Universal Unitarianist

[Dust Bunnies]

I read a bit about Universal Unitarianism, basically an open "religion" without creed, doctrine, etc. What is everyone's position on it?

[Richard Nixon]

Basically anyone can be a UU: Christians, Muslims, atheists, Satanists,. That is something I object to since the Unitarian Universalists are basically without any real theology, any base for their beliefs, no cherished beliefs, no strong insight. Basically be anything and everything and nothing. It's not even a religion in my opinion: more of a social group as it does not have any sort of definate beliefs.

[synthesis]

Basically anyone can be a UU: Christians, Muslims, atheists, Satanists,. That is something I object to since the Unitarian Universalists are basically without any real theology, any base for their beliefs, no cherished beliefs, no strong insight. Basically be anything and everything and nothing. It's not even a religion in my opinion: more of a social group as it does not have any sort of definate beliefs.

That's not exactly true. Unitarianism is a theological perspective with a bit of history behind it.

It's contrasted with trinitarianism (three aspects of God: Father, Son, Holy Ghost) which many non-Christians perceive to be polytheistic.

Unitarianism denies that Christ was the Son of God - just divinely inspired. Martin Luther accused it of being a Muslim conspiracy, since they share the same position on Jesus.

Universalism is a little more vague; it can either mean "salvation can be achieved by all who accept Christ as savior, not just a pre-determined few" or that divinity extends beyond the Christian belief sphere.

Also, no strong insight? No base for beliefs?

The "insight" is that you don't have to practice one belief system to the exclusion of all others. I think that's moderately profound.

Of course, it really begs the question: If it doesn't tell you how you have to think and act, is it really a religion? And I suppose I've wasted my time, because in that, I agree with you after all.

[Richard Nixon]

That's not exactly true. Unitarianism is a theological perspective with a bit of history behind it.

It's contrasted with trinitarianism (three aspects of God: Father, Son, Holy Ghost) which many non-Christians perceive to be polytheistic.

Unitarianism denies that Christ was the Son of God - just divinely inspired. Martin Luther accused it of being a Muslim conspiracy, since they share the same position on Jesus.

Universalism is a little more vague; it can either mean "salvation can be achieved by all who accept Christ as savior, not just a pre-determined few" or that divinity extends beyond the Christian belief sphere.

Also, no strong insight? No base for beliefs?

The "insight" is that you don't have to practice one belief system to the exclusion of all others. I think that's moderately profound.

Of course, it really begs the question: If it doesn't tell you how you have to think and act, is it really a religion? And I suppose I've wasted my time, because in that, I agree with you after all.

Unitarians and Universalists once were like that: they were mostly somewhat variant Christians like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. But now they've abandoned most of their former Christian beliefs and basically accept anyone including atheists (what's the point of atheists going to church anyway?).

[Decolonize The Left]

I read a bit about Universal Unitarianism, basically an open "religion" without creed, doctrine, etc. What is everyone's position on it?

It is simply then next necessary evolution in religion. Religions can no longer survive by killing those who don't believe in their ideas. They can no longer hold holy books as the word of god. Now they must open their doors to everyone in hopes that their ideas will survive.

Note how much weaker the ideas of religion become through time. Long ago, the sun was a god - the stars - the ocean. Then god was shoved beyond into the universe. Then god was shoved behind the universe itself! God continually must be hid from the prying eyes of human beings, for they are constantly proving him not to be.

Now god is watered down and made available to everyone, even those who refuse to hold faith. Soon god will have no meaning.

- August

[Richard Nixon]

It is simply then next necessary evolution in religion. Religions can no longer survive by killing those who don't believe in their ideas. They can no longer hold holy books as the word of god. Now they must open their doors to everyone in hopes that their ideas will survive.

Note how much weaker the ideas of religion become through time. Long ago, the sun was a god - the stars - the ocean. Then god was shoved beyond into the universe. Then god was shoved behind the universe itself! God continually must be hid from the prying eyes of human beings, for they are constantly proving him not to be.

Now god is watered down and made available to everyone, even those who refuse to hold faith. Soon god will have no meaning.

- August

You are wrong I'm afraid. It is precisely because of the watering down of religion that it is declining. For instance mainline Protestants (ie Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists) have watered down their theology to make it socially permissive in allowing abortion, homosexuality, sex outside marriage. Evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, and Islam are all strong because they keep their belief of God strong.

[Decolonize The Left]

You are wrong I'm afraid. It is precisely because of the watering down of religion that it is declining. For instance mainline Protestants (ie Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists) have watered down their theology to make it socially permissive in allowing abortion, homosexuality, sex outside marriage. Evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, and Islam are all strong because they keep their belief of God strong.

It depends on how you look at it. Remaining dogmatic has its inevitable downfalls. Dogmatism is only strong in-so-far as it remains indoctrinated in youth and through systems of education. As we have seen throughout history, these institutions devolve over time and as scientific inquiries reach further into explanations for previous unknown phenomena.
Furthermore, the rise of atheist ideas in public discourse will challenge dogma in its own language, thereby diminishing its dominance in that discourse.

On the other hand, the watering down of religion inevitably destroys it as it becomes more an more meaningless. Basically, it's either slowly made less meaningful or it erodes as it cannot sustain reasonable explanations.

- August

[deLarge]

Unitarian Universalism is an excuse for hippies and college students to get together and sing bad hymns about being star children and a brotherhood of man, before indulging in poetry readings or rants about inequality or economic devastation.

[Raúl Duke]

(what's the point of atheists going to church anyway?)

That's a good question...IDK.

Although I was more under the impression that most of the "non-believers" in UU are agnostics.


Unitarian Universalism is an excuse for hippies and college students to get together and sing bad hymns about being star children and a brotherhood of man, before indulging in poetry readings or rants about inequality or economic devastation.

This could be slightly true...this seems to be a bit of the case in the UU in the area of my university. Except I don't know of any college student that is a member
(although there are what seems to be hippies...at least in the past they were).

[gorillafuck]

UU is a stupid organization. It's basically taking religion and then watering it down to the point where it's either a form of Christianity, Islam, etc. that just says "Jesus said we should all be good" and not actually adhering to any of the teachings, or agnosticism with a church.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

With UU, it's not really a case of atheists going to church. Firstly because most of them aren't really atheist, and secondly because it's not strictly a church.

I actually quite like the idea of this, although I wouldn't class it as a religion for the reasons that have been stated above. I think it's a good because it emphasises unity and the right for an individual to hold their own personal beliefs even if they differ from the doctrines of any organised religions. Critics could argue that the lack of any definitive beliefs makes going to a UU church pointless, but I disagree; it is a good way to meet other people, like any social gathering. It is also quite accepting and therefore open-minded enough to be a good place to discuss issues related to religion and philosophy without having to adhere to a particular viewpoint. It is also psychologically beneficial to feel as though you're part of a group, albeit a very diverse one.

[deLarge]

With UU, it's not really a case of atheists going to church. Firstly because most of them aren't really atheist, and secondly because it's not strictly a church.

I actually quite like the idea of this, although I wouldn't class it as a religion for the reasons that have been stated above. I think it's a good because it emphasises unity and the right for an individual to hold their own personal beliefs even if they differ from the doctrines of any organised religions. Critics could argue that the lack of any definitive beliefs makes going to a UU church pointless, but I disagree; it is a good way to meet other people, like any social gathering. It is also quite accepting and therefore open-minded enough to be a good place to discuss issues related to religion and philosophy without having to adhere to a particular viewpoint. It is also psychologically beneficial to feel as though you're part of a group, albeit a very diverse one.

True. The UU congregation in my area also has Sunday school, where they teach kids about world religion, philosophy, sexuality, and helps them develop their own belief system in a non-dogmatic way. They also have Socratic seminars for the older students, etc. I think the fundamental problem here is that people think UU should be a religion--it's more like a fraternity. Though, as anyone who goes can tell you, they sing very, very badly. The songs themselves aren't that bad when taken as poetry (Singing in the living tradition is the name of one hymnal), but no one knows any of the tunes nor how to sing them.

[MarxSchmarx]

UU is a stupid organization. It's basically taking religion and then watering it down to the point where it's either a form of Christianity, Islam, etc. that just says "Jesus said we should all be good" and not actually adhering to any of the teachings, or agnosticism with a church.
That's my impression as well. Honestly, does anyone know why this "religion" even bothers to exist? WHy do people continue to go to its services? Is it because they can say to their mormon golf partner that they go to Church too?

[deLarge]

That's my impression as well. Honestly, does anyone know why this "religion" even bothers to exist? WHy do people continue to go to its services? Is it because they can say to their mormon golf partner that they go to Church too?

To re-iterate what I said earlier: View UU as a fraternity or a club, as opposed to an organized religion. It is a place for exploration of different systems of ideas, personal development (like I said, some have classes on philosophy, sexuality, coming of age, etc for children), discussion, and hippy-esque hymns about being star children. To look for a solid religious dogma at it's foundation is to miss the point entirely; it would be like criticizing existentialism for neglecting to come up with an objective purpose to life.

[MarxSchmarx]

To re-iterate what I said earlier: View UU as a fraternity or a club, as opposed to an organized religion. It is a place for exploration of different systems of ideas, personal development (like I said, some have classes on philosophy, sexuality, coming of age, etc for children), discussion, and hippy-esque hymns about being star children. To look for a solid religious dogma at it's foundation is to miss the point entirely; it would be like criticizing existentialism for neglecting to come up with an objective purpose to life.

but what is wrong with the free masons, the moose club, hell, the local bird watching society, homeless shelter, or the local communist party? I mean, why go out of your way to join the UU instead of these better and arguably more productive organizations?

[deLarge]

but what is wrong with the free masons, the moose club, hell, the local bird watching society, homeless shelter, or the local communist party?

All those organizations you named serve much different purposes and can be more exclusive in regards to membership. Regardless of how permissive it is, there is an underlying (humanistic) philosophy behind UU. UU has a website (http://www.uua.org/visitors/index.shtml)with this information, actually.


why go out of your way to join the UU instead of these better and arguably more productive organizations?

Why do anything not absolutely necessary for survival? Some people just like the sense of community I suppose.

[MarxSchmarx]

Some people just like the sense of community I suppose.


Sure. As you say, it's not really a religion and more of a social club. It's just a shame that people who would go to the uu "church services" with tax-funded "ministers" and instead of the aforementioned upstanding institutions. And besides, according to the wikipedia page at least there's still a ton of theological baggage. Even that site you linked to has a ton of references to "God" doing this and "God" doing that.

[Rosa Provokateur]

(what's the point of atheists going to church anyway?).

Doesnt matter so long as we can get them to go :lol:

[Rosa Provokateur]

Unitarian Universalism is basically about the pursuit of truth, divine truth I guess you could say. They take everything into concideration, leave all doors open to all people, and dont turn anyone away; in a way their more christian than their christian critics.

[RHIZOMES]

Basically anyone can be a UU: Christians, Muslims, atheists, Satanists,. That is something I object to since the Unitarian Universalists are basically without any real theology, any base for their beliefs, no cherished beliefs, no strong insight. Basically be anything and everything and nothing. It's not even a religion in my opinion: more of a social group as it does not have any sort of definate beliefs.

Oh no there is a religion less backwards than mine lets attack it