[UU only!] Age and Humanism/Theism (ritual, reject, Earth, tradition)

[Trey of Diamonds]

Originally Posted by J Bryson

From what I can tell, we're looking at language that is traditionally associated with more mainstream religious beliefs, such as "the sacred", "the divine", and reference to actions such as prayer. I'm not sure that "God" is among the terms being considered, but I'm not sure that it's not.

Yes but is what context does she mean importance? Is it important to use such language or merely to acknowledge the meaning of the language and use it properly? Is it important to choose a singular meaning to language being used by multiple faiths or only that it is used in the proper context?

I consider the language to be important and it should always be used properly but I don't think it's important for UUs to have their own language. And this has nothing to do with religious language. It really bothers me when people mangle vocabulary and use it incorrectly or redefine words to mean whatever they wish. So my sense of importance is along those lines rather than considering the language important because of it's connection to a religion.

[J Bryson]

What I got from the post was "Is it important to you personally in your spiritual path"?

[Storm]

I voted "Under 30 and religious language/expression is important to me." It's important to me becuase I use it quite naturally and would object to being asked not to. I don't see how that relates to Humanism/ theism, nor do I see why those are presented in opposition.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Trey of Diamonds

Yes but is what context does she mean importance?

This is what I mean by "important to me":

Originally Posted by Storm

I voted "Under 30 and religious language/expression is important to me." It's important to me becuase I use it quite naturally and would object to being asked not to.

Originally Posted by Storm

I don't see how that relates to Humanism/ theism, nor do I see why those are presented in opposition.

It relates to humanism/theism in that I have heard from more than one self-identified Humanist that they don't see why we need this irrational "God-talk" in UU congregations. In fact, I was dismayed at my first General Assembly when I attended a workshop on Humanism and the entire time was devoted to the presenters ranting about how spirituality is creeping back into UU. I agree that they are not in opposition. I identify as both theist and humanist. But for a lot of UUs, they are in opposition. And my desire was to see where UUs on RF stand on this issue.

Originally Posted by J Bryson

A topic that seems to come up in UU circles a lot nowadays, especially around the "leadership" types, is the seeming lack of what could be considered sacred language in our church. As we welcome humanists, atheists, and others who may be uncomfortable with words and terms with dogmatic implications, we're now trying to figure out how to reconcile the hunger for this among some UUs with the understandable skepticism of others.

Basically what he said.

[keithnurse]

I voted 30-50 and religious language/expression is important to me. I would add that I don't object to others not using religious language. By "religious language" I mean standing in awe and amazement of the universe, using "spirit"in connection to "breath", in other words pagan or "new age"type spiritual language. I don't know of any UUs who would want "Father God we just want to praise you and ask you to bless us" to be used in a UU service. Also I am perfectly comfortable with a humanist service with no religious language.

[bicker]

I think, specifically "Father God" would explicitly violate UU principles. The real question is between using (just) the word "God" and something like "Spirit of Life".

[J Bryson]

Yeah. Say "FATHER God", and you'd see a run for the exit the likes of which the world hasn't seen since the last Paris Hilton movie. Spirit of Life is nice, but seems a bit generalized and new-agey for me.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by bicker

I think, specifically "Father God" would explicitly violate UU principles. The real question is between using (just) the word "God" and something like "Spirit of Life".

That's ironic since "Father God" was William Ellery Channing's God.

Originally Posted by J Bryson

Yeah. Say "FATHER God", and you'd see a run for the exit the likes of which the world hasn't seen since the last Paris Hilton movie. Spirit of Life is nice, but seems a bit generalized and new-agey for me.

Oh, I like Spirit. It emphasizes the immanence of the Divine but still retains a relationship with our Judeo-Christian roots. When I pray to the Spirit in interfaith settings, my Jewish and Christian friends and colleagues know Who I am praying to without me having to translate.

[bicker]

No, not ironic at all. UUs have always been progressive, and especially so in the last 200 years. So it is natural that the nature of belief of UUs now will show remarkable differences from that of our ancestors. A trail-blazer must know, at some level, that those who carry the torch after them will likely bring their own uniqueness to the mission.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by bicker

No, not ironic at all.

It is ironic in that Channing is thought by many to be the founder of Unitarianism and you are saying that his core beliefs "violate UU principles." (While I personally do not relate to God that way, I do not think that "God the Father" violates any UU principles.)

Originally Posted by bicker

UUs have always been progressive, and especially so in the last 200 years. So it is natural that the nature of belief of UUs now will show remarkable differences from that of our ancestors. A trail-blazer must know, at some level, that those who carry the torch after them will likely bring their own uniqueness to the mission.

At what point does bringing one's own uniqueness to a tradition become just creating a different religion altogether?