Re: Orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ AMERICANUNITARIAN.ORG aucforum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Robin Edgar on December 22, 19102 at 13:05:59:

In Reply to: Re: Orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy posted by Mark Douglas on December 22, 19102 at 02:51:45:

: Quotation marks are an accepted method in the English language of clarifying and making specific particular terms or phrases. If you have a problem understanding this, I suggest you take a basic English course or if you need it, an English as a second language course -- whatever works for you.

You know perfectly well that enclosing the word God in quotation marks does the exact opposite of clarifying its meaning. You know perfectly well that enclosing a word in quotation marks often indicates that it is being used in an imprecise euphemistic sense. There was absolutely no need for you to enclose the word God within quotation marks unless you were using it in a loose euphemistic sense.

: : Why do you assume that the AUC would "exclude" such people if they come in good faith and a sincere quest? I think it would be a mistake to have outright atheists as voting members of the AUC because that could lead to it being subverted by atheists just as the UU community has been so thoroughly subverted by atheists but nobody is suggesting that agnostics and atheists would be "excluded" from the AUC community.

: When there has been discussion of "catechisms" what else am I to assume?

You know perfectly well from the context of our discussion that we were not talking about catechisms in the strictest sense but simply as a question and answer format tract that would be similar to an FAQ. The UUA uses similar question and answer format tracts to explain the UUA. You assume way too much in your attck on the AUC. Do you know what they say about the word assume?

: : : Why can't the AUC take people as they are, where they are and try to provide a nurturing environment?

: : I could have sworn the AUC was doing just that.

: Really? You question my conceptions of "God", and have the audacity to say that? Pathetic ....

My questioning of your conception of God is not pathetic at all. When enclosed within quotation marks the word God can refer pretty much to anything as I have already pointed out. You can make a "God" out of love, you can make a "God" out of money, you can even make a "God" out of sex. It was by no means clear that you were referring to God in any traditional dictionary defined sense of the word. The AUC believes that God may be perceived in a myriad of ways but the AUC does not believe in a myriad of "Gods" or some vague revisionist definition of the word God. When we speak about God we mean God, not love, not money, not sex nor anything other than God.

: : Just who is the AUC "excluding" and making them feel like outsiders? I thought such behavior was more characteristic of the UUA and many UU not so Welcoming Congregations...

: You are exhibiting that behavior just fine. I can see now why you had problems in the UUA. Can you get along anywhere?

I think perhaps that question is best asked of yourself. You constantly complain about the "creed" of the UUA's Seven Principles in the CFUU forum and now you are subjecting the AUC to plenty of "aggressive criticism" that is hardly warranted by anything that AUC members are saying or doing. No one is actively excluding you. By your own testimony you are excluding yourself.

: : : Where is the "Godliness" of such an approach?

: : Where is that approach in the AUC at all?

: Don't understand the question.

I am saying where is the approach of "excluding" people who come in "good faith" in the AUC at all? Quite frankly you are exhibiting plenty of bad faith yet no one has so much as suggested that you leave yet.

: : : Cannot "God" be a stated part of the AUC without being a net which is used to exclude people who are sincere seekers?

: : Where is the AUC "net" "which is used to exclude people who are sincere seekers"? Please produce your evidence Mark.

: A "catechism" is all the evidence necessary. Where have you been in the course of this discussion, on Mars?

No, but it seems that you are on some other planet and own accusations are quite out of this world. If you review how the word "catechism" was used in this discussion, and what I and others have previously said about its use, you will see that our use of the word "catechism" here and there is extremely flimsy evidence for the spurious accusations that you have brought against the AUC. Nobody at any time suggested creating an actual catechism that would constitute a test of faith and most of us made it clear that we were not talking about that kind of catechism or creed.

: : : What is "God" anyway? Do you know? Do I?

: : If you don't know what "God" is how can you possibly claim, not once but three times, to believe in "God"? You remind me a bit of Peter... I think most AUC members have a pretty good idea of what God is and we are not inclined to water down what God is by enclosing God in euphemistic quotation marks...

: Ah, and you dare to say that there is not an exclusive or hypercritical attitude?

You are clearly the one displaying a "hypercritical attitude". If you enclose the word "God" within quotation marks and follow this up by saying - What is "God" anyway? Do you know? Do I? - I think that it is perfectly reasonable for me to question your claimed belief in "God" as you put it. The AUC was not created to water down and revise the meaning of the word God. The UUA is already pretty good at redefining the word God in a wishy-washy revisionist manner when the word God is used at all within the UU religious community. When the AUC uses the word God in its literature the AUC means God in a fairly traditional dictionary defined sense of the word God not some wishy-washy revisionist watering down of the meaning of the word God.

: Get off of the quotation marks kick, and learn the proper use of expression in the English language.

I do use proper expression of the English language. It is you who uses improper expression of the English language when you misuse the word God. It is you who would do well to get off of your own quotation marks "God" kick however I expect that you cannot use the word God without quotation marks enclosing it and still claim to believe in God... I once again ask - If you don't know what "God" is how can you possibly claim, not once but three times, to believe in "God"?

: : : I know what I *think* (as of today at this moment) "God" is to *me*, but someone else might have exactly the same thoughts and conceptions as do I, yet not define those in terms of "God." I am not sure that the concept God is as simple as we are trying to make it.

: : The meaning of the word God that we are talking about is found in most good dictionaries. I have said many times that AUC members are "dictionary definition Unitarians" because we fit the dictionary description of the word Unitarian. I think that it is fair to say that most of AUC members use the dictionary to define what the word God means.

: So you are attempting to prescribe what "God should mean to me or someone else? Isn't that a part of the point I have been trying to make? And you say the AUC does not have an exclusionary attitude? Garbage.

Wrong. The word God has a specific meaning that is well defined by a few millennia old monotheistic religious tradition to say nothing of an even older polytheistic religious tradition. It is not me who is attempting to prescribe what the word God should mean to you or someone else, it is thousands of years of human history that has provided a traditional accepted meaning of the word God. If you or someone else places the word God within quotation marks and redefines it to mean something other than the commonly understood meaning of the word I have every right and even a responsibility to question this revisionist use of the word God.

: : : Yet, cannot "ultimate" values of worth to individuals and society be arrived at by means other than defining them in terms of "God?"

: : Of course some ultimate values of worth to individuals and society be arrived at by means other than defining them in terms of "God" just ask any atheist, agnostic, or Buddhist but that is quite beside the point. The AUC is a God believing Unitarian religious organization. Those people who seek ultimate values of worth to individuals and society arrived at by means other than defining them in terms of "God" are most welcome to join other non-theistic organizations such as the American Humanist Association, or a Buddhist temple, or even the Communist Party. In any case some of the "ultimate values" of AUC members are not defined in terms of God. Plenty of my own "ultimate values" are defined in terms of "humanity" but I happen to believe in God without the quotation marks. In fact I know from direct personal experience that there is a God without quotation marks...

: You say the AUC does not exclude, and now you say people who do not fit your "dictionary" mold should go somewhere else in their search.

You are misrepresenting what actually I said. I have already said many times that agnostics and atheists who are genuinely of "good will" are certainly welcome to participate in AUC activities including this discussion forum, although for obvious reasons I don't think that outright atheists should be full voting members in the AUC. In that sense it would be fair to say that the AUC excludes atheists and rightly so. No theistic religious community is likely to knowinglyt hand over political control of it to outright atheists or even agnostics for that matter. The AUC has every right and even a responsibility to ensure that God believing people maintain political control of the AUC or it may quickly devolve into the theological mess that the UUA is today. Those people who do not believe in God at all or in any traditional sense of the word are welcome as friends and visitors but the AUC is a God believing religious community and I doubt that more than a few AUC members have any interest in watering down the meaning of the word God to the point that it effectively becomes meaningless.

: Who is talking about handing over "control"? I was talking about mere acceptance, which in one paragraph you say the AUC does, and in the next you say it should not. Make up your mind.

My mind is made up and it is clearly expressed in the English language. Once again you are misrepresenting what I have said. The AUC has already demonstrated that it is very accepting of people who do not believe in God at all or who have views of God that do not fit the traditional Unitarian view of God. The AUC even has an avowed Unitarian/Trinitarian as a member. If however the AUC accepted outright atheists as full voting members this could lead to atheists exercising political control over the AUC and lead to its demise as a bona fide monotheistic Unitarian religious community. Obviously the AUC has exclude avowed atheists from being full voting members in the AUC and the AUC needs to ensure that the word God is defined in a fairly traditional sense of the word otherwise it would not really be a bona fide monotheistic Unitarian religious community.

: : : As aforestated, I do (BUT, *my* "God" may not be *your* "God.").

: : It would appear that your "God" is no God at all. The AUC affirms that "God's presence is made known in a myriad of ways." Thus your experience and understanding of God may well differ considerably from all other AUC members' experience and understanding of God but we are talking about God not "God" in quotation marks.

: So you say that *my* "God" is no God at all.

You are twisting my words again. I said, "It would appear that your "God" is no God at all." It does indeed appear that your "God" is no God at all when you enclose the word God in quotation marks and openly claim not to know what God is. If you don't even know what God is what are you referring to when you use the word "God"? It seems to me, and no doubt others reading your posts, that you may referring to something that is not God at all in any traditional and accepted meaning of the word God.

: If that is representative of the AUC attitude (and since you are one of its more prominent spokespeople, I take it that it is),

Just because I speak about the AUC does not mean that I am an official representative of the "AUC attitude" or a "prominent" AUC spokesperson. I speak only for myself as an individual AUC member. I have no official elected leadership position within the AUC at this moment and it is for that reason that I often say that Dean or David or other elected AUC leaders are better placed to answer certain questions. It only demonstrates your ignorance of the AUC for you to make such assumptions.

: then the AUC is not Unitarian, it is an amalgamation doctrinaire idiocy.

What I have said in my posts here is hardly "doctrinaire idiocy". The AUC is clearly Unitarian in the traditional dictionary sense of the word. The AUC is trying to revive a genuine monotheistic Unitarian tradition and that precludes accepting outright atheists as full voting members since the term "atheist Unitarian" is an oxymoron. It is even debatable as to whether people who hold to some vague wishy-washy definition of the word God should be full voting members in the AUC. I really don't think the AUC was formed in an effort to water down the truth and meaning of the word God. Au contraire it was formed to revive a fairly traditional Unitarian belief in God without euphemistic quotation marks.

: : : Can someone please explain to me why the AUC cannot have a stated acceptance of "God" while accepting people of good faith in its ranks who do not have such a belief?

: You have just questioned my conception of "God" saying my God is no God at all;

For good reason as explained aboved.

: that people who do not believe in God can go to humanist organizations;

Only if they seek ultimate values of worth to individuals and society arrived at by means other than defining them in terms of "God". If atheists want to join an organization to promote ultimate values of worth to individuals and society arrived at by means other than defining them in terms of "God" they are far better off joining the AHA than the AUC. That is pure common sense. The AUC is no more interested in being subverted by atheists than the AHA in interested in being subverted by theists. You know perfectly well that I have said that atheists and agnostics of genuine good will are welcome as friends and visitors of the AUC and the AUC has already demonstrated this to be true in he past.

: and then you say the AUC is "accepting" of people who do not believe in God?

The AUC has already shown that it is "accepting" of people who do not believe in God as friends and visitors and participants in its discussion forums etc.

: You can't have it both ways -- make up your mind. Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

Yes I do have a clue what I am talking about in clearly expressed English. It is you who apparently hasn't a clue what I am talking about or is even willfully misrepresenting my words in an effort to discredit me.

: : : My own conception of God is a cross between understanding God through the unity nature as seen via the laws of science, and occasional meditation.

: : That is not quite the God that we are talking about although God is most certainly responsible for, and revealed in, the unity nature and the laws of science... Quite frankly an outright atheist could say what you said with the word "God" in quotation marks...

: Not the "God" *we" are talking about? So the AUC does have a required conception of God? I sort of thought as much -- you are clarifying what I have suspected all along. One either sees "God" the AUC way, or not at all. And this is "tolerant" Unitarianism? Bull, this is narrow minded intolerant trash.

Wrong. If your in quotation marks "God" is nothing more than the "unity nature as seen via the laws of science" your God is Nature period. Nothing more, nothing less. As I pointed out, an outright atheist who does not believe in God at all could say exactly what you said with the word God enclosed in euphemistic quotation marks as you have a tendency to use it. I could be mistaken but I am quite sure that when the AUC talks about God it means a little bit more than just the "unity nature as seen via the laws of science". Most if not all AUC members would certainly agree that God is responsible for and revealed in the unity nature and the laws of science but most if not all AUC members would agree that God is not just the "unity of nature" in and of itself. When the AUC speaks about God it refers to the Supreme Being/Creator of the Universe that created Nature and is ultimately responsible for the laws of science, not just Nature itself. The "creed" of the AUC clearly states -

1. God's presence is made known in a myriad of ways. Religion should promote a free and responsible search for truth, meaning, communion and love.

2. Reason is a gift from God. Religion should embrace reason and its progeny, including the scientific enterprise which explores God's creation.

Please note that Nature is considered to be God's creation not "God" itself.

: : : I am a Rosicrucian "beyond the 9th degree" (as they say), and have found occasionally tapping into the essence of all that is to be a sublime experience.

: : It can also be a rather terrifying experience...

: Yes, Robin, I think you have experienced a lot of terror and it has warped you.

Not really. I am just pointing out that God is as much responsible for that which is terrifying as that which is sublime. Most rational people who devote serious thought to God would agree with that statement. Most Biblical prophets and many other mystics have reported terrifying elements in their revelatory experiences of God as well as the sublime elements.

: : : No doubt that will draw the fire of some here.

: : Actually there is plenty of doubt that your saying that will draw the fire here. Feel free to share this with your Rosicrucian friends -

: No doubt at all -- you have spent quite a lengthy post directing fire at me. Nope, no doubt at all -----

Once again you misrepresent my words to say nothing of misrepresenting your own words... I find it ironic that you accuse me of directing fire at you when in fact I have quite calmly and rationally defended the AUC from the "fire" of the heated rhetoric that you have directed at it...

: I am willing to bet that almost no one here has any serious problems with your affiliation with the Rosicrucians.

: It is nice that you do not have a problem with something.

There are all kinds of thing that I don't have a problem with. I only have problems with things that are in fact very real and significant problems. I wish that the same could be said about you. You seem to create massive problems out of fairly minor quibbles.

: : And nobody here is restricting your thought. I am willing to bet that the same cannot be said about you sharing such thoughts in some "humanist" dominated UU congregations where the word God is unwelcome even if it is contained within quotation marks and where Rosicrucians are quite possibly as much of a target for ridicule than Christians...

: You suggest that my conception of "God" is "no God at all" and that it does not comport with the "dictionary" definition of God as held by the AUC, and then you say no one is restricting my thought?

That's right. I am not restricting your thought at all. As I have explained I have very good reason to suggest that your conception of "God" is "no God at all" and that it does not comport with the "dictionary" definition of God as held by the AUC however I am by no means restricting that thought or any other thought that you may have, nor is any other AUC member.

: Make up your mind. This is some of the most judgmental nonsense I have ever heard.

Actually it is your own accusations about the AUC that are more rightly described as "judgmental nonsense". There was nothing particularly judgmental in my questioning of your in quotation marks "God" I was just exercising good old Unitarian Reason in pointing out the fact that your in quotation marks "God" does not in fact fit the commonly accepted definition of God and that outright atheists could pretty much say exactly what you have said about your in quoation marks "God".

: : : I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I just can't hold with the "little old man sitting on a throne in a place called heaven" conception of "God."

: : Bravo. It's been said before, but I'll say it again: nobody here holds with the "little old man sitting on a throne in a place called heaven" conception of "God." In fact few contemporary Christians, Jews or Muslims etc. hold to that outmoded concept of God which even the ancients probably took more metaphorically than literally...

: Nice that we agree on something, but somehow I doubt that will last either.

What? Do you expect me or any other AUC member to start believing in the "little old man sitting on a throne in a place called heaven" conception of "God."?

: : : To be broad in scope, the AUC must be willing to reach out.

: : The AUC does reach out to anyone who agrees with it's stated principles which are broad in scope...

: Just as *you* have reached out to me and my "God" that is "no God at all"? How broad in scope is that?

The principles of the AUC are very broad in scope however when they refer to God they clearly mean God in a fairly traditional dictionary defined sense of the word. When the AUC uses the word God it does not mean some kind of ill defined or revisionist in quotation marks "God" that may indeed be no God at all. The AUC was formed in part in reaction to such revisionistic misuse (to say nothing of outright abuse) of the word God within the Unitarian Universalist community. I can't imagine that the AUC wants to water down or otherwise revise the basic meaning of the word God. We are talking about the real thing. Not love, not money, not sex, not even Nature and the Universe... As the AUC principles make clear we are talking about the Creator of Nature and the Universe.

: : By the way, can anyone tell me how many registered members the AUC has as of today (i.e., 12/21/02)? *just curious*

: : No you're not. You're using snide innuendo to try to belittle and malign the AUC by pointing to the fact that it is still a small fledging religious community. Let's face it the AUC is only about two years old and has limited resources how many members would you expect any fledgling religious group to have in the first few years of its existence? How many registered members did Christianity have when Jesus began his ministry?

: Yes I am.

: Didn't get an answer though did I? As for snide innuendo, your total post has consisted of that.

Not at all. There is virtually no innuendo, snide or otherwise, in my posts. I say what I mean and I mean what I say without resorting to any snide innuendo.

: If I have exhibited snide innuendo, then for you to say so is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. (Is that analogy too complicated or abstract for you?)

Not at all, but it is just plain wrong... You have clearly used snide innuendo whereas I have not done so at all. I have stated my case clearly and openly in plain easily understood English. I challenge you to provide even one quote from me in any of my recent posts that clearly constitutes snide innuendo.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : Quotation marks are an accepted method in the English language of clarifying and making specific particular terms or phrases. If you have a problem understanding this, I suggest you take a basic English course or if you need it, an English as a second language course -- whatever works for you. : You know perfectly well that enclosing the word God in quotation marks does the exact opposite of clarifying its meaning. You know perfectly well that enclosing a word in quotation marks often indicates that it is being used in an imprecise euphemistic sense. There was absolutely no need for you to enclose the word God within quotation marks unless you were using it in a loose euphemistic sense. : : : Why do you assume that the AUC would "exclude" such people if they come in good faith and a sincere quest? I think it would be a mistake to have outright atheists as voting members of the AUC because that could lead to it being subverted by atheists just as the UU community has been so thoroughly subverted by atheists but nobody is suggesting that agnostics and atheists would be "excluded" from the AUC community. : : When there has been discussion of "catechisms" what else am I to assume? : You know perfectly well from the context of our discussion that we were not talking about catechisms in the strictest sense but simply as a question and answer format tract that would be similar to an FAQ. The UUA uses similar question and answer format tracts to explain the UUA. You assume way too much in your attck on the AUC. Do you know what they say about the word assume? : : : : Why can't the AUC take people as they are, where they are and try to provide a nurturing environment? : : : I could have sworn the AUC was doing just that. : : Really? You question my conceptions of "God", and have the audacity to say that? Pathetic .... : My questioning of your conception of God is not pathetic at all. When enclosed within quotation marks the word God can refer pretty much to anything as I have already pointed out. You can make a "God" out of love, you can make a "God" out of money, you can even make a "God" out of sex. It was by no means clear that you were referring to God in any traditional dictionary defined sense of the word. The AUC believes that God may be perceived in a myriad of ways but the AUC does not believe in a myriad of "Gods" or some vague revisionist definition of the word God. When we speak about God we mean God, not love, not money, not sex nor anything other than God. : : : Just who is the AUC "excluding" and making them feel like outsiders? I thought such behavior was more characteristic of the UUA and many UU not so Welcoming Congregations... : : You are exhibiting that behavior just fine. I can see now why you had problems in the UUA. Can you get along anywhere? : I think perhaps that question is best asked of yourself. You constantly complain about the "creed" of the UUA's Seven Principles in the CFUU forum and now you are subjecting the AUC to plenty of "aggressive criticism" that is hardly warranted by anything that AUC members are saying or doing. No one is actively excluding you. By your own testimony you are excluding yourself. : : : : Where is the "Godliness" of such an approach? : : : Where is that approach in the AUC at all? : : Don't understand the question. : I am saying where is the approach of "excluding" people who come in "good faith" in the AUC at all? Quite frankly you are exhibiting plenty of bad faith yet no one has so much as suggested that you leave yet. : : : : Cannot "God" be a stated part of the AUC without being a net which is used to exclude people who are sincere seekers? : : : Where is the AUC "net" "which is used to exclude people who are sincere seekers"? Please produce your evidence Mark. : : A "catechism" is all the evidence necessary. Where have you been in the course of this discussion, on Mars? : No, but it seems that you are on some other planet and own accusations are quite out of this world. If you review how the word "catechism" was used in this discussion, and what I and others have previously said about its use, you will see that our use of the word "catechism" here and there is extremely flimsy evidence for the spurious accusations that you have brought against the AUC. Nobody at any time suggested creating an actual catechism that would constitute a test of faith and most of us made it clear that we were not talking about that kind of catechism or creed. : : : : What is "God" anyway? Do you know? Do I? : : : If you don't know what "God" is how can you possibly claim, not once but three times, to believe in "God"? You remind me a bit of Peter... I think most AUC members have a pretty good idea of what God is and we are not inclined to water down what God is by enclosing God in euphemistic quotation marks... : : Ah, and you dare to say that there is not an exclusive or hypercritical attitude? : You are clearly the one displaying a "hypercritical attitude". If you enclose the word "God" within quotation marks and follow this up by saying - What is "God" anyway? Do you know? Do I? - I think that it is perfectly reasonable for me to question your claimed belief in "God" as you put it. The AUC was not created to water down and revise the meaning of the word God. The UUA is already pretty good at redefining the word God in a wishy-washy revisionist manner when the word God is used at all within the UU religious community. When the AUC uses the word God in its literature the AUC means God in a fairly traditional dictionary defined sense of the word God not some wishy-washy revisionist watering down of the meaning of the word God. : : Get off of the quotation marks kick, and learn the proper use of expression in the English language. : I do use proper expression of the English language. It is you who uses improper expression of the English language when you misuse the word God. It is you who would do well to get off of your own quotation marks "God" kick however I expect that you cannot use the word God without quotation marks enclosing it and still claim to believe in God... I once again ask - If you don't know what "God" is how can you possibly claim, not once but three times, to believe in "God"? : : : : I know what I *think* (as of today at this moment) "God" is to *me*, but someone else might have exactly the same thoughts and conceptions as do I, yet not define those in terms of "God." I am not sure that the concept God is as simple as we are trying to make it. : : : The meaning of the word God that we are talking about is found in most good dictionaries. I have said many times that AUC members are "dictionary definition Unitarians" because we fit the dictionary description of the word Unitarian. I think that it is fair to say that most of AUC members use the dictionary to define what the word God means. : : So you are attempting to prescribe what "God should mean to me or someone else? Isn't that a part of the point I have been trying to make? And you say the AUC does not have an exclusionary attitude? Garbage. : Wrong. The word God has a specific meaning that is well defined by a few millennia old monotheistic religious tradition to say nothing of an even older polytheistic religious tradition. It is not me who is attempting to prescribe what the word God should mean to you or someone else, it is thousands of years of human history that has provided a traditional accepted meaning of the word God. If you or someone else places the word God within quotation marks and redefines it to mean something other than the commonly understood meaning of the word I have every right and even a responsibility to question this revisionist use of the word God. : : : : Yet, cannot "ultimate" values of worth to individuals and society be arrived at by means other than defining them in terms of "God?" : : : Of course some ultimate values of worth to individuals and society be arrived at by means other than defining them in terms of "God" just ask any atheist, agnostic, or Buddhist but that is quite beside the point. The AUC is a God believing Unitarian religious organization. Those people who seek ultimate values of worth to individuals and society arrived at by means other than defining them in terms of "God" are most welcome to join other non-theistic organizations such as the American Humanist Association, or a Buddhist temple, or even the Communist Party. In any case some of the "ultimate values" of AUC members are not defined in terms of God. Plenty of my own "ultimate values" are defined in terms of "humanity" but I happen to believe in God without the quotation marks. In fact I know from direct personal experience that there is a God without quotation marks... : : You say the AUC does not exclude, and now you say people who do not fit your "dictionary" mold should go somewhere else in their search. : You are misrepresenting what actually I said. I have already said many times that agnostics and atheists who are genuinely of "good will" are certainly welcome to participate in AUC activities including this discussion forum, although for obvious reasons I don't think that outright atheists should be full voting members in the AUC. In that sense it would be fair to say that the AUC excludes atheists and rightly so. No theistic religious community is likely to knowinglyt hand over political control of it to outright atheists or even agnostics for that matter. The AUC has every right and even a responsibility to ensure that God believing people maintain political control of the AUC or it may quickly devolve into the theological mess that the UUA is today. Those people who do not believe in God at all or in any traditional sense of the word are welcome as friends and visitors but the AUC is a God believing religious community and I doubt that more than a few AUC members have any interest in watering down the meaning of the word God to the point that it effectively becomes meaningless. : : Who is talking about handing over "control"? I was talking about mere acceptance, which in one paragraph you say the AUC does, and in the next you say it should not. Make up your mind. : My mind is made up and it is clearly expressed in the English language. Once again you are misrepresenting what I have said. The AUC has already demonstrated that it is very accepting of people who do not believe in God at all or who have views of God that do not fit the traditional Unitarian view of God. The AUC even has an avowed Unitarian/Trinitarian as a member. If however the AUC accepted outright atheists as full voting members this could lead to atheists exercising political control over the AUC and lead to its demise as a bona fide monotheistic Unitarian religious community. Obviously the AUC has exclude avowed atheists from being full voting members in the AUC and the AUC needs to ensure that the word God is defined in a fairly traditional sense of the word otherwise it would not really be a bona fide monotheistic Unitarian religious community. : : : : As aforestated, I do (BUT, *my* "God" may not be *your* "God."). : : : It would appear that your "God" is no God at all. The AUC affirms that "God's presence is made known in a myriad of ways." Thus your experience and understanding of God may well differ considerably from all other AUC members' experience and understanding of God but we are talking about God not "God" in quotation marks. : : So you say that *my* "God" is no God at all. : You are twisting my words again. I said, "It would appear that your "God" is no God at all." It does indeed appear that your "God" is no God at all when you enclose the word God in quotation marks and openly claim not to know what God is. If you don't even know what God is what are you referring to when you use the word "God"? It seems to me, and no doubt others reading your posts, that you may referring to something that is not God at all in any traditional and accepted meaning of the word God. : : If that is representative of the AUC attitude (and since you are one of its more prominent spokespeople, I take it that it is), : Just because I speak about the AUC does not mean that I am an official representative of the "AUC attitude" or a "prominent" AUC spokesperson. I speak only for myself as an individual AUC member. I have no official elected leadership position within the AUC at this moment and it is for that reason that I often say that Dean or David or other elected AUC leaders are better placed to answer certain questions. It only demonstrates your ignorance of the AUC for you to make such assumptions. : : then the AUC is not Unitarian, it is an amalgamation doctrinaire idiocy. : What I have said in my posts here is hardly "doctrinaire idiocy". The AUC is clearly Unitarian in the traditional dictionary sense of the word. The AUC is trying to revive a genuine monotheistic Unitarian tradition and that precludes accepting outright atheists as full voting members since the term "atheist Unitarian" is an oxymoron. It is even debatable as to whether people who hold to some vague wishy-washy definition of the word God should be full voting members in the AUC. I really don't think the AUC was formed in an effort to water down the truth and meaning of the word God. Au contraire it was formed to revive a fairly traditional Unitarian belief in God without euphemistic quotation marks. : : : : Can someone please explain to me why the AUC cannot have a stated acceptance of "God" while accepting people of good faith in its ranks who do not have such a belief? : : You have just questioned my conception of "God" saying my God is no God at all; : For good reason as explained aboved. : : that people who do not believe in God can go to humanist organizations; : Only if they seek ultimate values of worth to individuals and society arrived at by means other than defining them in terms of "God". If atheists want to join an organization to promote ultimate values of worth to individuals and society arrived at by means other than defining them in terms of "God" they are far better off joining the AHA than the AUC. That is pure common sense. The AUC is no more interested in being subverted by atheists than the AHA in interested in being subverted by theists. You know perfectly well that I have said that atheists and agnostics of genuine good will are welcome as friends and visitors of the AUC and the AUC has already demonstrated this to be true in he past. : : and then you say the AUC is "accepting" of people who do not believe in God? : The AUC has already shown that it is "accepting" of people who do not believe in God as friends and visitors and participants in its discussion forums etc. : : You can't have it both ways -- make up your mind. Do you have any clue what you are talking about? : Yes I do have a clue what I am talking about in clearly expressed English. It is you who apparently hasn't a clue what I am talking about or is even willfully misrepresenting my words in an effort to discredit me. : : : : My own conception of God is a cross between understanding God through the unity nature as seen via the laws of science, and occasional meditation. : : : That is not quite the God that we are talking about although God is most certainly responsible for, and revealed in, the unity nature and the laws of science... Quite frankly an outright atheist could say what you said with the word "God" in quotation marks... : : Not the "God" *we" are talking about? So the AUC does have a required conception of God? I sort of thought as much -- you are clarifying what I have suspected all along. One either sees "God" the AUC way, or not at all. And this is "tolerant" Unitarianism? Bull, this is narrow minded intolerant trash. : Wrong. If your in quotation marks "God" is nothing more than the "unity nature as seen via the laws of science" your God is Nature period. Nothing more, nothing less. As I pointed out, an outright atheist who does not believe in God at all could say exactly what you said with the word God enclosed in euphemistic quotation marks as you have a tendency to use it. I could be mistaken but I am quite sure that when the AUC talks about God it means a little bit more than just the "unity nature as seen via the laws of science". Most if not all AUC members would certainly agree that God is responsible for and revealed in the unity nature and the laws of science but most if not all AUC members would agree that God is not just the "unity of nature" in and of itself. When the AUC speaks about God it refers to the Supreme Being/Creator of the Universe that created Nature and is ultimately responsible for the laws of science, not just Nature itself. The "creed" of the AUC clearly states - : 1. God's presence is made known in a myriad of ways. Religion should promote a free and responsible search for truth, meaning, communion and love. : 2. Reason is a gift from God. Religion should embrace reason and its progeny, including the scientific enterprise which explores God's creation. : : Please note that Nature is considered to be God's creation not "God" itself. : : : : I am a Rosicrucian "beyond the 9th degree" (as they say), and have found occasionally tapping into the essence of all that is to be a sublime experience. : : : It can also be a rather terrifying experience... : : Yes, Robin, I think you have experienced a lot of terror and it has warped you. : Not really. I am just pointing out that God is as much responsible for that which is terrifying as that which is sublime. Most rational people who devote serious thought to God would agree with that statement. Most Biblical prophets and many other mystics have reported terrifying elements in their revelatory experiences of God as well as the sublime elements. : : : : : No doubt that will draw the fire of some here. : : : Actually there is plenty of doubt that your saying that will draw the fire here. Feel free to share this with your Rosicrucian friends - : : No doubt at all -- you have spent quite a lengthy post directing fire at me. Nope, no doubt at all ----- : Once again you misrepresent my words to say nothing of misrepresenting your own words... I find it ironic that you accuse me of directing fire at you when in fact I have quite calmly and rationally defended the AUC from the "fire" of the heated rhetoric that you have directed at it... : : I am willing to bet that almost no one here has any serious problems with your affiliation with the Rosicrucians. : : It is nice that you do not have a problem with something. : There are all kinds of thing that I don't have a problem with. I only have problems with things that are in fact very real and significant problems. I wish that the same could be said about you. You seem to create massive problems out of fairly minor quibbles. : : : And nobody here is restricting your thought. I am willing to bet that the same cannot be said about you sharing such thoughts in some "humanist" dominated UU congregations where the word God is unwelcome even if it is contained within quotation marks and where Rosicrucians are quite possibly as much of a target for ridicule than Christians... : : You suggest that my conception of "God" is "no God at all" and that it does not comport with the "dictionary" definition of God as held by the AUC, and then you say no one is restricting my thought? : That's right. I am not restricting your thought at all. As I have explained I have very good reason to suggest that your conception of "God" is "no God at all" and that it does not comport with the "dictionary" definition of God as held by the AUC however I am by no means restricting that thought or any other thought that you may have, nor is any other AUC member. : : Make up your mind. This is some of the most judgmental nonsense I have ever heard. : Actually it is your own accusations about the AUC that are more rightly described as "judgmental nonsense". There was nothing particularly judgmental in my questioning of your in quotation marks "God" I was just exercising good old Unitarian Reason in pointing out the fact that your in quotation marks "God" does not in fact fit the commonly accepted definition of God and that outright atheists could pretty much say exactly what you have said about your in quoation marks "God". : : : : I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I just can't hold with the "little old man sitting on a throne in a place called heaven" conception of "God." : : : Bravo. It's been said before, but I'll say it again: nobody here holds with the "little old man sitting on a throne in a place called heaven" conception of "God." In fact few contemporary Christians, Jews or Muslims etc. hold to that outmoded concept of God which even the ancients probably took more metaphorically than literally... : : Nice that we agree on something, but somehow I doubt that will last either. : What? Do you expect me or any other AUC member to start believing in the "little old man sitting on a throne in a place called heaven" conception of "God."? : : : : To be broad in scope, the AUC must be willing to reach out. : : : The AUC does reach out to anyone who agrees with it's stated principles which are broad in scope... : : Just as *you* have reached out to me and my "God" that is "no God at all"? How broad in scope is that? : The principles of the AUC are very broad in scope however when they refer to God they clearly mean God in a fairly traditional dictionary defined sense of the word. When the AUC uses the word God it does not mean some kind of ill defined or revisionist in quotation marks "God" that may indeed be no God at all. The AUC was formed in part in reaction to such revisionistic misuse (to say nothing of outright abuse) of the word God within the Unitarian Universalist community. I can't imagine that the AUC wants to water down or otherwise revise the basic meaning of the word God. We are talking about the real thing. Not love, not money, not sex, not even Nature and the Universe... As the AUC principles make clear we are talking about the Creator of Nature and the Universe. : : : By the way, can anyone tell me how many registered members the AUC has as of today (i.e., 12/21/02)? *just curious* : : : No you're not. You're using snide innuendo to try to belittle and malign the AUC by pointing to the fact that it is still a small fledging religious community. Let's face it the AUC is only about two years old and has limited resources how many members would you expect any fledgling religious group to have in the first few years of its existence? How many registered members did Christianity have when Jesus began his ministry? : : Yes I am. : : Didn't get an answer though did I? As for snide innuendo, your total post has consisted of that. : Not at all. There is virtually no innuendo, snide or otherwise, in my posts. I say what I mean and I mean what I say without resorting to any snide innuendo. : : If I have exhibited snide innuendo, then for you to say so is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. (Is that analogy too complicated or abstract for you?) : Not at all, but it is just plain wrong... You have clearly used snide innuendo whereas I have not done so at all. I have stated my case clearly and openly in plain easily understood English. I challenge you to provide even one quote from me in any of my recent posts that clearly constitutes snide innuendo.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ AMERICANUNITARIAN.ORG aucforum ] [ FAQ ]