UU Madness? Cartwheels and barbies and beachballs, oh my!

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Tiny Thinker	UU Madness? Cartwheels and barbies and beachballs, oh my!		Lead	[-]
Posts: 1133 06/05/09 13:01:46	Tags : uua, uuism, critique, complaint From a comment posted to the Peacebang blog (by the eponymous author) and elevated to the topic of a whole new post... In recent years, the Sunday Services at my UU church had degenerated into a carnival-like atmosphere with antics such as guess the minister's weight, someone turning cartwheels on the stage, and songs from the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Every week there skits with people dressed in silly hats or animal costumes. One Sunday morning they had a belly dancer on stage. During one service members were invited to come up on stage and show off their tattoos. On a couple of Sundays, the minister tossed a beach ball into the audience and invited parishoners to bat it around during the service. Good grief! And here I was lamenting my experiences in UU churches with Theophobia; Christophobia; the acceptance of only generic or less mainstream religious images and references; the spiritual wishy-washiness; the lack of a strong central organizing principle and activity for sacred reverence, humility/surrender, and transformation; the associated too casual/too cool for taking religion seriously attitude; the self-infatuation with UUism and its heritage/social justice ministry; etc. God is present in every house of worship, despite the efforts of some of their members.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
chaelosm voice		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 279 06/06/09 14:54:18	I think in some UU congregations, the services are more about socializing and gathering with other people of like-mind rather than about religion or spirituality. I know that there are some UU churches that are still very traditional and that are actually very Christian-like in their services and messages, and i think it depends in part on the location of the church as to what type of services you might find there (liberal college town vs rural country location, etc). The UU church where we have our membership (although we don't attend) holds two services each Sunday - one is a traditional "churchy" service for those who like the reverent aspects of a quiet, solemn service; the other is a more open, free, expressive service for those who aren't into the churchiness and are looking more for the socializing and an alternative to the traditional. For churches who have only one Sunday service, i would guess it would be hard to strike a balance if their congregations are as diverse as ours is. I saw statistics once and don't recall them exactly, but i do remember that over half of UU members are what they call "refugees" from other religions. This wasn't the case back in the days of the Unitarians and the Universalists of 100 years ago. I think the modern UUs are trying to figure out how to take in these people who have left Catholicism, Protestantism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, whatever ... and have them feel comfortable alongside those who still practice Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Atheism, whatever ... knowing that even though religiously everyone is clearly not on the same page, we all look at those Principles and Purposes and say "yeah, i'm down with that". So, then what? How do you model a service around that? Maybe cartwheels and Rocky Horror are just easier.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Tiny Thinker		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1133 06/06/09 22:48:50	Yeah, I am not anti-UU, I just have found the places I've gone to be frustrating. I know there are plenty of places that aren't like what I've described from my personal experience. In fact I regularly follow the blog of a UU minister who has a lot of the same concerns I do. I don't mind the talking and debating, but that's not what I see such services as being about. I don't have a pat answer, but for one thing, I wish fewer UU ministers would stop being practically apologetic about representing a Higher Power/Source of Being or challenging/offering its members opportunities for growth and transformation. Being a refuge is OK, but there also needs to be a chance and encouragement to heal and move on, and not just moving on to other religions as I hear is often the case. As for the service, they could rotate styles, or they could pick a generic format and stick with it, but it is clear when someone is really inspired and reverent and when they are just giving a lecture or managing a menagerie. I don't get the sense that some of these people really take the Principles in full force and implication. I see it as a great interfaith gathering for understanding and cooperation, but as I've said elsewhere, I haven't (in person) seen it work as an actual religion/sacred tradition/spiritual path. Perhaps they could take a page from the Snowmass Conference and its guidelines for interreligious understanding... 1. The world religions bear witness to the experience of the Ultimate Reality to which they give various names: Brahman, the Absolute, God, Allah, (the) Great Spirit, the Transcendent. 2. The Ultimate Reality surpasses any name or concept that can be given to It. 3. The Ultimate Reality is the source (ground of being) of all existence. 4. Faith is opening, surrendering, and responding to the Ultimate Reality. This relationship precedes every belief system. 5. The potential for human wholeness -- or in other frames of reference, liberation, self-transcendence, enlightenment, salvation, transforming union, moksha, nirvana, fana -- is present in every human person. 6. The Ultimate Reality may be experienced not only through religious practices but also through nature, art, human relationships and service to others. 7. The differences among belief systems should be presented as facts that distinguish them, not as points of superiority. 8. In the light of the globalization of life and culture now in process, the personal and social ethical principles proposed by the world religions in the past need to be re-thought and re-expressed. -from Speaking of Silence: Christian and Buddhists on the Contemplative Way by Thomas Keating God is present in every house of worship, despite the efforts of some of their members.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
chaelosm voice		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 279 06/07/09 09:38:09	What i have personally found most frustrating is that there is a very narrow political/social view that is actively promoted above everything else (at least in my congregation) and everyone is expected to hold that view or we can feel pretty uncomfortable and unwelcome. As a gun owner who isn't comfortable with late-term abortion and who homeschools my kids, i often feel like i don't fit in. So, we just stopped attending and at the moment i am not sure we'll ever return.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Tiny Thinker		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1133 07/02/09 12:57:50	More recent thoughts or reactions to the state and direction of UUism... From a blog entry I made on June 19th about my Concerns with the i-Religiont/UUA style of spirituality There is a reason why fundamentalists react so harshly to secularism and modernism and the idea of valuing individuality above everything else. I don't agree with a majority of the views of religious fundamentalists, but I do share their concern about the contemptuous dismissal of tradition that is increasingly common in the modernist/secular sphere and the dangers of setting up the individual as the end all and be all - the measure of all things. No, I am not accusing Strand or the UUA of doing this, but rather wondering where the approaches mentioned are vulnerable to such pressures. There is no way I can replicate everything I have written that is relevant to this issue here. I don't deny that we should be free to choose what we believe or whether to practice a religion or how to practice it. In that sense I am definitely in opposition to the radical wing of the fundamentalists. Nor do I deny there is value in going out and learning about/trying out different sacred traditions and experiencing spirituality from various perspectives (for more examples of my thinking on this look here, here, and here). And I have personally found that insights gained from one faith helped open my eyes to previously unseens wisdom in another (see examples of how Buddhism has helped me appreciate Christianity here, here, and here). So let's get that clear from the start. I do object though to ideas like "religion divides/spirituality unites". I admit and embrace the benefits of but also challenge the biases and flaws in positivism and modernism, particularly when taken to extremes: presenting a flat view of the world where everything is fixed in knowable patterns just waiting to be discovered; that technological progress is always inevitable, desirable and beneficial; that religions are failed primitive science or psychology and that they can only be useful if its stories are reduced to allegory. In particular I am disturbed and frustrated by how this tends to play out between the flat-thinking members of the atheist and theist camps and their holy war against each other (more here, here, and here). For example, I think we can embrace the lens of science without being dismissive of other lenses or possibilities, including those suggested or hinted at through sacred traditions and the impact of stories using supernatural elements (more here, here, or here). Unlike many Western Buddhists, I don't see Buddhism as (nor do I think it should be reduced to) a mere humanist philosophy or just a form of empirical investigation. As I've written before: Which takes us back to so-called Western Buddhism and what it should or should not be. And the aforementioned desire I suspect to be at work in some circles to "cleanse" Buddhism of any non-rational elements, with the caveat that rational often means what we think makes sense, hence what fits our current "paradigm", which for a number of potential or actual Western Buddhists is, again, the so-called empirically based rationalism which is often associated with the methodology of science but which is often co-opted into what is sometimes termed ontological naturalism, which means anything that smacks of supernaturalism is out. Which makes for an interesting dilemma. In the end, are we just making a new, secularized, empirically-safe finger to latch onto? Does the nature of the Dharma change whether we call Shunyata (emptiness) the Tao or even God? Or if we fail to name it? Does it change if we believe in magic? If we do not? If we pray or do not? For who or what do we need to reinvent or reconstitute Buddhism "in the West"? There is more to the figures, liturgies, and devotional practices in Buddhism than many recognize. I feel the same is true of those who casually dismiss these aspects of other sacred traditions as well. In fact, it was learning to appreciate the nuances and value of religion in a "safe" novel environment like Buddhism that has helped me in appreciating other sacred traditions. It may seem odd for someone like me who is floating adrift and untethered between Buddhism and Christianity to have problems with religious or spiritual do-it-yourself-ism. So with a better understanding of where I am coming from generally, let me add a little more texture. I've recently written (emphasis newly added) that: I see religion is the shared, ritualistic experience of spirituality and the collected insights of a culture's attempts to deal with existential concerns. In traditional societies religions weren't separate from other spheres of life and in fact offered a blue print for living a full and meaningful life. They still do for billions of people. What each tradition offers (including the newer ones) is a unique story that speaks to certain people, echoing their pain, their joy, their confusion, and their hopes. Each story paints a picture and offers a path leading to surrender and transformation, complete with rituals to commemorate and reaffirm one's journey. Each tradition offers a common history and presents a vision of the future that resonates with those who embrace it. Each tradition challenges preconceptions, egos, and a self-centered view in its own way. Each tradition provides a complete working system that can assist us to see and fully embrace its received wisdom, like having a coach and teammates working toward a goal, to encourage or carry us when we are tired and when we stumble. Religions aren't just philosophies or social groups. They are living traditions. No one can be debated into understanding that. It would be foolish to try. But the truths and practices which are purely about getting closer to appreciating the Divine have been effective for thousands of years. They have molded and nourished the very saints and gurus whose spiritual wisdom many revere. Then there is this nicely summarized concern: If we do a little of one kind of practice and a little of another, the work we have done in one often doesn't continue to build as we change to the next. It is as if we were to dig many shallow wells instead of one deep one. In continually moving from one approach to another, we are never forced to face our own boredom, impatience, and fears. We are never brought face to face with ourselves. So we need to choose a way of practice that is deep and ancient and connected with our hearts, and then make a commitment to follow it as long as it takes to transform ourselves. - Jack Kornfield, A Path with Heart In other words, many "spiritualists" who like to collect quotes and practices from this or that saint or guru may fail to realize that these quotes and practices have a context within a larger religious framework. As I have heard or read so many times from and about accomplished practitioners of various religions who are engaged in interfaith dialogue, while it is true that their language may sound more and more similar as they progress deeply along their paths, having a path and following it was essential to reaching this point of seeming convergence. And these systems are internally consistent and designed by trial and error and inspiration to help people transcend their ego (not reject it) and their false sense of alienation from the ground of Becoming. Or in religious shorthand, to "find God". Because of the unwanted cultural baggage or the failure to take an expansive view of religious language and practice, there is a temptation to try to be a junk dealer who searches through the "garbage" of received tradition to find the occasional treasure. Taken too far, this kind of thinking loses sight of the forest because of a few objectionable trees. Is it really the forest we want to clear or just a few rotten timbers? When we appreciate that religious stories and practices are meant as much if not more so for the heart than the intellect, and are meant to be heard and felt as much if not more so than analyzed, we can see that they really are universal, with value at the literal level, the metaphoric level, and beyond as we continue to grow. The problems arise when people try to firmly tether these stories and practices to a strictly 17th century understanding, or a strictly 18th century understanding, or 19th or 20th century understanding. Their power and relevance become diminished and dependent on a particular philosophy of the material universe or social agenda. Why would we want to compound and continue such errors by limiting these stories and practices to a secular, individualistic 21st century understanding? No, you don't need religion to "find God". Yes, you can find the wholeness and peace of the Divine without it. Are you as likely to do so without religion? I doubt it. Can the history and institutional aspects of some religions obscure and interfere with that goal of helping people "find God"? Of course. But finding God, to continue to use the same shorthand, isn't the same as growing in God or serving God. And for that, a hodge-podge of one's favorite inspirational hymns, sayings, or practices may not be adequate. Moreover, such an approach runs the risk of superficially appearing beneficial but underneath may still be feeding and puffing up the lesser self. With no teacher or community or the wisdom of tradition in which such obstacles may be more readily identified and corrected, one can become complacent. That isn't to say one cannot borrow or learn from other traditions, but it does suggest there are things that religions can offer that private, self-serve spirituality cannot. I know a lot of people like the idea of flying solo in their spirituality, but I am realizing that if I want to experience or discover God or to serve or to have any gratitude it cannot be in isolation. That is the gift and challenge of a spiritual/religious community. Nor can we fill this void just with discussion groups or only by participating in public charity. This is not to downplay or devalue these aspects of spirituality, but they are not a replacement for gathering to share in a sense of the sacred through ritual. This is why I have so often found the UU congregations I have run across frustrating - when you become so generic as to say nothing and so shy of conviction as to mean nothing, out of fear of offending someone in the congregation, what is the point? How is that a foundation for a serious approach to transformation? These congregations strike me more like picnic where people who already have a path bring a different dish, but just enough to sample. It's nice if you are being fed somewhere else but if you are really hungering and in need of a substantial meal, then in my experience you may be out of luck. None of this is to say that you shouldn't be a solo flier, or an i-Religionist, or a UU! If that fits where you are, I am not in any place to judge you. I myself am spiritually homeless, despite my long philosophical and practical search for meaning (especially in regard to suffering). But what I wish to convey is the importance of religion and sacred tradition, to plead that we don't kill the geese that laid all of the golden eggs that we have the good fortune to have access to in our pluralistic society. To advocate in strong terms that we understand the importance of the legacy and continuation of major sacred traditions as a unique and priceless treasure of humanity. From a reply I made in a discussion started on someone else's blog on June 26th: Desmond Ravenstone: "Many of our critics…often criticize that our creedless liberalism is too easy. What they don't get is that the freedom to choose is coupled with the responsibility to choose wisely - and the challenge of learning how to do so." It should be, but my (limited and anecdotal) observations have been that being smugly non-committal is a pretty popular option in some areas. This is all too easy when there is no real pressure to choose because "Hey, it's all good as long as no one tries to guilt me or rebuke me." :o( And there's the rub. It's one thing to say "I don't pray to God the same way you do", or "My view of the Ultimate is different than yours - I refer to it as the Dharmakaya (or the Tao, etc), not God". "Oh, but yes, we do agree that the experience of this Source of Becoming is to be filled with wisdom and compassion," or "Oh, it's OK if you don't appreciate traditional God-language, you will find your own way and your own voice when you treat everyone and everything you encounter as sacred - the path of service can be as powerful as that of devotion or meditation." It's another to say "Oh, well, we know better now than to take books like the Bible too seriously, as we've outgrown the need for the trappings and superstitions of traditional religion" or "Well, as long as you feel it's right then no one else really has a right to ask you about it or make it their business." Which brings us back to… Peacebang: "What are the eternal, essential, transcendent, sacred values that you teach, embrace and witness to in any and all times?" I know this may seem to be veering off course a bit, but I think it may be tied up in the wishy-washy source of the complaints that spark these kinds of posts. It isn't a new question for the UUA, but it refuses to lie down and play dead: Just because UUs don't require people to believe in (any particular approach to or characterization of) God does it mean they should live and "worship" like God is irrelevant or non-existent? It is true that you either live like their is some Greater Presence or Higher Power or you live like there isn't one. Even agnostics live one way or the other. Even (traditional Eastern) Buddhists tend to believe in a power and a purpose greater than themselves. Is the importance of the transcending mystery and wonder and the wisdom of the world's religions, which "bear witness to the experience of the Ultimate Reality to which they give various names: Brahman, the Absolute, God, Allah, (the) Great Spirit, the Transcendent", just window-dressing or an essential element of the UU way? Is there a UU way? My own criticism is intended to be constructive, but I realize it's actually just punching at the air. But I wouldn't bother if I thought UUism was a hopeless cause or a dying religion. God is present in every house of worship, despite the efforts of some of their members.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Tiny Thinker		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1133 07/02/09 14:23:12	Sorry, I know the last post was long, but I wanted to have it in one place. So, if you follow my blog and to a lesser extent my forums here, you probably have some idea that: I was raised in a conservative fundamentalist form of Christianity which I eventually grew apart from into a default agnosticism and then a resentful atheism. After becoming a mellow and sympathetic secularist I decided to go beyond just the appearance of a safety net of what appeared to be empirically testable in terms of defining and manipulating religious notions to a greater appreciation of the human experience. To be a completely free thinker, even beyond the self-imposed limits of atheism, agnosticism, secularism, materialism, etc. Through my exploration of liberal religions like UUism and my exploration and practice of Buddhism I healed and reconciled many "wounds" I had regarding religion, and I began to appreciate the more expansive understanding of religious terminology, sacred traditions, and other things associated with religion. To appreciate what such elements can do for people in terms of liberation from preconceptions and becoming open to amazing possibilities, mysteries, and wonders which are beyond any human system of knowing as well as what it can do to heal and transform people. I have been exploring spirituality and looking for any reality behind words like "sacred" and "holy" and have come to hold intellectual positions which release me rather than inhibit me and allow me to open myself to seeking and appreciating the validity of talking about "God" and reflecting on "Jesus" as more than just a prophetic Rabbi with great teachings. This appreciation follows a reappraisal of how one conceives of the reality and meaning of spiritual experience and religious teachings. A panentheistic view of God as the Source of all Becoming/Being, that all things are manifested from divinity (i.e. all real things are sacred), and that the figure of Jesus presented in the Gospels and the Cosmic Christ that emerges in the rest of the New Testament is a reflection of ourselves in the Divine. We can relate to God reflected through the Cosmic Christ precisely because we can relate to the human Christ presented in the Gospels (see for example this thread). I have no idea where is will go, but as I've been saying for a year or two, the insights of Buddhism and Christianity keep reinforcing one another in my eyes. And various Buddhist masters suggest taking the healing and insight from Buddhism and going back to re-appreciate and re-invigorate the truths expressed in the religion of one's own culture, of one's own ancestry. This has led me to look to the good from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox to Anglicanism/Episcopalianism to liberal/mainline groups like the United Church of Christ and even the formerly Christian UUA. But there was just something about each where something was lacking or something didn't fit. As per my critiques of UUism (of which the stuff recorded in this thread is merely the latest round), it is like, OK, they got it right up to a point and then they went too far. Their principles are rooted in seeing the world and the people in it with sacred vision, with a heart of divine love. Even atheists who don't like terms related to God-language but who embrace these principles whole-heartedly can appreciate that these terms don't imply a Big Guy in the Sky who smites people. And surely they could put up with powerful spiritual terms like sacred and divine? If they want to be UUs, to be in a spiritual community, surely they wouldn't be offended by the idea that there is some perspective that both transcends and cherishes the individual, that it is better to live as if there is some greater point to existence. Still no creed, still no requirement to profess a belief in a particular notion of "God". But noooo, it has to go so far that in many UU churches/people would shout in objection or leave in a huff if you even alluded to God or made the point of discussing Jesus something more than talking about a great teacher. Is that really inclusive? Is that really having an open mind and open heart? I don't think so. Hence, I am like "Great, is there no group that gets where I am headed/coming from?" I know we have to compromise sometimes in life, but even the UU Christian Fellowship, which you can pick up as an "add-on" to enhance your UU experience, seems to be on the "take the Christ out of Jesus" bandwagon and becoming all wishy washy about indecisive about what aspects and qualities of Jesus matter. But then, why have a Fellowship? If it's all up to us individually to decide what matters and we aren't joining with others who share our view of what matters, why sign up to be part of a group that doesn't know what it believes? Again, being inclusive, being open-minded, etc, doesn't have to mean being empty-headed and totally non-committal. If there is something of value worth sharing, find it and share it! So this has been bumming me out. Where can I belong? Where I can find others who strive to strike the right balance and offer support or at least camaraderie in my spiritual growth? Then by accident I stumble across something called The Christian Universalist Association. It is very new. It was formed in 2007. Churches can affiliate if they want, even if they belong to a denomination, so long as that denomination allows it. Like the UUA, they don't tell congregations how to worship. They just ask that churches agree with a simple set of statements reminiscent of the UUA principles: We believe in a God who is Love, Light, Truth, and Spirit, the Creator of the universe, whom we are called to seek, know, and love; and whose nature was revealed to the world in the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. We believe that the universal commandment is to love and serve one another as each loves oneself. We believe in the law of justice by which actions generate consequences, whether to be manifested in this life or the life to come. We believe in the ultimate triumph of divine mercy and grace: that no being ever created will be condemned or allowed to suffer forever, but God has arranged through a benevolent plan of learning and growth for all souls to attain salvation, reconciliation, restoration, and reunion with the Source of All Being, in the fullness of the ages. We believe every person is the divine offspring of God, created in the image of the Heavenly Parent of all; and that every person is destined to be raised up from imperfection to maturity according to the pattern of the archetypal Christ, the Son of God, the Perfect Human in whose image all humanity shall be transformed. We believe in miracles and mysterious spiritual phenomena, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which transcend materialistic views of reality. We believe that God's Holy Spirit has inspired numerous prophets, saints, philosophers, and mystics throughout history, in a variety of cultures and traditions; and that by reading the Bible and other great texts of spiritual and moral wisdom with a discerning mind, and meditating to connect to the Spirit within, we may all gain a greater understanding of truth, which should be applied for the betterment of ourselves and our world. And as for non-Christians joining... Saintly souls who are identified with religions other than Christianity, but who actually walk the path of Christ in the way they live their life, are far more truly Christian than fundamentalists who focus on converting everyone to their narrow church creed to avoid being tortured forever in the fires of hell. For example, Mahatma Gandhi was a Hindu who rejected many Christian doctrines but had great reverence for Jesus and sought to live according to his teachings. It doesn't matter that he never called himself a Christian. In fact, people like him are more truly Christian than many people who claim the mantle of Christianity and proudly declare themselves "Christian." Jesus himself said that many of those who loudly call him "Lord, Lord" will be told they never really knew him (Mat. 7:21-23). We believe there is much common ground between authentic, original Christian faith and the teachings of many philosophers, saints and mystics who were not Christian in the doctrinal sense of the word. Instead of walling ourselves off from ideas that have historically been considered outside the sphere of normative Christian thought, we strive to discover and bring to light the foundational truths that go beyond the limitations of religious labels, fundamentalist dogma and orthodoxy. Universalism is a liberating view of spiritual reality that enables freedom of thought and conscience, and the possibility of appreciation for diverse expressions of the human quest for the divine. If you agree with our beliefs, we invite you to join the Christian Universalist Association regardless of whether or not you currently consider yourself a "Christian." Perhaps you are uncomfortable with identifying yourself as belonging to the religion of Christianity, because you disagree with many doctrines that have come to be part of the Christian tradition, and many people think of this as a very fundamentalist religion. We believe that the faith of Jesus Christ has been fundamentally misunderstood! Though we believe in Christ and seek to follow his path, we also disagree with much of the religious ideology that has been developed by the church in Jesus' name. Of course, the one huge drawback is that since it is really new and isn't formed from a pre-exisiting affiliated set of congregations, the number of actual congregations currently signed up with the CUA is tiny. But it is at least comparable in size and scope to the UU Christian Fellowship, and who knows, it may grow as it becomes more well-known. LOTS of Christian UUs have been leaving over the past few decades, going to denominations like the UCC. And it means I am not the only one looking for that proper balance. OK, well, stay-tuned. I have no idea what will (or won't) happen next. God is present in every house of worship, despite the efforts of some of their members.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
sgttomas.thinkersforum		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 23 07/05/09 23:50:47	Well, how about thinking about it in terms of ....like Maslow's hierarchy of needs? What do you need most? It seems that one thing you need is authentic spiritual presence and mystical truths sought above literal truths? You haven't expressed a clear idea of worship, so I'm guessing that while worship is an important need that you are somewhat flexible with what authentic worship will feel like and involve? It seems like you need your spiritual community to authentically mirror in a social group, the individual self-discovery and emergence into the Cosmic self...you need your community to be unified in purpose and harmonious in spirit (to some degree)? It seems like you need your religious home to be outside of the tradition of revealed religion. But you also need your religion to be explicit in expressing necessary truths about man, nature, and God? I am guessing that you also need a community that doesn't have a concept of eternal damnation as a belief? What are some other needs? Where would you place these needs in a hierarchy? (authentic worship, proper righteousness, cohesive community, commitment to truth - which means exclusiveness that challenges inclusiveness, ....but really I mean whatever you identify as your own needs) I'm curious how you deal with arbitration outside of a Prophetic tradition (capitalized to represent the way of life described by a "Prophet", who is the Cosmic man and the Earthly man, who brings the religion that reconciles these two parts of our existence - which can also be said as "reconciling our selves to God" - and also reconciles our selves to one another - decrees laws for social cohesiveness and unity of purpose and fulfillment of human potential in the Earthly sense) ? Subjectivity is a ton of fun, and our Cosmic selves are seeking truths beyond words, but most of life isn't very Cosmic and neither are most people. So practically speaking, how well can the UU church arbitrate the truth and monitor righteousness? Without these methods of social control, how well do you think social unity can be achieved amongst real human beings, except by self-selection of like-minded thinkers? (a phenomenon that has become very apparent in the form of internet trolls....but it manifests everywhere) I can speculate that social control is pretty far down there in terms of your needs (trying to relate this to your sense of "wounds" from your dogmatic past) but your struggles to fit in has also been related to your frustrations with people "actin' the fool". Peace, -sgttomas Last Edited By: sgttomas 07/05/09 23:56:11. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Tiny Thinker		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1133 07/06/09 14:32:52	sgttomas wrote: Well, how about thinking about it in terms of ....like Maslow's hierarchy of needs? What do you need most? It seems that one thing you need is authentic spiritual presence and mystical truths sought above literal truths? You haven't expressed a clear idea of worship, so I'm guessing that while worship is an important need that you are somewhat flexible with what authentic worship will feel like and involve? It seems like you need your spiritual community to authentically mirror in a social group, the individual self-discovery and emergence into the Cosmic self...you need your community to be unified in purpose and harmonious in spirit (to some degree)? It seems like you need your religious home to be outside of the tradition of revealed religion. But you also need your religion to be explicit in expressing necessary truths about man, nature, and God? I am guessing that you also need a community that doesn't have a concept of eternal damnation as a belief? What are some other needs? Where would you place these needs in a hierarchy? (authentic worship, proper righteousness, cohesive community, commitment to truth - which means exclusiveness that challenges inclusiveness, ....but really I mean whatever you identify as your own needs) I'm curious how you deal with arbitration outside of a Prophetic tradition (capitalized to represent the way of life described by a "Prophet", who is the Cosmic man and the Earthly man, who brings the religion that reconciles these two parts of our existence - which can also be said as "reconciling our selves to God" - and also reconciles our selves to one another - decrees laws for social cohesiveness and unity of purpose and fulfillment of human potential in the Earthly sense) ? Subjectivity is a ton of fun, and our Cosmic selves are seeking truths beyond words, but most of life isn't very Cosmic and neither are most people. So practically speaking, how well can the UU church arbitrate the truth and monitor righteousness? Without these methods of social control, how well do you think social unity can be achieved amongst real human beings, except by self-selection of like-minded thinkers? (a phenomenon that has become very apparent in the form of internet trolls....but it manifests everywhere) I can speculate that social control is pretty far down there in terms of your needs (trying to relate this to your sense of "wounds" from your dogmatic past) but your struggles to fit in has also been related to your frustrations with people "actin' the fool". Peace, -sgttomas Well, I would mystical truths would find expression in the literal world or else they wouldn't be practical. And I don't believe a spiritual community can exist (or at least be spiritual) without a social dimension. God is present in every house of worship, despite the efforts of some of their members.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote