Terrible. Although I'm not a Christian, I have a working relationship with a liberal Christian denomination that has been similarly overtaken by woke ideology. So far there hasn't been an outright coup, but I notice a high degree of knee-jerk fealty to the jargon and customs of progressivism, including a female pastor who wears a pronoun…
Terrible. Although I'm not a Christian, I have a working relationship with a liberal Christian denomination that has been similarly overtaken by woke ideology. So far there hasn't been an outright coup, but I notice a high degree of knee-jerk fealty to the jargon and customs of progressivism, including a female pastor who wears a pronouns badge. And I was corrected for using the term "homeless" in lieu of the made-up term "unhoused." Newspeak is a sure sign that virtue signalling has taken the place of objective thought.
The irony is that the congregation includes some of the kindest people you'll ever meet, always ready to help and give of themselves. One would think that having the moral framework of an established religion would be sufficient for people to feel properly grounded in what is right, good and true, without adopting the blatantly illiberal customs of a woke religion on top of it. But that's not how it works anymore.
I applaud Dr. Rohde for her refusal to sacrifice the foundational principles of both her church and this country: free speech, plurality of views, and respect for the individual. May she kick their butts in court.
The established religion you are referring to, Christianity, traditionally views “free speech, plurality of views, and respect for the individual”, as sins. Rationality is anathema to Christianity. It isn’t surprising that the UU is being hypocritical and violating principles that violate the principles of Christianity. Hypocrisy, self-deception, and irrationality are principles of Christianity.
“ Though Unitarianism and Universalism were both liberal Christian traditions, this responsible search has led us to embrace diverse teachings from Eastern and Western religions and philosophies.
”
UU exists because of a merger for two Christian sects. The current state of whether UU is labeled a Christian denomination is irrelevant to my argument. It still honors the Bible as a primary source of wisdom. The current state it exists in, some weird post modern soup of incoherent religious and political ideological fusion, is a testament to its lack of interest in rationality.
When I first joined Unitarian Universalism, over 2/3 of the denomination were religious humanisnts. Only about 10% to 20% were Unitarian Christians. So that minority considers the Bible as the primary source of wisdom. But that is just not so for a humanist.
What I was reacting to in this article was the author's view that in the past, the values of the UU had aligned strongly with her progressive views, which made the two paradigms a good fit for her. But now, the UU has been corrupted by woke ideology in much the same way that many of our mainstream institutions have been corrupted, so its approach to speech and individuality no longer reflect its earlier liberal culture and values.
As an atheist, I personally have no use for religion. But my observation is that the invention of a supernatural parent is ubiquitous in human societies throughout time and place, and also that religions can either help or hinder human progress. All religions are irrational by definition. They posit the existence of non-material entities and forces that run our lives. Christianity is not unique in this regard.
(The author who has influenced my thinking the most on this matter is a computational biologist named John C. Wathey, PhD, author of "The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing." It's a big, dense book but easy to read and incredibly eye-opening.)
Speaking for myself, absent atrocities and authoritarianism, I choose to respect people's religions, not because I believe in them, but because they do.
Id wager you don’t actually *respect*, that is *honor*, peoples’ religions that you think are “irrational.” “Tolerate” may be a better word? Or do you really *honor* a Scientologist’s religion?
All major religions are “authoritarian”.
Irreligion does not logically follow from atheism. There are religions that are atheistic. Nor is a supernatural parent universal to all human religion through history and cultures; and a single super natural “parent” is even less common than supernatural beings(that aren’t parents to humanity) in general. “God” -- the singular, often vague, inconsistently defined, abstraction that is now found in many societies — as an idea or word didn’t form in a human mind for millions of years after humans evolved. When surveying the history and anthropology of supernatural creatures imagined by humans, which includes gods, it’s important, to be accurate, not to overgeneralize or project modern concepts onto ancient beliefs.
Materialists also typically posit, ironically perhaps, the existence of non-material entities : minds. Even aside from that Materialism is religious.
I personally think everyone has religion, at least every functional person, although not everyone is aware of it.
UU used to respect all pursuit of faiths and doctrines so long as you applied it to yourself and didn't impose or abuse others. So there was a very secular aspect that was based on rejection of creeds and dogmas, and a focus on individual conscience and rational inquiry. There was also a strong belief of separation of church and state. And embracing science ands the scientific method. All of that is being abandoned.
UU has always had a strong moral and political perspective. Today, the stuff that it is “inclusive” about is no longer appreciated by some people, like yourself. The rhetoric it uses to describe itself hasn’t actually changed much. A lot of woke rhetoric actually fits nicely with the traditional rhetoric of UU. It’s all bullshit, but it matches.
It’s not surprising that UU was the first “Christian” church to be captured by woke ideology. It has traditionally been the Christian church that was most open to projecting whatever political and social values the members had into the Bible and then to any and all religious texts. UU simply began to use the reputation and authority of traditional religion to backup whatever political positions they had regardless of logic. They do that with the authority of “science” as well. Men are women become women because Jesus, Gotama, Krishna, Muhammad, and Darwin said so.
If the UU respected the scientific method they would have stopped suggesting their political, moral, and religious views are in any meaningful way supported by the Bible long ago.
One, not Christian, but originated with Christian churches. Two, being open and inclusive is not the same as forced diversity and to ignoring what peer review based science is saying. I don’t mind open debate. Now UU stifles debate.
UU “officially” still reveres the Bible and honors Jesus. Jesus threatened people with supernatural torture if they didn’t obey the god he believed in and worshiped, Yahweh, who in the Bible commands his followers repeatedly to commit genocide on people if they didn’t become his slaves. It’s valid to label any church “Christian” that is derived from explicitely Christian churches and reveres any of the main characters of Christian mythology. The label is irrelevant though and not meaningful to my argument.
I don’t know how open to debate UU was to its most cherished ideas (e.g climate change) before the woke capture and how much the woke capture just represents some new undebateable cherished ideas. I was never a member. And never personally tested the waters so to speak. I did attend one Sunday gathering though, and “rationality” was not a vibe I got. I do agree though that they seem to stifle debate now, based on what they are doing to people who aren’t on board with its current political platform.
And personally I think “peer reviewed based science” deserves skepticism like anything else. “The science”(tm) is something that is sometimes wrong and is quite often more complicated than how it is presented. And of course, people should be able to honestly debate it without any meaningful threat of having their lives destroyed.
The fact that you claim that UU believes in punishment for disbelief in Christ shows you know very little about UU. Don’t know where you ‘visited’ but UU fluctuates by region so the level of Christianity varies by local population. I did test the waters when I lived in Atlanta, and went to forums in the Church there. But there was a spike in obsession after the BLM explosion.
“that UU believes in punishment for disbelief in Christ”. I simply said UU reveres the Bible and Jesus.
If an organization reveres Hitler and reveres Nazi literature it’s reasonable to call the organization a Nazi organization. It doesn’t matter if that organization has managed to [ir]rationalize Hitler into a social justice warrior. While I’d concede that is relatively better than revering him for what he actually was, it’s still bad that he’s revered at all(aside from the problems with social justice fundamentalism). And it would be an absurdity for that organization to suggest it values reason and science. For it to demonstrate it honors reason, it would need to have a realistic view of him based on the literature and data we have of him. The same applies to UU with regard to Jesus. Its view of Jesus is deeply irrational. It’s understandable if someone hasn’t studied the Bible or history much, but it presents itself as being knowledgeable about the religions it reveres. It doesn’t appear to be simply a lack of knowledge, but rather irrational faith based on a desire to use popular religious figures to validate their arbitrary personal spiritual and political beliefs. That is an immature and intellectually dishonest approach to religion. For UU to truly embrace “reason”, it would no longer revere Jesus. That would be quite the startling revolution and progress.
I got your gist without all the pretty words. Basically what you are saying is that because you are an atheist, they are idiots for believing different faiths and must think like you do. Me, I could care less what people’s faiths are so long as it gives them a sense of peace and it doesn’t bother anyone else. And if the UU allows for people to explore other faiths and be more tolerant while not pushing any religion, including wokism, I could care less whether an atheist feels superior intellectually and logically. I remain agnostic and respect any that respect that of me.
Wager whatever you like. You don’t know me and are in no position to tell me what I actually believe. We’ve both thought a lot about the purpose of religion and have come to different conclusions. That's all.
I'm not sure how you overlooked the essential qualifier in my comment: "Speaking for myself, ABSENT ATROCITIES AND AUTHORITARIANISM, I choose to respect people's religions." Atrocities and authoritarianism define Scientology, which is in its own unique category of corruption and cruelty. The behavior of pathological miscreant and leader David Miscavige alone could serve as Exhibit A. But you probably know all that already. Now I'm really and truly done here. Have at it.
So you think atrocities and authoritarianism define Scientology but not Christianity, a religion that is primarily based on the Bible, which has as its main character a deity that commands his followers to commit genocide and threatens people with supernatural torture if they don’t become his slaves? And whose worshippers, over the past thousands years have, other than the massacres in the book they revere, repeatedly carried out atrocities that are not in the same “category” as what Scientologists have done. From what I know L Ron Hubbard never commanded his followers to invade Nevada and commit genocide on all its inhabitants, enslave the female virgins, and kill the donkeys.
Your contempt for Scientology is incongruent with the “respect” you apparently have for other religions like Christianity. I’m not suggesting you ditch your contempt for Scientology, but that you evaluate your “respect” for Christianity. If you have a problem with David Miscavige, it’s inconsistent to be okay with Moses or Jesus. You do realize Moses commands genocide in the Book of Numbers right? You do realize Jesus, in the gospels, commanded his followers to sell all their stuff and support his mission to tell Jews he was the messiah and that anyone who didn’t follow him would be tortured? The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t a coincidence.
A religion is anything that provides four functions:
1. Meaning, especially meaning for pain.
2. Purpose.
3. A sense of community.
4. Ritual.
Human beings need religion. We can turn nearly anything into a religion. Football is a popular religion, for example. We tend to turn things into religion until our need for religion is sated. Human beings experience significant adverse mental and physical health effects within a few months if they don't have ANY religion.
Jeffrey, you've expressed your loathing and disgust for anything even tangentially related to Christianity repeatedly in this thread. I personally think it's inappropriate to use such judgemental language towards a third of the global population, but we may disagree on this point.
My question is this: what is your religion or religions?
1. What meaning to you ascribe to painful or unpleasant experiences, and why?
2 What do you think defines your purpose?
3. What is your community?
4. What are your rituals and traditions?
It appears that you think your religion is vastly superior to Christianity. Enlighten us all, please.
I am expressing my disparagement toward the ideology of the Bible. Fortunately a lot of Christians are much better than the book they claim to follow. There are generally respectable Christians, but the book they revere is not.
The quantity of people who claim to revere a book and revere a man does not have any impact on how we should judge what they claim to revere. If 1/3 of the population were Nazis, would you say that people shouldn’t harshly judge the ideology of Hitler? You *judging* me for judging an ideology that promotes obedient worship of a genocidal slaver is wrong. Yes, we certainly disagree about my “judgemental language”.
The psychological well being that a religion promotes does not justify it is worth respecting. Again, Nazism could very well provide community and other elements of “religion” but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be condemned. It is appropriate to use judgmental language. Not to use it is vice — well once you learn about it. Paul went around preaching supernatural torture for everyone who didn’t join his community. For some reason you would have no problem with that judgemental language which targeted 99.9% of the population at the time, but you would chastise me for saying that was wrong because lots of people now revere Paul. That is a bad judgement. Thats one contribution to how cruel tyrannical ideologies stay popular. Jesus stated that only a “few” wouldn’t end up being supernaturally tortured for not following him, which sounds like he is being way more judgmental toward much more of the population than myself. Have a problem with Jesus?
My religion is irrelevant to the immorality of Christianity or the validity of my moral judgements toward it. An alligator could be writing what I’m writing and it would still be valid.
But, actually I do think I am religious. I think everyone is religious, although I don’t share your definition of religion, which I think is unclear. Thus the health effects claim is garbage. You write it like you’re referring to scientific research or something. I’d be fascinated to see what you are basing it on. One meaningful and purposeful tradition of mine is pointing out horseshit.
I agree though more generally that we have social needs, and without them satisfied it will eventually make most humans miserable but I don’t see the relevance to my judgements about Christianity.
Another tradition I have is denouncing people who claim to speak for gods who demand absolute obedience from humans and threaten them with torture if they don’t comply. You should consider picking it up. It’s honorable. As opposed to shamefully being their apologists.
Honestly, your claim seems to be that theism in general and Christianity in particular is a sin and the source of all evil and suffering in the world. And that people should recite daily mantras to free themselves of this sin and obtain enlightenment.
That's a religious claim. The extreme language, aggressive tone, and general scorn for any other opinions is a poor approach to apologetics for your religion if you actually wish to make converts. I suggest trying some different tactics.
Of course, making converts may not be your goal. Bible thumping street preachers often enjoy the combination of feeling superior and feeling persecuted. They simply don't care that their approach doesn't work. That may be the case for you as well.
But if you're actually TRYING to represent your faith well and bring people around to your religion, reconsider your tactics. These ones don't work.
1. The idea that there's a universal morality comes from the Abrahamic worldview. A dualistic, pluralistic, or relativistic worldview rejects the concept of an objective morality. So your worldview and religion is HIGHLY relevant to claims about morality or immorality. It would be so for an alligator too!
2. There is a fascinating amount of science regarding religion, actually. "Ritual: How Seemingly Senseless Acts makes life worth living" by Dimitris Xygalatas is an excellent place to start. No religious claims, just scientific analysis of the physiological effects of ritual, as measured in real time by wearable monitoring gear.
3. The definition of religion comes from
"Strange Rites: New Religions for a Godless World" by Tara Isabella Burton. Another useful book is "Cultish, the language of fanaticism", by Amanda Montell.
Just FYI, "the invention of a supernatural parent is ubiquitous in human societies throughout time and place," is irrelevant both to UU and to the issue being discussed here. UU has no creed, period, and no other things-which-must-be-accepted: so, no issues requiring acceptance of a supernatural parent, and very few UUs have any such concept anyway.
If you are going to comment on the issue of this page, "the invention of a supernatural parent" just isn't relevant. It would be respectful of you to understand the nature of traditional UU before commenting.
Terrible. Although I'm not a Christian, I have a working relationship with a liberal Christian denomination that has been similarly overtaken by woke ideology. So far there hasn't been an outright coup, but I notice a high degree of knee-jerk fealty to the jargon and customs of progressivism, including a female pastor who wears a pronouns badge. And I was corrected for using the term "homeless" in lieu of the made-up term "unhoused." Newspeak is a sure sign that virtue signalling has taken the place of objective thought.
The irony is that the congregation includes some of the kindest people you'll ever meet, always ready to help and give of themselves. One would think that having the moral framework of an established religion would be sufficient for people to feel properly grounded in what is right, good and true, without adopting the blatantly illiberal customs of a woke religion on top of it. But that's not how it works anymore.
I applaud Dr. Rohde for her refusal to sacrifice the foundational principles of both her church and this country: free speech, plurality of views, and respect for the individual. May she kick their butts in court.
The established religion you are referring to, Christianity, traditionally views “free speech, plurality of views, and respect for the individual”, as sins. Rationality is anathema to Christianity. It isn’t surprising that the UU is being hypocritical and violating principles that violate the principles of Christianity. Hypocrisy, self-deception, and irrationality are principles of Christianity.
Again, Jeffrey, UUism is not a Christian denomination. Try to keep up.
It isn't any denomination. It is more a political group than anything else. A little spirituality (if you can call it that) and lots of politics.
From the UU website :
“ Though Unitarianism and Universalism were both liberal Christian traditions, this responsible search has led us to embrace diverse teachings from Eastern and Western religions and philosophies.
”
UU exists because of a merger for two Christian sects. The current state of whether UU is labeled a Christian denomination is irrelevant to my argument. It still honors the Bible as a primary source of wisdom. The current state it exists in, some weird post modern soup of incoherent religious and political ideological fusion, is a testament to its lack of interest in rationality.
“is a testament to its lack of interest in rationality.”
Or absolutes and facts.
And a lack of interest in Christ. It’s not a Christian church.
When I first joined Unitarian Universalism, over 2/3 of the denomination were religious humanisnts. Only about 10% to 20% were Unitarian Christians. So that minority considers the Bible as the primary source of wisdom. But that is just not so for a humanist.
I said “a” primary source of wisdom, not “the”. Do you personally think the Bible is a source of wisdom? How about Mein Kampf?
Tell me: what do you feel was Achille’s biggest sin and what do you feel was Jesus’ biggest sin?
What I was reacting to in this article was the author's view that in the past, the values of the UU had aligned strongly with her progressive views, which made the two paradigms a good fit for her. But now, the UU has been corrupted by woke ideology in much the same way that many of our mainstream institutions have been corrupted, so its approach to speech and individuality no longer reflect its earlier liberal culture and values.
As an atheist, I personally have no use for religion. But my observation is that the invention of a supernatural parent is ubiquitous in human societies throughout time and place, and also that religions can either help or hinder human progress. All religions are irrational by definition. They posit the existence of non-material entities and forces that run our lives. Christianity is not unique in this regard.
(The author who has influenced my thinking the most on this matter is a computational biologist named John C. Wathey, PhD, author of "The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing." It's a big, dense book but easy to read and incredibly eye-opening.)
Speaking for myself, absent atrocities and authoritarianism, I choose to respect people's religions, not because I believe in them, but because they do.
Id wager you don’t actually *respect*, that is *honor*, peoples’ religions that you think are “irrational.” “Tolerate” may be a better word? Or do you really *honor* a Scientologist’s religion?
All major religions are “authoritarian”.
Irreligion does not logically follow from atheism. There are religions that are atheistic. Nor is a supernatural parent universal to all human religion through history and cultures; and a single super natural “parent” is even less common than supernatural beings(that aren’t parents to humanity) in general. “God” -- the singular, often vague, inconsistently defined, abstraction that is now found in many societies — as an idea or word didn’t form in a human mind for millions of years after humans evolved. When surveying the history and anthropology of supernatural creatures imagined by humans, which includes gods, it’s important, to be accurate, not to overgeneralize or project modern concepts onto ancient beliefs.
Materialists also typically posit, ironically perhaps, the existence of non-material entities : minds. Even aside from that Materialism is religious.
I personally think everyone has religion, at least every functional person, although not everyone is aware of it.
UU used to respect all pursuit of faiths and doctrines so long as you applied it to yourself and didn't impose or abuse others. So there was a very secular aspect that was based on rejection of creeds and dogmas, and a focus on individual conscience and rational inquiry. There was also a strong belief of separation of church and state. And embracing science ands the scientific method. All of that is being abandoned.
UU has always had a strong moral and political perspective. Today, the stuff that it is “inclusive” about is no longer appreciated by some people, like yourself. The rhetoric it uses to describe itself hasn’t actually changed much. A lot of woke rhetoric actually fits nicely with the traditional rhetoric of UU. It’s all bullshit, but it matches.
It’s not surprising that UU was the first “Christian” church to be captured by woke ideology. It has traditionally been the Christian church that was most open to projecting whatever political and social values the members had into the Bible and then to any and all religious texts. UU simply began to use the reputation and authority of traditional religion to backup whatever political positions they had regardless of logic. They do that with the authority of “science” as well. Men are women become women because Jesus, Gotama, Krishna, Muhammad, and Darwin said so.
If the UU respected the scientific method they would have stopped suggesting their political, moral, and religious views are in any meaningful way supported by the Bible long ago.
One, not Christian, but originated with Christian churches. Two, being open and inclusive is not the same as forced diversity and to ignoring what peer review based science is saying. I don’t mind open debate. Now UU stifles debate.
UU “officially” still reveres the Bible and honors Jesus. Jesus threatened people with supernatural torture if they didn’t obey the god he believed in and worshiped, Yahweh, who in the Bible commands his followers repeatedly to commit genocide on people if they didn’t become his slaves. It’s valid to label any church “Christian” that is derived from explicitely Christian churches and reveres any of the main characters of Christian mythology. The label is irrelevant though and not meaningful to my argument.
I don’t know how open to debate UU was to its most cherished ideas (e.g climate change) before the woke capture and how much the woke capture just represents some new undebateable cherished ideas. I was never a member. And never personally tested the waters so to speak. I did attend one Sunday gathering though, and “rationality” was not a vibe I got. I do agree though that they seem to stifle debate now, based on what they are doing to people who aren’t on board with its current political platform.
And personally I think “peer reviewed based science” deserves skepticism like anything else. “The science”(tm) is something that is sometimes wrong and is quite often more complicated than how it is presented. And of course, people should be able to honestly debate it without any meaningful threat of having their lives destroyed.
Perhaps it’s time for a schism.
The fact that you claim that UU believes in punishment for disbelief in Christ shows you know very little about UU. Don’t know where you ‘visited’ but UU fluctuates by region so the level of Christianity varies by local population. I did test the waters when I lived in Atlanta, and went to forums in the Church there. But there was a spike in obsession after the BLM explosion.
No where did I say
“that UU believes in punishment for disbelief in Christ”. I simply said UU reveres the Bible and Jesus.
If an organization reveres Hitler and reveres Nazi literature it’s reasonable to call the organization a Nazi organization. It doesn’t matter if that organization has managed to [ir]rationalize Hitler into a social justice warrior. While I’d concede that is relatively better than revering him for what he actually was, it’s still bad that he’s revered at all(aside from the problems with social justice fundamentalism). And it would be an absurdity for that organization to suggest it values reason and science. For it to demonstrate it honors reason, it would need to have a realistic view of him based on the literature and data we have of him. The same applies to UU with regard to Jesus. Its view of Jesus is deeply irrational. It’s understandable if someone hasn’t studied the Bible or history much, but it presents itself as being knowledgeable about the religions it reveres. It doesn’t appear to be simply a lack of knowledge, but rather irrational faith based on a desire to use popular religious figures to validate their arbitrary personal spiritual and political beliefs. That is an immature and intellectually dishonest approach to religion. For UU to truly embrace “reason”, it would no longer revere Jesus. That would be quite the startling revolution and progress.
I got your gist without all the pretty words. Basically what you are saying is that because you are an atheist, they are idiots for believing different faiths and must think like you do. Me, I could care less what people’s faiths are so long as it gives them a sense of peace and it doesn’t bother anyone else. And if the UU allows for people to explore other faiths and be more tolerant while not pushing any religion, including wokism, I could care less whether an atheist feels superior intellectually and logically. I remain agnostic and respect any that respect that of me.
Your last sentence is irrelevant both to UU and to what this page is about.
Wager whatever you like. You don’t know me and are in no position to tell me what I actually believe. We’ve both thought a lot about the purpose of religion and have come to different conclusions. That's all.
You are welcome to prove my wager wrong by telling us you honor Scientology.
I'm not sure how you overlooked the essential qualifier in my comment: "Speaking for myself, ABSENT ATROCITIES AND AUTHORITARIANISM, I choose to respect people's religions." Atrocities and authoritarianism define Scientology, which is in its own unique category of corruption and cruelty. The behavior of pathological miscreant and leader David Miscavige alone could serve as Exhibit A. But you probably know all that already. Now I'm really and truly done here. Have at it.
So you think atrocities and authoritarianism define Scientology but not Christianity, a religion that is primarily based on the Bible, which has as its main character a deity that commands his followers to commit genocide and threatens people with supernatural torture if they don’t become his slaves? And whose worshippers, over the past thousands years have, other than the massacres in the book they revere, repeatedly carried out atrocities that are not in the same “category” as what Scientologists have done. From what I know L Ron Hubbard never commanded his followers to invade Nevada and commit genocide on all its inhabitants, enslave the female virgins, and kill the donkeys.
Your contempt for Scientology is incongruent with the “respect” you apparently have for other religions like Christianity. I’m not suggesting you ditch your contempt for Scientology, but that you evaluate your “respect” for Christianity. If you have a problem with David Miscavige, it’s inconsistent to be okay with Moses or Jesus. You do realize Moses commands genocide in the Book of Numbers right? You do realize Jesus, in the gospels, commanded his followers to sell all their stuff and support his mission to tell Jews he was the messiah and that anyone who didn’t follow him would be tortured? The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t a coincidence.
It seems like you may be a Protestant atheist.
A religion is anything that provides four functions:
1. Meaning, especially meaning for pain.
2. Purpose.
3. A sense of community.
4. Ritual.
Human beings need religion. We can turn nearly anything into a religion. Football is a popular religion, for example. We tend to turn things into religion until our need for religion is sated. Human beings experience significant adverse mental and physical health effects within a few months if they don't have ANY religion.
Jeffrey, you've expressed your loathing and disgust for anything even tangentially related to Christianity repeatedly in this thread. I personally think it's inappropriate to use such judgemental language towards a third of the global population, but we may disagree on this point.
My question is this: what is your religion or religions?
1. What meaning to you ascribe to painful or unpleasant experiences, and why?
2 What do you think defines your purpose?
3. What is your community?
4. What are your rituals and traditions?
It appears that you think your religion is vastly superior to Christianity. Enlighten us all, please.
I am expressing my disparagement toward the ideology of the Bible. Fortunately a lot of Christians are much better than the book they claim to follow. There are generally respectable Christians, but the book they revere is not.
The quantity of people who claim to revere a book and revere a man does not have any impact on how we should judge what they claim to revere. If 1/3 of the population were Nazis, would you say that people shouldn’t harshly judge the ideology of Hitler? You *judging* me for judging an ideology that promotes obedient worship of a genocidal slaver is wrong. Yes, we certainly disagree about my “judgemental language”.
The psychological well being that a religion promotes does not justify it is worth respecting. Again, Nazism could very well provide community and other elements of “religion” but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be condemned. It is appropriate to use judgmental language. Not to use it is vice — well once you learn about it. Paul went around preaching supernatural torture for everyone who didn’t join his community. For some reason you would have no problem with that judgemental language which targeted 99.9% of the population at the time, but you would chastise me for saying that was wrong because lots of people now revere Paul. That is a bad judgement. Thats one contribution to how cruel tyrannical ideologies stay popular. Jesus stated that only a “few” wouldn’t end up being supernaturally tortured for not following him, which sounds like he is being way more judgmental toward much more of the population than myself. Have a problem with Jesus?
My religion is irrelevant to the immorality of Christianity or the validity of my moral judgements toward it. An alligator could be writing what I’m writing and it would still be valid.
But, actually I do think I am religious. I think everyone is religious, although I don’t share your definition of religion, which I think is unclear. Thus the health effects claim is garbage. You write it like you’re referring to scientific research or something. I’d be fascinated to see what you are basing it on. One meaningful and purposeful tradition of mine is pointing out horseshit.
I agree though more generally that we have social needs, and without them satisfied it will eventually make most humans miserable but I don’t see the relevance to my judgements about Christianity.
Another tradition I have is denouncing people who claim to speak for gods who demand absolute obedience from humans and threaten them with torture if they don’t comply. You should consider picking it up. It’s honorable. As opposed to shamefully being their apologists.
Honestly, your claim seems to be that theism in general and Christianity in particular is a sin and the source of all evil and suffering in the world. And that people should recite daily mantras to free themselves of this sin and obtain enlightenment.
That's a religious claim. The extreme language, aggressive tone, and general scorn for any other opinions is a poor approach to apologetics for your religion if you actually wish to make converts. I suggest trying some different tactics.
Of course, making converts may not be your goal. Bible thumping street preachers often enjoy the combination of feeling superior and feeling persecuted. They simply don't care that their approach doesn't work. That may be the case for you as well.
But if you're actually TRYING to represent your faith well and bring people around to your religion, reconsider your tactics. These ones don't work.
1. The idea that there's a universal morality comes from the Abrahamic worldview. A dualistic, pluralistic, or relativistic worldview rejects the concept of an objective morality. So your worldview and religion is HIGHLY relevant to claims about morality or immorality. It would be so for an alligator too!
2. There is a fascinating amount of science regarding religion, actually. "Ritual: How Seemingly Senseless Acts makes life worth living" by Dimitris Xygalatas is an excellent place to start. No religious claims, just scientific analysis of the physiological effects of ritual, as measured in real time by wearable monitoring gear.
3. The definition of religion comes from
"Strange Rites: New Religions for a Godless World" by Tara Isabella Burton. Another useful book is "Cultish, the language of fanaticism", by Amanda Montell.
To be continued...
Just FYI, "the invention of a supernatural parent is ubiquitous in human societies throughout time and place," is irrelevant both to UU and to the issue being discussed here. UU has no creed, period, and no other things-which-must-be-accepted: so, no issues requiring acceptance of a supernatural parent, and very few UUs have any such concept anyway.
If you are going to comment on the issue of this page, "the invention of a supernatural parent" just isn't relevant. It would be respectful of you to understand the nature of traditional UU before commenting.
And some people are just virtue signalers.