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.
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.
Being a theist doesn’t make a person an idiot. Thomas Paine was a theist. I don’t think he was an idiot. He detested the god of Moses. You sound as if you think there is only one possible god. I’ve been talking about the evil of Yahweh specifically.
And being an atheist doesn’t make someone immune from being an idiot. Exhibit A: Sam Harris.
“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.”
Yet you have so much contempt for Scientology. You contradict yourself.
“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.”
But they do push religion. They always have. They revere the Bible. They revere Jesus. They revere Gotama. They don’t revere L Ron Hubbard. They pick and choose who they think are “wise” and what texts they consider “sacred”. They are “intolerant” of people who don’t “respect” what they expect them to, and they will admonish them for it, just like what you are doing to me right now. And they market themselves. They push their religion.
Here is me writing that a professor should be allowed to discuss intelligent design in a science class:
Oh brother, I could care less for scientology if it didn’t behave like a cult and treated people badly it deemed apostate. I don’t respect any religion that has that type of restrictions. That includes Christian sects like Jehovah Witness. UU historically has not done that. So, no, I don’t contradict myself.
Would you consider what the UU did to the author of the OP “treating people badly it deemed apostate”?
I for one don’t respect any religion’s reverence of the Bible. It repeatedly encourages murder of apostates(Scientology doesn’t have it as a commandment in its literature to murder apostates as far as I’m aware). And it threatens people with torture for not worshipping the god it promotes. Any religion that reveres such literature deserves disrespect for that. Just like any religion that revered Nazi literature would deserve disrespect for that. It’s good that UU has historically been better toward apostates than some other religions, but it’s still bad it reveres a book that encourages detestable behavior. The adoption of woke ideology is not surprising to me, nor is the treatment of the OP. It aligns with its historical trajectory.
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.
No you don’t get my gist.
Being a theist doesn’t make a person an idiot. Thomas Paine was a theist. I don’t think he was an idiot. He detested the god of Moses. You sound as if you think there is only one possible god. I’ve been talking about the evil of Yahweh specifically.
And being an atheist doesn’t make someone immune from being an idiot. Exhibit A: Sam Harris.
“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.”
Yet you have so much contempt for Scientology. You contradict yourself.
“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.”
But they do push religion. They always have. They revere the Bible. They revere Jesus. They revere Gotama. They don’t revere L Ron Hubbard. They pick and choose who they think are “wise” and what texts they consider “sacred”. They are “intolerant” of people who don’t “respect” what they expect them to, and they will admonish them for it, just like what you are doing to me right now. And they market themselves. They push their religion.
Here is me writing that a professor should be allowed to discuss intelligent design in a science class:
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/intelligent-design-and-extradimensional
Oh brother, I could care less for scientology if it didn’t behave like a cult and treated people badly it deemed apostate. I don’t respect any religion that has that type of restrictions. That includes Christian sects like Jehovah Witness. UU historically has not done that. So, no, I don’t contradict myself.
Would you consider what the UU did to the author of the OP “treating people badly it deemed apostate”?
I for one don’t respect any religion’s reverence of the Bible. It repeatedly encourages murder of apostates(Scientology doesn’t have it as a commandment in its literature to murder apostates as far as I’m aware). And it threatens people with torture for not worshipping the god it promotes. Any religion that reveres such literature deserves disrespect for that. Just like any religion that revered Nazi literature would deserve disrespect for that. It’s good that UU has historically been better toward apostates than some other religions, but it’s still bad it reveres a book that encourages detestable behavior. The adoption of woke ideology is not surprising to me, nor is the treatment of the OP. It aligns with its historical trajectory.