, began to see significance in the messages that would not die ("that's the resurrection").

Also I was brought up in a Christian tradition and am comfortable with many of the rites and rituals, but dont' feel entirely comfortable saying I believe them, or perhaps feeling that I need to interpret them differently. Perhaps if I were as young as some people here, I might be more likely to shed these althoghter.

I am also agnostic in the nature of God. I mean by that is that I don't think we mortals can ever know what the nature of God is. And dont' particularly like the term God, but dont' have a better one. :-)

Does this make me a Christian? A Jew? A heretic? etc. etc.???
Or perhaps you could call me a Xian or a follower of Jesus or something like that?

I also think you need to separate Universalist from Unitarian. Unitarian strictly means you dont' believe in the trinity. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, was a Unitarian, and rewrote the Gospels to take out references implying that Jesus is God and miracles and the like.

Universalist would imply that you believe that all paths are valid. (I think.) I agree with both of those. I think Unitarian is the older term, and Universalist is the newer, and that's where you get pagans, agnostics, atheists,etc.

One doesn't imply you believe the other, but once you dont' believe Jesus is God, it makes you more inclined to believe that everyone's path is valid. I think that almost no one who believes everyone's path is valid, would believe Jesus is God, but you might find someone here and there, so I wouldn't discount it.

I hope that helps. ;-)

--des

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by des

Universalist would imply that you believe that all paths are valid. (I think.) I agree with both of those. I think Unitarian is the older term, and Universalist is the newer, and that's where you get pagans, agnostics, atheists,etc.

Hi des,

That is a much newer interpretation of the term universalist. It originally meant "universal salvation." As in no one is going to hell.

And actually, it's the unitarian side of the UU family that was much more open to pagans, agnostics, atheists, etc. This is due to our emphasis on the sanctity of human conscience. Surely pagans, agnostics, atheists can't be wrong if their consciences tell them to be who they are.

The universalists tend to be more christian than the unitarians.

I don't believe that all paths are valid, and I would argue that UU doesn't believe that either. We do believe that no paths will lead to eternal condemnation. But I think we would also say that some paths are far preferable to others.

[des]

>Hi des,
>That is a much newer interpretation of the term universalist. It originally meant "universal salvation." As in no one is going to hell.



>And actually, it's the unitarian side of the UU family that was much more open to pagans, agnostics, atheists, etc. This is due to our emphasis on the sanctity of human conscience. Surely pagans, agnostics, atheists can't be wrong if their consciences tell them to be who they are.

Isn't this also based in Christianity? After all most religions aren't as totally absorbed in the idea of a heaven and hell as is Christianity (perhaps Judaism and Islam share it to some extent).

>The universalists tend to be more christian than the unitarians.

I can understand that much, esp. with the typical construct of Christianity being the Godliness/Godness of Jesus.

I don't believe that all paths are valid, and I would argue that UU doesn't believe that either. We do believe that no paths will lead to eternal condemnation. But I think we would also say that some paths are far preferable to others
Ok, I take your point. Could you say all paths are valid, but some paths are more valid, more reasoned, more ____ (fill in the blank). I would guess there would be some paths that could conceivably be anathema though. (Say that God hates homosexuals or somesuch).


--des

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by des

Ok, I take your point. Could you say all paths are valid, but some paths are more valid, more reasoned, more ____ (fill in the blank). I would guess there would be some paths that could conceivably be anathema though. (Say that God hates homosexuals or somesuch).

Yes, I'm pretty confident that within the UU framework, a path that said that "God hates homosexuals" would not be considered a valid path. Such a path violates the very basis of our pluralism. We affirm the validity of multiple paths because we affirm the validity of each person's worth and their right to conscience. So any path that violated the worth and right to conscience of another cannot be a valid path.

[des]

IMO, this is actually a pretty interesting point. First because I hear this about us non or anti-doctrinal types--- " you just believe *anything*". Well, no. It's just the types of things we do believe in are different. Or even worse perhaps that we have no moral standards. No, it is just that what we believe has to be standard is different than theirs is (I am referring mainly here to right wing Christians say).

Another thing you bring up is tolerance. It's usually a good thing (rather at the low end, as opposed to understanding or compassion-- but you have to start somewhere). But we dont' tolerate everything. I do not sit in a room and "tolerate" racial or homophobic slurs, for instance.

--des

Originally Posted by lilithu

Yes, I'm pretty confident that within the UU framework, a path that said that "God hates homosexuals" would not be considered a valid path. Such a path violates the very basis of our pluralism. We affirm the validity of multiple paths because we affirm the validity of each person's worth and their right to conscience. So any path that violated the worth and right to conscience of another cannot be a valid path.

[uumckk16]

Originally Posted by Holly

Hello. Are there any Christian Unitarian Universalists? I understand that there are Pagan Unitarian Universalists and that many UUs are Atheists and Agnostics so I was curious about Christians. Thank you for time.

Hey Holly! As has been previously mentioned, there is a UU Christian Fellowship; this is the link I found for it: http://www.uuchristian.org/

On a personal note, while I am quite similar to Des in this regard...

Originally Posted by des

I wouldn't be Christian by many commonly held assumptions about Christianity. For a list: I don't believe: in the trinity; in the virgin birth or any miracles (perhaps some as they could be explained as placebo effects); in the literal resurrection of Jesus; in substitutional atonement ("Jesus died for our sins"); etc.

...I am becoming more and more Christian by the day.

So, yes.