Posted by Mark Douglas on December 22, 19102 at 15:08:38:
In Reply to: Let's Cut Out this Childish Bickering posted by David Dulin on December 22, 19102 at 03:47:31:
From Mr. Edgar's remarks concerning my conceptions of "God" and your passionate defense of him, I can only assume that pereceiving "God" in a "myriad of ways" means some specific dictionary definition of God as prescribed by Mr. Edgar. He has made it clear that my conception of "God" is not what the AUA would consider as "God". That is not acceptable to me. So, I am out of here.
I strongly encourage Dean and the AUC Board of Directors to re-formulate their first principle to reflect that the "myriad of ways" in which "God" is manifested is in fact confined to a "dictionary" definition of "God" in so far as the AUC is concerned. Had I known this at the outset, I would not have wasted two years here, and certainly would not have been a member.
It is strange to me that I state a belief in "God", and that I am roasted because that conception, which I chose to share, does not comply with the official dictionary definition of "God" as required by the AUC. If this sort of response is what sharing such personal ideas with you people results in, then it appears that you are as dogmatic as fundamentalist Christians and Mozlems.
I will not be back here to bother you people again. I *WILL* make known however to others on-line (and elsewhere) in the very strongest terms my individual experiences with the AUC, and its narrow and judgmental views in regard others' conceptions of what is (or is not) "God." Again, I emphasize, Dean and company need to make CLEAR to newcomers that "myriad" of ways in which "God" is manifested is confined to that "myriad" as contained, according to Mr. Edgar, in the dictionary, and that other conceptions are not acceptable, or even viewed as depictions of "God."
Gail, I would like to thank you for your post about how the AUC accepts broad conceptions of God, and your example of polytheism. Unfortunately, your co-members disagree in terms of what *I* may have as a belief system, and this has been made crystal clear. Thus, it is blatantly apparent that unless *my* "God" is also the same as the "dictionary definition" of "God", that *I* am not welcome here, and that such conceptions of "God" as may be different are not conceptions of "God" at all. It has also been made clear that freethought is viewed as an elistist sort of thing, and that is not acceptable to me either.
As for Nikki and others who have been fun and informative to exchange ideas with, I wish you the best.
Mark D.
: Ok, let's stop this childish bickering at each other. No one is living up to the Unitarian name if they do nothing but attack each other's opinions. True, I may disagree with many things you've, and others, said, but I respect your right to say them. I am displeased with your last comment directed towards Robin - "Is that anonlogy too complicated or abstract for you?" This is just plain rude, and I won't tolerate it. There's one thing I hate, and that's snotty remarks. With all the audacity I can muster, comments like that do not belong in ANY religious discussion, and niether does anyone who resorts to them. We need to learn how to be calm and civil with each other. I will respect those who respect me. Period. It's time to grow up.
: David Dulin