Conference yukon::christian_v7

Unitarian Universalist Church
-----------------------------
{Dr. Walter Martin, "The Kingdom of the Cults", Bethany House Publishes, 1985,
p. 501-06, ISBN 0-87123-796-2}

The UUC is more properly designated by Biblical Christians as a non-Christian
cult.  Today its membership, almost entirely in the U.S., is around 150,000.
This figure is below that of the group shortly after the Unitarians and the
Universalists merged in 1959, but is still great than any other period of its
history.  With its liberal and humanistic attitudes, beliefs, and practices, it
is little wonder that it enjoys popularity in liberal America.

The central theme of Unitarianism is that there is but one God, a solitary
entity, who has revealed Himself through various men and in the Bible, which is
considered to be one among a number of divine books.  The writings of Buddha,
Mohammed, Confucius, Lao, and the Vedas and Upanishads are sources of
revelation, none of which are infallible, but all of which contribute something
to the religious growth and development of mankind.  Unitarianism generally
affirms that salvation is progressive, and that is it essentially a matter of
character development, joined with faith in God and attendant good works, which
are counted as means toward an end of final redemption.  To understand
Unitarianism, the background of history must be utilized to the fullest.

Unitarians generally like to trace their history to apostolic times,
especially to the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) where the great Arian heresy
enunciated a semi-unitarian theme by denying the New Testament doctrine of the
full Deity of Jesus Christ.  Unitarians, however, are notoriously poor
historians, and it was not until the 14th century that the dogmas now
designated as Unitarian markedly gained any popular support.  Of a certainty,
some poorly-informed thinkers in the early church adhered to various
principles now claimed by Unitarians; but none of the leading theologians of
the Christian Church ever held to Unitarian teachings, nor do they today.  For
it is impossible to remain in fellowship with the Christian Church and to
maintain a Unitarian interpretation of Christian theology.

Unitarians, although they have managed to gain recognition in local church
councils in certain areas of the U.S. (primarily to a laxity in doctrine on the
part of such groups), are refused membership as a body in the National
Association of Evangelicals and are denied status as a Christian denomination by
conservative Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox bodies.  The term,
"Unitarian," and the term "Christian," are mutually exclusive by definition,
historically and theologically.

The first Unitarian write of note was Martin Cellarium (1499-1564), a friend of
Martin Luther, who advanced Unitarian views in 1527.  This bold presentation was
followed in succession by the anti-Trinitarian positions of Ludwig Haetzer,
1529, Michael Servetus, 1531, who was martyred for his views at Geneva in 1553,
and culminated in the work of Fausto Sozini, better known to history as Socinus
(1539-1604).  Socinus, an Italian by birth, was a nephew of Lelio Sozini, an
associate of John Calvin and Philip Melanchthon, whose theology at times
wavered, but apparently remained orthodox enough for him to escape martyrdom and
to remain in fellowship with Reformed theologians.

In contrast to his Uncle Lelio, Socinus became an anti-Trinitarian, denying the
Trinity and true Deity of Jesus Christ, as do all Unitarians to this day.
Socianianism found strong roots in Hungary, Poland, and Transylvania and
eventually spread to Holland, then to England and finally to the U.S.

Early in the history of America, the Unitarian faith made itself known through
the work of such preachers as Jonathan Mayhew, 1720-1766, pastor of the West
Church in Boston, Joseph Priestly, 1794, Hosea Ballou, 1771-1852; William Ellery
Channing, 1803, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1838, to mention just a few Unitarians
of note.

During the course of American development, Unitarianism passed through 3
distinct stages.  The first period was 1800-1835.  Throughout this era,
Unitarianism was subject, in a large measure, to English philosophic
rationalism, a semi-supernaturalism and the practice of general philanthropy.
The second period of development, 1835-1855, found the Unitarians strongly
influenced by German idealism and rationalistic theology flavored by a definite
leaning toward mysticism.  By 1865 the National Unitarian Conference was
organized, and a definite theology was evolved, in which the Unitarians
envisioned themselves as disciples of Christ.

The third period of Unitarian illusion began in 1885 and continues on to this
day.  This period of growth has seen an acceptance of evolution, the empirical
methods in religion, higher criticism, the higher recognition of the Universal
religion and "an ethical attempt to realize the higher affirmations of
Christianity."

These aims were confirmed at the International Congress held by the Unitarians
in 1900, and have not undergone any major changes to this day.  As was
previously noted, the Unitarians merged with the Universalists and have publicly
announced that they are not altogether sure whether they can classify themselves
as Christians.  In fact, some of their leaders have not hesitated to disclaim
the title of "Christian," where Unitarian theology is concerned.

The Theology of Unitarianism
----------------------------
As its name implies, Unitarianism unequivocally denies the Christian doctrine of
the Trinity and by necessity, the Deity of Jesus Christ.  During the year 1955,
"Look" magazine sent out a questionnaire to the major religions of the U.S.,
asking specific questions in the context of generally accepted terminology in
the realm of Christian theology.  This collection of articles is now available
in book form ("Religions of America," by Leo Rosten).

The Unitarian Church selected as its spokesman, the Rev. Carl M. Chorowsky,
minister of the first Unitarian Church of Fairfield, Connecticut.  Dr.
Chorowsky answered the questions of "Look" magazine with great candor, and with
a refreshing directness seldom found in the major, non-Christian cults.  His
answers are of great value, because they stand as an official statement of
Unitarian theology.  Dr. Chorowsky is the author of the following statements,
taken from the March 8, 1955, issue of "Look" magazine, in an article entitled,
"What is a Unitarian?"

     1. The Doctrine of God and the Person of Christ
     In general, a Unitarian is a religious person whose ethic derives primarily
     from that of Jesus, who believed in One God, not the Trinity... Unitarians
     hold that the orthodox Christian world has forsaken the real, human Jesus
     of the Gospel, and has substituted a Christ of dogmatism, metaphysics,
     and pagan philosophy.  Because the Unitarians refuse to acknowledge Jesus
     as their Lord and God, they are excluded from the National Council of
     Churches of Christ.

Further evidence of the Unitarian attitude toward Jesus Christ is found in
another of Dr. Chorowsky's statements.

     Unitarians repudiate the doctrine and dogma of the Virgin Birth...
     Unitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, either of Jewish
     hope or of Christian fantasy.  They do not believe he is "God Incarnate,"
     or the Second Person of the Trinity, as the final arbitrator at the end
     of time, who shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

     2. The Doctrines of Sin and Redemption
     Unitarians recognize evil and man's responsibility for much of it...
     Because of the total depravity of man, supposedly, God sent His only
     begotten Son to the world to die for sinful men.  Such doctrine
     Unitarians find offensive, un-Biblical, even immoral.  It is certainly
     inconsistent with the nature of God or the dignity of man, whom the
     Eternal One created in the image of God, to love with an everlasting love.

Relative to the doctrine of eternal salvation, Dr. Chorowsky declared:

     Unitarians believe in salvation of a character... God's help is not likely
     to come to those who cast all their burdens on the Lord.  There is a
     practical wisdom in saying, "God helps those who help themselves,"... if
     by heaven, you mean an abode of eternal light, where the saved and
     redeemed enjoy everlasting bliss, and if by hell, you mean the devil's
     eternal darkness, where the wicked suffer unending torment - the
     Unitarians emphatically repudiates such beliefs.

Unitarianism and the Bible
--------------------------
"Do Unitarians believe the Bible is divinely inspired and infallible?"  This was
one of the key questions addressed to the Unitarian Church, and received the
following reply from Dr. Chorowsky:

     No.  The doctrine of revelation of the absolute and indisputable authority
     of the Bible is alien to Unitarian faith and teaching.

It is not necessary to point out that this view of the Scripture is the same
view held by reformed Judaism, Christian Science, Unity, and a host of other
non-Christian cults, all of whom are content to utilize the Scriptures, but in a
manner never intended by the authors.

Theological Analysis
--------------------
To sum up the basic issues of Unitarianism, past and present, 3 important tenets
should be carefully noted by the reader.  First, Unitarianism, while it rejects
the authority of the Bible in spiritual, moral, and doctrinal matters,
paradoxically quotes the Bible repeatedly, and mostly out of context at that, in
an attempt to substantiate many of its own teachings.  This fact can be shown
easily by perusing any standard Unitarian work, where it will be found that
practically every author, without exception, quotes the very Book his religion
denies, to establish or to make a point concerning that religion!

Dr. Chorowsky himself makes the mistake, in his answers to "Look" magazine,
relative to the question "Do Unitarians believe in the divinity of Jesus?"  In
that particular instance, in his answer he quotes Scripture, although completely
out of context, to establish his contention.  The question quite naturally
arises in the logical mind, why quote the Bible at all, if you reject nearly
every one of the cardinal doctrines it teaches?  This, there can be no doubt,
Unitarianism does.  If Unitarians were truly honest, they would abandon the
Scriptures, for it is either reliable or it is not.  Why pick and choose
whatever parts suit your theology, while denying the hundreds of affirmations
within its pages that is is God's Word to man?

The answer must be obvious - Unitarians dare not abandon the Bible outright,
though in effect they have, because it is a tried and true badge of religious
prestige, useful in attracting the unregenerate man, who has a general respect
for the Bible even though he doesn't live up to it or accept the Savior revealed
within its pages.  Unitarianism displays a mock reverence for Scripture and for
Jesus of Nazareth, although it is clear that it wants no part of His intrinsic
Deity, Atoning Death, Bodily Resurrection, or triumphant Second Advent.

The Unitarians, it appears, will heap honors upon Christ, but they will not
obey His express command:

     The Father loveth the Son, and...hath committed all judgment unto the
     Son: that all men should honour the Son, even as they honor the Father
     (John 5:20-23).

Second, Unitarianism claims to be a form of Christianity, but at the same time
it denies the historic doctrines of the Christian Church (the Trinity, Deity of
Christ, Virgin Birth, Vicarious Atonement, Bodily Resurrection, and Glorious
Return of our Lord).  All of these are described as "dogmatisms, metaphysics,
and pagan philosophy," to quote the official view by Dr. Chorowsky to "Look"
magazine, and which view is also available in numerous official publications.

Dr. Chorowsky further claims that God's plan of redemption as portrayed in the
Bible is "offensive, un-Biblical, and even immoral."  This is strange reasoning
indeed, coming from those who claim to practice a scientific empirical method of
gaining knowledge, and who venerate the great gods - Reason, Logic, and
Rationalism.

It may be true, and doubtless is in the case of Unitarians, that the redemption
of man on the cross by virtue of Christ's atoning sacrifice is "offensive and
even immoral."  But it could hardly be called "un-Biblical!"  In fact, Dr.
Chorowsky could easily have verified this by consulting any standard concordance
to the Bible.

The fact of the matter is that Christ's vicarious death is referred to not less
than 100 times in the New Testament alone, by every major writer (see Matthew
26:28; Mark 14:24;; Luke 22:20; John 6:50-55; 1 Corinthians 11:25; Colossians
1:20; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 1:5).

In addition to this, the Bible in countless instances refers directly to the
Deity, Virgin Birth, Bodily Resurrection, and Second Coming of Christ, in direct
contradiction to Unitarian teachings.

Christianity is more than a way of life, a code of ethics, and a
pseudo-Christian vocabulary. Christianity is, in its very essence, the Person,
Nature, and Work of our Lord Jesus, the Eternal Word and Incarnate Son of God,
the recognition of whom as personal Savior and Lord is absolutely essential, the
Bible teaches, for entrance into the kingdom of God (John 1:12, 3:3, 5:24,
6:37,47, 14:6, Acts 4:12).

Only the sinner comes to Christ, for He alone of the religious figures of
history could say, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I
will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28).  This rest, or which our Lord spoke, comes
only to those who are willing to cast themselves wholly on the mercy of God.
Or, to put it most pointedly, those who would live to please Him, must first
please Him to live.

Dr. Chorowsky and the Apostle Peter are at direct variance in this all-important
matter of human salvation.  For according to Dr. Chorowsky, "God's help is not
likely to come to those who cast their burdens on the Lord."  The Apostle Peter
reminds us, however, that above all things we are to cast "all your care upon
him, for he careth for you" (1 Peter 5:7).  If, as in the words of the writer of
the epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus Christ is indeed "the same yesterday, today,
and forever" (13:8), and if with the God of the Bible "there is no variableness,
neither shadow or turning" (James 1:17), the Unitarian program of salvation by
character" linked by human effort, "God helps those who help themselves," cannot
stand the test.

Unitarianism quite literally puts the cart (a moral and ethical life) before the
horse (repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ), and is
therefore rightly confused, seeing that Unitarians cannot find peace with either
God or their fellow man, since, "there is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the
wicked" (Isaiah 48:22).

In the third chapter of the gospel of John, following Jesus' discourse with
Nicodemus, we read:

     And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men
     loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil
     (John 3:19).

This is the real reason why Unitarians do not receive Jesus Christ as their
Savior; because despite their affirmation of the necessity of a moral and
ethical life and faith in God, good works, and the golden rule, etc., by
rejecting the historic Christ of Scripture, the God-man of Revelation, they have
indeed demonstrated irrevocably their love of darkness, rather than light,
because their deeds are evil.  There is no greater evil than to reject the
Infinite Love on the cross, Love Incarnate, Jesus Christ who "bears in His own
body on the tree, our sins."

Jesus Christ was manifested, the Scripture informs us, to bring to ruination the
works of the devil and to ruin him who had the authority of death (Hebrews
2:14).  It is a foolish thing, indeed, to change the glory of the Immortal God
for corruptible things, and to lay up for one's self-treasure on earth where the
moth and the rust do indeed corrupt and where the thieves break through and
steal.  Unitarians are, in effect, doing this very thing.  How, then, shall they
escape the judgment of Him who is called the Eternal Word, the fullness of God
in human form?

Third, Unitarianism desires to escape the Biblical teaching that God has indeed
committed all judgment unto His Son (John 5:22-23).  The obvious reason for this
is, that the doctrine of everlasting punishment which Christ will administer at
His Second Advent in power, the end of the ages, is a spiritual thorn in the
flesh of contemporary Unitarianism.  Dr. Chorowsky and Unitarians in general
"emphatically repudiate eternal darkness, where the wicked suffer unending
torment."

In this connection, both Peter and Jude declare eternal darkness to indeed be
the fate of all who reject Jesus Christ, "God manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy
3:16).  And both are agreed that "the mists of darkness" are reserved for such
souls "for ever" (2 Peter 2:17; Jude 13).  The usage of the Greek "ionion"
(everlasting) is quite forceful here and cannot be ignored by any thorough
student of the Scriptures.

Unitarianism is a product of the deification of Reason, the rejection of
Biblical authority and an indescribably fierce pride in one's ability to save
himself from the awful penalty of sin.  It is one thing for Unitarianism to
exercise its prerogative of denial where the foundations of Christianity are
involved.  But it is quite another to use the Christian Scriptures and abuse
numerous contexts therein in order to implement such denials.  This is why not a
few Christian thinkers have been led to observe that while Unitarianism may be a
religion which attempts to exalt reason and rationalism, it is one in which
logical consistency is conspicuously absent.

1-3 describe Unitarianism.

Remember, though, that in 1961 the Unitarians merged with the Universalists.

Thus, to understand UUism, an understanding of Universalism is also
necessary.

/john

    
    Thanks for entering that, Mike.  It provides the perfect context for
    understanding dialogue with UUists.  
    
    I've personally had the most difficulty in discussing UU beliefs with UU
    adherents due to their illogical approach to the Scriptures, as the
    article stated, in that they will use Biblical language and quote Biblical 
    text to make a point then in the next note deny the authority and 
    inspiration of the same Bible.  It's all very confusing and everything but 
    reasonable.
    
    jeff

	If by not going against their beliefs is considered reasonable, then
you would be correct. 

	And as far as confusing goes, it can be explained, but just not in this
file.



Glen

>as far as confusing goes, it can be explained, but just not in this file.

Which means, it can only be explained by discrediting the Bible, which, it's
true, is a perfectly reasonable explanation to many people.  As stated in the
basenote about UU belief, and has been portrayed by others who uphold a loose
view of the Bible, the Bible is viewed by UU's and many others as an
'inspired' writing, which has good stuff in it, but also mistakes.  Which is
good and which is mistake is left as an exercise for the reader.

I have no need to go around discrediting or picking on UU belief (or any
other, for that matter).  My point of issue is usually around how the Bible
is used.  If someone says "this is what I think, based on my own evaluation
of right and wrong," I have no difficulty with that.  I may disagree, and I
may discuss why I disagree, but I'm pretty willing to just agree to disagree.
Or even if someone says "This particular Bible verse seems to agree with what
I think," I can pretty much leave that alone.  It's when a blatantly
un-biblical belief is portrayed as being biblical, by taking one or more
verses out of context and ignoring reams of countering verses that I take
notice.  Particularly when it is accompanied by the notion: "This verse, out
of the Bible which you believe is inerrant, confirms what I think.  Now
disprove that, without referencing any other part of the Bible which may
disagree."

Paul

| <<< Note 840.7 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

| Which means, it can only be explained by discrediting the Bible, which, it's
| true, is a perfectly reasonable explanation to many people.  

	Errr...no...it can be explained, but the rules here state you must
believe one way, period. It has nothing to do with the Bible, per say.



Glen

>| Which means, it can only be explained by discrediting the Bible, which, it's
>| true, is a perfectly reasonable explanation to many people.  

>	Errr...no...it can be explained, but the rules here state you must
>believe one way, period. It has nothing to do with the Bible, per say.


 No, the "rules don't state you must believe one way".  The guidlines say
 that this conference is for the discussion of Christian interest, and that
 this conference believes the Bible to be inerrant, and the yardstick by which
 we measure entries.  What you believe is certainly none of our business, but
 we are here to share our Biblically based views.



 Jim

>	Errr...no...it can be explained, but the rules here state you must
>believe one way, period. It has nothing to do with the Bible, per say.

Just to make sure it wasn't me, I went back and re-read the rules in note #2.
The ONLY real 'rule' that exists here in CHRISTIAN is that the Bible is
considered to be the Word of God, and that all entries are subject to
verification by that Word.

It has everything to do with the Bible.  It may seem to you that we are
saying you must believe one way, but we aren't.  We're saying that the final
arbiter of truth here is the Bible.  No more, no less.

Paul

    >Errr...no...it can be explained, but the rules here state you must
    >believe one way, period. It has nothing to do with the Bible, per say.
    
    It's not the rules here that state you must believe one way - it's the
    eternal, loving-but-just rule of God that says there is only one way -
    PERIOD!!!!!!
    
    Hallelujah - Jesus paid for all my sins on the cross and there is
    nothing I can do to win Gods affection and love, it was always there
    from the beginning - I just needed to accept it and accept the free
    gift of salvation.
    
    
    Love
    Ben
    

"A scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him
that understandeth. Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest
not in him the lips of knowledge. The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his
way: but the folly of fools is deceit. Fools make a mock at sin: but among the
righteous there is favour. The heart knoweth the bitterness of his soul; and a
stranger doth not intermeddle with his joy. The house of the wicked shall be
overthrown: but the tabernacle of the upright shall flourish. There is a way
which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Even
in laughter the heart is sorrowful; and the end of that mirth is heaviness. The
backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways: and a good man shall be
satisfied from himself. The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man
looketh well to his going. A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the
fool rageth, and is confident. He that is soon angry dealeth foolishly: and a
man of wicked devices is hated. The simple inherit folly: but the prudent are
crowned with knowledge." (Proverbs 14:6-18, KJV)

"In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence: and his children shall have a
place of refuge. The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, to depart from the
snares of death." (Proverbs 14:26&27, KJV)

"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. The tongue
of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out
foolishness. The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the
good. The healing of the tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a
breach in the spirit. A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that
regardeth reproof is prudent. In the house of the righteous is much treasure:
but in the revenues of the wicked is trouble. The lips of the wise disperse
knowledge: but the heart of the foolish doeth not so. The sacrifice of the
wicked is an abomination to the Lord: but the prayer of the upright is his
delight. The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the Lord: but he loveth
him that followeth after righteousness. Correction is grievous unto him that
forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die. Hell and destruction
are before the Lord: how much more then the hearts of the children of men? A
scorner loveth not one that reproveth him: neither will he go unto the wise. A
merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance: but by sorrow of the heart the spirit
is broken. The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the
mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness." (Proverbs 15:1-14,KJV)

"The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the
Lord. All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the
spirits. Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be established.
The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of
evil. Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord: though
hand join in hand, he shall not be held innocent. By mercy and truth iniquity is
purged: and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil." (Proverbs 16:1-6,
KJV)

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the
hearts. To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than
sacrifice. An high look, and a proud heart, and the light of the wicked, is
sin." (Proverbs 21:2-4, KJV)

Jesus said "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is
the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
How strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few
there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their
fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good
tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A
good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, nether can a corrupt tree bring forth
good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:13-21, KJV)

"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that
sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which He
hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last
day. And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the
Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at
the last day." (John 6:38-40, KJV)

The apostle Paul said "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared
for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for
the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man
knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the
things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Which things also we speak,
not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual
discerneth all things, yet he himself is discerned of no man. For who hath known
the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ."
(1 Corinthians 2:9-16, KJV)

The apostle John said "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the
Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth
the Son, the same hath not the Father. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the
Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." (1 John 2:22,23 & 4:15, KJV)

"He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that
believeth not God hath made Him a liar; because he believeth not the record that
God gave of His Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal
life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that
hath not the Son of God hath not life." (1 John 5:10-12, KJV)

The spirits of those unwilling to confess that Jesus is the Christ of God who
came in the flesh are not of God--"Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the
spirit of error." (1 John 4:6b, KJV)  No man will convince another of this
truth, only the Spirit of God.  Let the Word of God be heard by those who will
hear.  With those who seemingly will not hear we must cease striving and rather
commend them to the mercy of God, checking to see if we're more interested in
proving ourselves right than in helping others see/meet Jesus (like Jill2 in
note 835.50).

/Wayne

Our faith is intelligent (reasonable) and objective (demonstrable/observable).
Faith is choosing to act as if God is true and able to make effective what He
says.  Faith in and of itself is empty--the object of faith is essential.  The
object of our faith is Jesus the Christ of God, we in Him and He in us.

	The object/result of our faith cannot be proven scientifically, but
	can be proven evidentially.

	Scientific Method:                   Legal Evidential Method:

	 o Observation Made                   o Oral Testimony
	 o Data Drawn                         o Written Testimony
	 o Hypothesis verified empirically    o Physical Testimony (Exhibits)


THE BIBLE IS UNIQUE (different from all others; having no like or equal) IN:

     1)	Continuity--discussions of controversial subjects by different authors
	lead to same conclusions

     2) Circulation--perennial best seller and most read book

     3) Translation--into languages spoken by 95% of the world population

     4) Survival through Time--almost 38 times more manuscripts than any other
	work of antiquity

     5)	Survival through Persecution--remains despite attempts to destroy

     6)	Survival through Criticism--still loved and studied by millions despite
        attempts to discredit

     5) Support through Archaeology--no find refutes but rather strengthens

	The uniqueness of the Bible does not prove reliability, but does estab-
lish a more firm basis for investigation than any other document of history.

 AMEN!!

    re .12
    
    Hi Wayne -
    
    >checking to see if we're more interested in
    >proving ourselves right than in helping others see/meet Jesus 
    >(like Jill2 in note 835.50).
    
    Hmm, this one had me worried.  I had to go back and read what I 
    wrote just to check.  I hope your refering to meeting Jesus and
    not to trying to prove myself right.  
    
    You sure have a way of getting my attention!  :-)
    
    Jill2

    No, Jill, I was referring to your meeting Jesus.  Even if folks go back
    to the referenced note to see what I meant, then good will come from
    your testimony.
    
    Sorry for the potentially misleading implication.  I've never sensed
    you needing to prove yourself right, rather I've seen you keep after
    me and others until truth is revealed.
    
    Your learner's heart is exemplary!
    
    /Wayne

      Hi,
    
        I just wanted to highlight what is for me a colossal example of
        how far one can deviate in belief if the Bible is not taken as
        inerrant.
    
        One of the UU replies referred to an *atheist* pastor.
    
        Heb 11
        By faith Enoch was translated so that he did not see death and
        was not found because God had translated him.  For before his
        translation, he had this testimony; that he pleased God.
        But, *without faith*, it is impossible to please Him for he 
        who comes to God *must believe that He is* and that He is a 
        rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
    
        How can one embrace an atheist?  (And here I mean from a theo-
        logical standpoint as I believe God gives us the grace to love
        all people unconditionally.)
    
        What gives?  How can one's creed possibly embrace an atheist 
        being a pastor?
    
        Even a scripture that contains a very simple and practical 
        description of part of what faith is has to be regarded as
        falsehood.
    
        Where does it all end???
                                                  
    						Tony

	Who's reply had the athiest in it? Someone from the UU church, or
someone who thinks they know what the UU church is about?


Glen

>	Who's reply had the athiest in it? Someone from the UU church, or
>someone who thinks they know what the UU church is about?



 I'm not sure who's reply it was.  However, I have read, in a "liberal"
 newspaper, articles that have stated that based on UU teaching, an
 atheist can be ordained as a pastor.



 Jim

Hi Glen,

The quote you're looking for in 840.18 was in 835.35.  I don't know if you
would consider it as 'by a UU' or not, or whether you think that 'they think 
they know what the UU church is about'.  It was a news item entered by John
Covert, taken from the Boston globe, and quoting a UU minister, as follows:

� Rev. Jory Agate, a Unitarian Universalist minister who nonetheless considers
� herself an atheist...

I would imagine that the Boston Globe would be careful to represent such 
information as accurately as possible, because of the liability to legal 
action, and its reliance on readership trust.

								Andrew

 Thanks, Andrew.





 Jim

    
    To be sure, atheists are welcome in UU assemblies, not as potential
    Christian proselytes, but as "members" in good standing whose unbelief 
    is as valid and "sacred" as any other, including theists.
    
    I know this to be true 'cause my Dad is an atheist who attends a UU 
    assembly quite comfortably and with considerable satisfaction and
    support for his unbelief.
    
    Now there is nothing peculiar about this considering what UUism is and
    its foundational philosophy and belief.  
    
    jeff

    The information presented here is substantially true.  It reflects much
    of Unitarian History and belief.  Yes the Universalist side has to be
    represented as well.
    
    To be ordained a minister, a candidate must be able to articulate their
    theology.  A candidate will be considered not on the content of their
    theology but on its depth and its maturity, and the thought and
    articulation.
    
    Humanists make up a sizable percentage of UU's.  Humanists are fully
    welcome into our fellowship and Secular Humanists can be ordained as
    ministers.  Hoping myself to be a UU minister someday, I would
    challenge the humanist or the atheist to articulate what is the
    purpose or value of human life, how are we related to each other, and
    what is the individual's responsibility toward others.
    
    To me there is something particularly sacred and holy about a person
    who does not believe in God, does not believe that an individual will
    be rewarded in heaven for either good action or punished for bad
    action, and yet commits his/her life to the service of others and the
    betterment of humanity.  THere are many who do not profess a belief in
    God, yet still seem to have the law of God engraved in their hearts.

    >To me there is something particularly sacred and holy about a person
    >who does not believe in God, does not believe that an individual will
    >be rewarded in heaven for either good action or punished for bad
    >action, and yet commits his/her life to the service of others and
    >the betterment of humanity.  THere are many who do not profess a belief
    >in God, yet still seem to have the law of God engraved in their
    >hearts.
    
    What do you think motivates this person to behave as you've written?
    

    Nancy,
    
    I personally believe that it is "The law of God engraved in their
    hearts".
    
                                    Patricia

    >To me there is something particularly sacred and holy about a person
    >who does not believe in God, does not believe that an individual will
    >be rewarded in heaven for either good action or punished for bad
    >action, and yet commits his/her life to the service of others and
    >the betterment of humanity.  THere are many who do not profess a belief
    >in God, yet still seem to have the law of God engraved in their
    >hearts.
    
    What is holy about works?  Isaiah the prophet wrote that God views our
    "righteousness as filthy rags."
    
    In addition, you can't have the law of God written on your hearts
    without asking Him into your heart.  This requires believing in God for
    this to happen.
    
    Mike

    I think I understand from where you are coming on this one Patricia. 
    Please correct me if I am wrong.  It seems to me that by God being our
    creator that he has created within each of us innate knowledge of Him. 
    And much like the instinctual behaviors of animals, humans have the
    instinctual behavior of God?  Or should I say have the ability to have
    the instinctual behavior of God???
    
    Is this what you mean?

    re:         <<< Note 840.23 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>
    .
    .
    .
    >                    ...  THere are many who do not profess a belief in
    >God, yet still seem to have the law of God engraved in their hearts.
    
    _Why_ do I find it 'interesting' that people who would deny the
    existence of God (any god, but also specifically the God of Abraham,
    the God of the Bible, Yahweh, the Creator of the Universe) would have
    His "law...engraved in their hearts".
    
    If God's Law is indeed "engraved in their hearts", then there *is* a
    God, and thus their premise of denying Him would mean that they are
    _not_ good candidates for a position of ministry. If, on the other hand
    "there is no God" (see Psalm 14:1), then _why_ have they chosen to
    enter a position of ministry?
    
    Either they are deluding themselves and others, or they are grossly
    hypocritical. :'(
    
    Harry

<---luv how you took the negative approach to it. You seemed to have forgotten
    that they could acutually be questioning their faith, and are looking at
    what the UU church has to offer. Who knows, maybe they believe in God, but
    are upset at Him for something, or feel He has abandoned them. A whole host
    of reasons are out there. But instead, you stick to the negative approach,
    to break down the person, instead of rejoicing that God has a plan for 
    them, and the UU church could be "the" tool, or "A" tool in the process. 
    Why is that?



Glen

    RE: .23 & .25
    
    Law of God engraved on the heart of one who does not believe in God? 
    Highly improbable, if not entirely impossible.  Could/would the Law be
    written without first things first?  Jesus said "Thou shalt love the
    Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
    thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is
    like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two
    commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40, KJV)
    
    However, there is precedence for God working through channels that do
    not acknowledge/recognize Him, e.g., Balaam's donkey, the unbelieving
    spouse of a believer, unrighteous kings who execute judgment/justice,
    "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction", etc.  In such cases, God can
    accomplish His purpose without accounting righteousness to the channel.
    Glorifying God for His work is proper, and affirming an unrighteous
    channel as "good" is improper.
    
    RE: .29
    
    Don't change the premise to cause confusion:  Note .23 presented "a
    person who does not believe in God..."  Good thing to remember, though,
    that we look on the outward appearance while God looks on the heart.  A
    person could _profess_ to not believe God while nonetheless being
    impelled to seek Him, I suppose.  Then Harry's point: One must ask why
    he/she seeks God who does not exist.
    
    /Wayne

| <<< Note 840.30 by ROCK::PARKER >>>


| Don't change the premise to cause confusion:  Note .23 presented "a
| person who does not believe in God..."  

	They don't have to believe in Him for God to make His move. :-) If one
does not believe in God, and He has them in a church, then I think He is doing
quite the job, and should be praised for doing so. Breaking down the situation
in a negative manner takes glory away from Him. (imho)



Glen

    RE: .31
    
    Right your are, Glen.  Belief is NOT a prerequisite for God to seek us
    out.  He first loved us, while we were sinners neither caring nor
    knowing about Him.
    
    Those who know about God but CHOOSE to dismiss Him tred on dangerous
    ground, though.
    
    /Wayne

    WRONG.  God will not move by placing someone in a church that
    contradicts Him and His Word.

    Uh, Mike, to whom and to what is "WRONG" addressed? :-)

    RE: .31
    
    See note 835.56 entered by Paul Weiss.  Those wanting to FIND God
    likely would not be seeking Him in a UU church.  On the other hand,
    those who reject the God of His Word might be seeking a more
    acceptable god in the UU church.
    
    However, as I've previously noted, God uses sometimes unlikely vehicles
    to reveal Himself.  A deadly presumption is that God may be found on
    man's terms by man's devices.

    umm...
    
    perhaps I'm just a little dense today, but let me go over this.
    
    - the UU church is supposed to be Christian (we'll leave the
    	definitions asside for the moment, ok?)
    
    - a Christian church believes that there is a God - at least, I am
    	working on the supposition it does, else why call it a 'church'?
    
    - a person denys the existence of God
    
    - this same person can become an 'ordained minister' in the UU church
    
    What is wrong with this picture?

The UUs do not claim to be Christian; they claim to be Universalist.

Thus Christianity is just one part of the Universe of possible religions.
	Some Unitarian Universalists claim to be Christians.

Atheism is another.
	Some Unitarian Universalists claim to be Atheists.

Paganism is yet another.
	Some Unitarian Universalists practice Wicca.

All of these and more are part of the inclUUsivity of UUism.

You might find it instructive to read Patricia's description of her
wedding in a UU setting, located in LGP30::CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE 1196.20.

/john

| <<< Note 840.32 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

| Those who know about God but CHOOSE to dismiss Him tred on dangerous
| ground, though.

	I do agree with this, to a point. If the dismiss is regarded by other
humans, I disagree. If the dismiss is by the person themselves, then it could
be true, but then the person could be hiding their true feelings from others. 
Only God, and the person's heart can know if He has been dismissed. Not other
people's standards.



Glen

      Hi Patricia,
    
        How can the law of God be written in an atheist's heart if 
        a part (I would say *all*, but I'll leave it at part anyway!)
        of what constitutes obedience to the law is having no other
        gods before Him as well as an acknowledgment of God.  The law 
        starts out, "I am the Lord thy God."
    
        It would appear that the initial awareness to the law of God 
        would include, "Yes, You are the Lord my God!"
    
    							Tony

>.Note 840.27           Unitarian Universalist Church (UU's)              27 of 45
>JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"     8 lines   9-JAN-1996 16:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >   I think I understand from where you are coming on this one Patricia. 
 >   Please correct me if I am wrong.  It seems to me that by God being our
 >   creator that he has created within each of us innate knowledge of Him. 
 >   And much like the instinctual behaviors of animals, humans have the
 >   instinctual behavior of God?  Or should I say have the ability to have
 >   the instinctual behavior of God???
    
    I would not say that humans have the instinctual behavoir of God.  I
    would say that because humans were created in the image of God, humans
    have within them the ability to instinctual understand what God
    requires of them.  Paul in the letter to the Corinthians talks about
    the law of God written in one's heart.  This is what I believe this to
    mean.  I do believe it takes  effort, meditation, and prayer to be centered
    and align oneself with our instinctual awareness of God within.
    
    Is this what you mean?

Note 840.28  
    
    >_Why_ do I find it 'interesting' that people who would deny the
    >existence of God (any god, but also specifically the God of Abraham,
    >the God of the Bible, Yahweh, the Creator of the Universe) would have
    >His "law...engraved in their hearts".
    
    Romans 2:13-15
    
    "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight
    but the doers of the law who will be justified.  When Gentiles who do
    not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these,
    though not having the law, are a law unto themselves.  They show that
    what the law requires is written on their hearts."
    
    
    
    
    >If God's Law is indeed "engraved in their hearts", then there *is* a
    >God, and thus their premise of denying Him would mean that they are
    >_not_ good candidates for a position of ministry. If, on the other hand
    >"there is no God" (see Psalm 14:1), then _why_ have they chosen to
    >enter a position of ministry?
    
    I personally believe that their is a God but the Bible only dimly
    reveals the nature and requirements of God.  I believe that the best
    way to find God and to understand what God requires of us is through a
    combination of reading scripture, community service, prayer,
    meditation, and centering.  I have absolute faith that God will reveal
    God's self to any person who honestly seeks God.  As a minister I will
    help people honestly seek God.
    
    >Either they are deluding themselves and others, or they are grossly
    >hypocritical. :'(
    
    I personally try to focus on the light within others and not the
    darkness.  No one deludes the Divine!.
    
                                      Patricia
    
    

    Patricia, I don't have the time to respond currently all that you have
    written.  I also believe that others will mostly likely come in and
    write much of what I would say.  So, if later on when I have time to
    formulate all that is in my heart to continue this dialogue, I will
    enter it.
    
    I do just want to comment at this time on one of your statements.  You
    say that you focus on the light in others and not the darkness.  
    I do believe that God has required us to focus on the darkness.  
    But at an individual level.  
    
    I believe the Bible is clear as to how and why it is essential to our
    salvations to look at ourselves in every aspect of our lives.
    
    James 4:8  Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your
    hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. 
    
    **  9  Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to 
    mourning, and your joy to heaviness.  **
     
    
    10  Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you
    up. 
    
    
    When one puts themselves in God's presence, truly seeking to know Him,
    the light of pure love will cast out all fear.  Once fear is gone, we
    can then not only give to God those things which we think are
    acceptable, but we can also be relieved of those things which are dark
    and sinful.  And it is through this process that God and we begin
    fellowship.
    
    As a UU Minister, would you see this as an important aspect of
    developing a relationship to God?
    
    Nancy
    

    >    Uh, Mike, to whom and to what is "WRONG" addressed? :-)
    
    Brother Wayne, I think you know the answer to that question. 
    
    Mike

    Nancy,
    
    I will answer your question with a quote from Nelson Mandela which I
    have posted over my desk because I find it truly inspiring.
    
    "Our deepest faer is not that we are inadequate.  Our deepest fear is
    that we are powerful beyond measure.  It is our light, not our
    darkness, that most frightens us.  We ask ourselves, "Who am I to be
    brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous?"  Actually, who are we
    not to be?  You are a child of God.  Your playing small doesn't serve
    the world.  There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other
    people won't feel insecure around you".
    
    "We were born to manifiest the glory of God that is within us.  It is
    not just in some of us; it's in everyone.  And as we let our own light
    shine,  we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. 
    As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically
    liberates others."
    
                            Nelson Mandela
                            Inaugural Address, 1994

    ...but isn't Mandela a Christian?  I thought I heard he was.

    RE: .49
    
    Brother Mike, I thought I knew the answer--note the smilely face.  I
    was just encouraging you to explicitly reference the notes to which
    you reply. :-)
    
    Carry on.
    
    /Wayne

    
    For those that have noticed a gap in the note numbers, there have
    been deletions according to conference guidlines, mostly the guidlines
    in 2.10; but other guidelines in 2.* as well.
    
    I hope that I haven't messed up the flow too bad.
    
    Carry on.
    
     						Jim Glenn
    						Co-Moderator
    

  re: .23/47

  Hi Patricia,

    I had meant to respond to these two replies.  (Another reply follows
    this one.)

   From .23

***
    To me there is something particularly sacred and holy about a person
    who does not believe in God, does not believe that an individual will
    be rewarded in heaven for either good action or punished for bad
    action, and yet commits his/her life to the service of others and the
    betterment of humanity.  THere are many who do not profess a belief in
    God, yet still seem to have the law of God engraved in their hearts.
***   

   And from .47

Someone said:

    >_Why_ do I find it 'interesting' that people who would deny the
    >existence of God (any god, but also specifically the God of Abraham,
    >the God of the Bible, Yahweh, the Creator of the Universe) would have
    >His "law...engraved in their hearts".

To which you replied:
    
    Romans 2:13-15    
    "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight
    but the doers of the law who will be justified.  When Gentiles who do
    not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these,
    though not having the law, are a law unto themselves.  They show that
    what the law requires is written on their hearts."

   I've a couple points I wanted to make.  

    Romans 1:19-23a
    because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown
    it to them.
    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly
    seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
    power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse
    because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor
    were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish
    hearts were darkened.
    Professing to be wise, they became fools,
    and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image make like
    corruptible man - ...

    This is not a whole lot of verses separated from the ones you quoted and
    while I deeply disagree with your posture of 'compartmentalizing scripture'
    where one book doesn't seem to be able to assist with another (i.e. the
    line upon line recipe of scriptural study as laid out in Isaiah 28), in
    this case, I was able to stick to Romans, the book you quoted from.

    Here, Paul has said that no man is without excuse.  *On what basis?*
    Because God has sufficiently revealed Himself to every man.  What was
    sufficient revelation?  CREATION!!  How so?  His INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES
    ARE CLEARLY SEEN EVEN HIS ETERNAL POWER AND GODHEAD

    so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE.

    On what basis could you possibly exclude this from your interpretation
    of Romans 2:13-15???

    You cite a group called 'Gentiles' in Romans 2:13-15.  You interpret
    that atheists are a subset of this group of Gentiles which has the
    quality of the law of God written in the heart.  Yet, Romans 1 tells
    us that all people, Gentiles included, have had sufficient revelation 
    such that His eternal power and Godhead ought to be known.  

    Romans 1 also says that all people "knew God" and I believe this means
    that virtually everyone has some 'God-concept'.  

    So, we can categorize Gentiles into two groups.  Those that have the
    law being written in the heart and those that do not.  

    Isn't it clear from Paul that those that have allowed God to write His
    law in their hearts are those that have retained a 'God-concept' and
    have seen, at the least, that there is a God with eternal power?

    Isn't it also clear that those that have not retained a knowledge of 
    God did not glorify Him as God, became fools, and have allowed their
    hearts to be darkened?

    In which classification would the atheist seem to fit???

    How in the world do you interpret Romans 2:13-15 as you do???

						Tony

  
    The other point I wanted to make is to express the idea of one quality
    of very profitable fellowship.  The Bible says that there is unity in
    the truth.  It looks forward to a group that grows in comprehending the
    things of God - eating solid food, etc.

    To pose an analogy, lets' say I want to become as knowledgeable as I
    can about physics.  Am I going to do so by hanging out with a very
    'generic' group of people and spend time going over english, accounting,
    and philosophy (as well as physics)???  Is this the most efficient 
    course?  There's even 'ordained' people in my little group of 'seekers'
    who don't even believe that physics really exists!

    I'm gonna hang out with physics people so far as my quest to understand
    physics is concerned!!!  I'm not going to go over economics!  Its a 
    waste *so far as my quest in understanding physics is concerned*!!!

    I might even reject one branch of physics as false and hang out with this
    other branch that I believe is true and do some bigtime studying with
    them.  I want to know the truth and I am PROFITED in that process (of
    coming to greater truth) by hanging out with like-minded people with
    the same quest.

    Oh, I'll hang out with the others - even those that do not believe there
    is such a thing as physics.  But, it will be mainly to share the good
    news of the truth of physics.

    I think you get my point.  I believe churches are meant to be an avenue 
    for growth.  Churches grow by striving to learn the truth.  The only
    way I can see UU as valid is if the current status of a person is as
    uncertain and generic as UU is.  As soon as a person comes to a more
    specific conviction such as "Christ is the Way", that person's growth
    is stunted much as the physics analogy.  He would profit by learning of
    Christ, but often he is hanging out in his 'avenue for spiritual profit'
    by listening to an atheist deliver the 'word' (message of truth/spiritual
    food for the soul)???

    I see it as extremely difficult at best and more likely impossible for
    anyone to grow beyond a spiritual fetus stage if UU is the forum for
    spiritual growth.

    It would be like wanting to learn physics and doing so in an environment
    where physics is one of several things to learn about for the day.

    Better to go where the menu is all physics.

							Tony

    Tony,
    
    Your analogy could work.
    
    I believe the central theological question is "What is the Meaning of
    human life and what must women and man do to live fully"
    
    Given your previous reply, I liken you to one who would say, aha, that
    is a "Biology" question.  Therefore if I spend all my time learning
    Biology, I will know the absolute answer to the question.
    
    I on the other hand would prefer to hangout with poets, philosophers,
    Movie Goers, Hikers, Naturalists, new agers, Liberals, Scientists, and a
    diverse group of other people.  Each teaches me something a little different
    regarding what is the meaning of life.  All teach me, that it is a
    question that I will never have an absolute answer for, but that it is
    perfectly appropriate to only see the answer dimly.

I understand your analogy, Patricia.  And if Jesus wasn't God, then the model
you advocate and use is perfectly appropriate.  Under that model, since no
one knows the real truth, then the best we can do is to try to pick up
whatever we can find out about God from anyone we meet, since anyone might
know something.  Maybe somehow if we put it all together we'll get some dim
idea of God.

If, however, Jesus is God, then the choice we are faced with is:

 Do we ask a bunch of flawed people like ourselves what God is like?

 Do we ask God himself, incarnate in Jesus Christ?

The choice is pretty clear.

What you advocate can be made to sound nice, but it makes no sense at all if
Jesus is in fact God incarnate in humanity.

Paul

    Paul,
    
    I agree that one way is to ask God, incarnate in Jesus.  The problem is
    how we humans go about doing that, and how we can be confident that God
    is answering our question.

    .59
    
    Simple Patricia, through validation in God's Word.
    

    
>    I agree that one way is to ask God, incarnate in Jesus.  The problem is
>    how we humans go about doing that, and how we can be confident that God
>    is answering our question.


   No problem!  Check out the Bible!


 Jim

>    I agree that one way is to ask God, incarnate in Jesus. 

That asking God, incarnate in Jesus is *ONE* way, is not agreement, it is
disagreement.  Asking God, incarnate in Jesus, is the ONLY way, or so we are
to believe if we believe what Jesus said about himself.

Which brings us right back to the exact same place we always come to.  You
have said that you don't believe that Jesus is the One and only full
incarnation of God, and given that belief, I'd agree that the the way you
have tried to find out about God is as good as you can do.

But that belief, and thus the way of finding out about God based on that
belief, are not Christian belief.

Paul

A plethora of notes set hidden pending moderator discussion.....

Paul

    Patricia,
    
>    I will answer your question with a quote from Nelson Mandela which I
>    have posted over my desk because I find it truly inspiring.

While I can appreciate the words spoken by Nelson Mandela, they are 
not God's words.  But just as the Bible must be taken in context so must 
the words of Mandela.

He is speaking to an oppressed people.  Mandela's words are to create hope in 
them at a level so deep that they rise above their current status in their 
world.   With the target audience in mind, these words take on the 
motivational meeting intended.  To apply this same advice globally is not 
taking into consideration the different spiritual conditions in our world 
and imo, irresponsible.

Would you give this same advice to those who oppress others?

It is most important that we recognize not only our uniqueness and value 
in God, but also our sinful state without God.  Where there is no need 
of God, there is no hope of God.  And yet within each of us I do believe 
is the  desire to have that very question answered. 

Where is God, who is God and what does he want from me?  And because of 
this we look to find him at all costs, even if it means creating our own 
gods/god. This is why I believe it is our life experiences that begin 
to reveal our character and thusly you will find God being interepreted in 
many ways.  

But God has given us the revelation of who He is and his character in the 
scriptures.  To say that God exists in any form we wish to make him, is to 
create a pain so deep within his heart that he declares his jealousy over 
your soul.  

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: 
for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers 
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 

Exodus 34:14  For thou shalt worship no other God: for the Lord, whose 
name is jealous, is a jealous God: 

I am so glad that I've come to know his love towards me... the love that 
casts out all fear.

God Bless,
Nancy


    
    

    >I do believe it takes  effort, meditation, and prayer to be centered
    >and align oneself with our instinctual awareness of God within.
    
    This is where our beliefs take the opposite road.  I believe the only
    effort required is faith.  God's grace will bring about the rest.  It
    is without the faith in the gift that creates the need to keep looking
    for more revelations.
    
    This is why I believe churches like the UU are so very popular today. 
    People just don't want God to be simple, if it doesn't require effort,
    mediation and prayer it just can't be God.
    
    I submit to the authority of God's word and like any man would ask,
    just take him at it.
    
    For by grace are ye saved through faith, it is a gift of God, not of
    works lest any man should boast.
    
    God Bless,
    Nancy
    

    So I ask you again, Patricia, do you find that understanding who we are
    in comparison to God is an important aspect of knowing God as a UU
    minister?  
    
    Let me be clear that I am referring our sinfulness next to His purity.
    
    Nancy

Glen Silva has objected to the five jokes posted in .-2.  I'm not going
to argue with him.  Anyone interested can read:

  http://world.std.com/~notelrac/essays.dir/faith.dir/uu_humor.html

which is a page maintained by a member of the UU church.

It contains these five jokes (you'll just have to guess which five I
selected) and quite a few more.  The site also contains a copy of a
UU parody of "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" over which Glen raised so
many objections.

/john

	So many objections? Let's see, one note to the mods, who told me to
contact you directly, which I did. I said I did not find them to be funny, and
could you remove them. That equates into, "so many objections" in your world?


Glen

    .82
    
    Glen, I have a question for you.  Can you tell me any other conference
    in which you participate, where *you* alone object to something and
    receive moderator attention and action like in this one?
    
    I mean quite honestly, this humor comes from a UU person, it's their
    own humor.  And as a Baptist, I've joined in my fair share of baptist
    humor as well.
    
    Where is your sense of humor?

re .82 "So many objections"

Read the note you're replying to again, a little more carefully.

/john

    oh boy!
    
    does this mean I can raise objections about certain things written here
    and get them removed too?
    
    ;')
    
    gee... where to start... :'}

    Guess Glen didn't want to even acknowledge that question.  Why golly
    geeze in the box they'd tell him to go jump off a cliff! :-)  But we in
    here try to respect folks and the folks we respect bad mouth elsewhere.
    
    Go figure!

�    gee... where to start... :'}

	.85?

						;-)
							&

| <<< Note 840.86 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| Guess Glen didn't want to even acknowledge that question.  Why golly
| geeze in the box they'd tell him to go jump off a cliff! :-)  But we in
| here try to respect folks and the folks we respect bad mouth elsewhere.

	Fine.... I figured I would let it slide, but seeing you don't want me
to, ok, we'll have it your way. 

	If I find something insulting, or non-humouress, I send a message to
the mods. If it is deemed that they do not feel anything should be done about
it, they tell me so. In this case, Andrew said to send John mail, which I did.
No big deal, really. John decided to just let it slide, and offered a pointer
to where others could still view the offending material. Again, no big deal.
I'm wondering why you are trying to make this into a big deal? 



Glen

    .88
    
    Well Glen, I guess I just happened to find this latest complaint a tad
    on picky side.  Tell me if I went into the conference you moderate,
    would you set notes hidden that I found offensive?  Even if it wasn't
    offensive to anyone else?

	Nancy, I had deleted a note that was in bad taste in the file I
moderate, and I was over-ruled. Many still found it in bad tatse, but most
thought it was humor.

	

Glen