CFV - soc.religion.unitarian-univ
Jim McCollum
This forum has been deafeningly silent of late in respect to the
RFD on the proposed news group "soc.religion.unitarian-univ." I
believe we have all the consensus we are going to get in this
matter! Our 30 days discussion time is about up, isn't it? Do we
need to republish the RFD or an amended version of it before the
CFV?
__o
Lang may your lum reek! _ \<._
Jim (_)/ (_)
ji...@rochgte.fidonet.org
FidoNet 1:2613/244
F Teltsch
ji...@rochgte.fidonet.org (Jim McCollum) writes:
>>This forum has been deafeningly silent of late in respect to the
>>RFD on the proposed news group "soc.religion.unitarian-univ." I
>>believe we have all the consensus we are going to get in this
>>matter!
UU's silent? No discussion for days? Now, that's a first. <grin>
Either everyone likes the proposal, or everyone is away on vacation. In
any case, I agree... Let's vote.
Frank Teltsch
Unitarian Universalist Congregation at Shelter Rock
Manhasset, NY
Lance A. Brown
I have sent all the required information to the UVV coordinator. As
soon as the discussion period closes I will ask him to post the CFV
and we'll get the vote rolling.
The RFD was posted on June 14th. The discussion period closes this
Wednesday, July 13th.
Lance
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>I have sent all the required information to the UVV coordinator. As
>soon as the discussion period closes I will ask him to post the CFV
>and we'll get the vote rolling.
Dave should be returning from vacation today or tomorrow, so the
timing is good.
--
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Tom von Alten
: The silence has been deafening, especially as it comes from UUs!
I would've made more noise, but when I came back after a 2 week vacation,
the threads had expired off our system.
Bring on the vote!
_____________
Tom von Alten email: al...@boi.hp.com
Robert Stevahn
Ditto!
--
Robert Stevahn - rste...@boi.hp.com
Boise UU Fellowship
sy...@mbm.com
I for one am opposed to the creation of the SOC.RELIGION.UNITARIAN-UNIV
group. The unitarians deny the diety of Jesus, as well as the doctrine
of the Trinity. Yet, according to my understanding, they claim to be
Christian.
Consequently, the unitarian-univ group constitutes a cult with heretical
and blasphemous teachings; in their position, they are clearly
ANTI-Christian.
Therefore, I urge all Christians to join me in voting AGAINST the
creation of this proposed newsgroup.
Very truly yours,
Sysop
P.S. Although I recognize that they have the _legal_ right to free
speech, that does not imply that I must condone their speech. By my
free speech, and God's Holy Word, I urge all Christians to make
themselves heard in their opposition to this proposed group.
Anita Kilgour
>I for one am opposed to the creation of the SOC.RELIGION.UNITARIAN-UNIV
>group. The unitarians deny the diety of Jesus, as well as the doctrine
>of the Trinity. Yet, according to my understanding, they claim to be
>Christian.
I have been called a Christian in my life, not because I believe
in Jesus' deity or any doctrine, but because of the way I live
my life; trying to help others, to learn to accept people for what
they are, and learning from those different from me.
>Consequently, the unitarian-univ group constitutes a cult with heretical
>and blasphemous teachings; in their position, they are clearly
>ANTI-Christian.
Cult. Heretical. Blasphemous. Anti-Christian. Wow. Strong words
from someone who claims to follow the words of a man who said to love
thy neighbour as thyself.
>Therefore, I urge all Christians to join me in voting AGAINST the
>creation of this proposed newsgroup.
And I urge people to vote what they believe. If they think that this is
blasphamy, I recommend that they look closely at their beliefs and find
out *why*.
>P.S. Although I recognize that they have the _legal_ right to free
>speech, that does not imply that I must condone their speech. By my
>free speech, and God's Holy Word, I urge all Christians to make
>themselves heard in their opposition to this proposed group.
This fellow's attitude sounds about right for the days of the Crusades,
but I thought we had all left the dark ages behind us.
Anita
--
"So why exactly are you behaving in this extrodinary manner?"
-Rosencrantz, R&GAD.
Greg Woodbury
>
[bigoted drivel elided....]
Domain lookup information for mbm.com:
Ministry By Modem BBS (MBM-DOM)
P.O. Box 214
LaGrangeville, NY 12540
Domain Name: MBM.COM
Administrative Contact:
Basch, Jeffrey (JB125) postm...@MBM.COM <----- culprit?
(914) 454-2807
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Support, Holonet (HS13) sup...@HOLONET.NET
(510) 704-0160
Domain servers in listed order:
NOMAD.HOLONET.NET 157.151.0.2
ORAC.HOLONET.NET 157.151.0.1
The InterNIC Registration Services Host ONLY contains Internet Information
(Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's).
Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information.
--
Gregory G. "Wolfe" Woodbury At, but NOT speaking for . . Duke University
System Programmer, Center for Demographic Studies, Box 90408 +1 919 684 6126
Durham NC 27708-0408 [Home email: g...@wolves.durham.nc.us]
"The longest continually active poster/reader on Usenet: Greg Woodbury" :-)
David R. Throop
>
I don't think it was a bigot. I think it was a troll.
David Throop
Lance A. Brown
Oy Vey! Just what I need. I hope this is a troll, but I doubt
it. :-(
sysop <sy...@mbm.com> writes:
> I for one am opposed to the creation of the SOC.RELIGION.UNITARIAN-UNIV
> group. The unitarians deny the diety of Jesus, as well as the doctrine
> of the Trinity. Yet, according to my understanding, they claim to be
> Christian.
You understand incorrectly, and need to read the RFD for
soc.religion.unitarian-univ which explains our beliefs a bit.
Unitarian Universalism is non-creedal, and encourages the personal
search for meaning and truth in life. Individual UUs are atheist,
buddhist, jewish, *christian*, pagan, etc.
> Consequently, the unitarian-univ group constitutes a cult with heretical
> and blasphemous teachings; in their position, they are clearly
> ANTI-Christian.
That is your opinion. If you dislike s.r.u-u do not carry it on your
BBS, but please allow the rest of the world to make that decision for
themselves.
> Therefore, I urge all Christians to join me in voting AGAINST the
> creation of this proposed newsgroup.
Why? Because we aren't christian? Doesn't sound like much of a
reason to me.
> Sysop
The last you could have done is signed your message with a real
name. Sheesh.
> P.S. Although I recognize that they have the _legal_ right to free
> speech, that does not imply that I must condone their speech.
Find, don't condone it. Don't carry s.r.u-u on your BBS, but leave us
the right to gather in peace. You don't see UUs issuing RFDs to
rmgroup soc.religion.christian.
Obviously I am FOR creating the newsgroup. :-)
Sincerely,
Lance Brown
Jane Patterson
>group. The unitarians deny the diety of Jesus, as well as the doctrine
>of the Trinity. Yet, according to my understanding, they claim to be
>Christian.
Actually, your understanding is wrong. Individual UUs may be Christian,
but the church itself has not been "officially" Christian for a while -
Unitarianism did being as a Christian sect (several centuries ago) but
as time has passed, many fellowships and churches have decided that it
was an inappropriate label for a religion that emphasizes universal truth
from diverse sources. (If anyone wants to contribute exact dates and
resolutions, I'd appreciate it...It's been a long time since the "History
of UUs" Sunday School lesson...)
>Consequently, the unitarian-univ group constitutes a cult with heretical
>and blasphemous teachings; in their position, they are clearly
>ANTI-Christian.
I must admit to be increasingly incensed at this posting - you did not
bother to find any correct information before slandering a religous
movement. And your extrapolation from that inaccurate information is
truly ridiculous. Would you also oppose a discussion group
for Zen Buddhism, or Hinduism, or other non-christian groups because by
presenting different beliefs they are anti-Christian?
(I notice that you are the sysop of your system, and can make the decision
not to carry the group if it so offends you.)
You have absolutely no evidence that Unitarians are anti-Christian, and
you will not find any, because they aren't! The Unitarian Universalist
movement includes Christian, pagans, Buddhists and more, and does not
discriminate against the validity of any religous experience.
>Therefore, I urge all Christians to join me in voting AGAINST the
>creation of this proposed newsgroup.
I certainly hope "all Christians" have more sense than to follow this
hateful posting without checking the facts first.
>P.S. Although I recognize that they have the _legal_ right to free
>speech, that does not imply that I must condone their speech.
The existence of a Usenet group does not in any way imply that you are
condoning their speech. (As previously noted, you don't have to carry the
group.) Don't you have better things to spend your energy on than
attacking the discussion groups of other religions? Like helping the
homeless, fighting bigotry, feeding the poor? I really don't understand
why you think the presence of this news would be so damaging!
Do you realize what a negative impression of Christianity your posting
gives? In an era where the mass media is already concentrating on the
most reactionary and bigoted fringe of the Christian religions, couldn't
you try and show the humane face of Christianity?
I try not to be judgmental as a general rule, but I must admit to thinking
that you should be ashamed of yourself! And I think a little judicious
research (I am sure there is a UU church in the area that would be happy
to tell you what the religion stands for) followed by a posted apology
would be the most honorable course of action you could take.
Jane Patterson
(All standard disclaimers apply. Mistakes and opinions are entirely my own.)
--
J-ko \ Jane Elizabeth Patterson \ jpat...@willamette.edu | Love
http://www.willamette.edu/~jpatters/ (Home Page) | Knows
http://www.msstate.edu/Fineart_Online/ (WWW Art Resources) | No
http://www.willamette.edu/webdev/principia/ (P. Discordia) | Gender
Steve Tamanaha
>of the Trinity. Yet, according to my understanding, they claim to be
doesn't deny the diety of Jesus or anything else. An individual may
choose to do so; but that is their choice.
>and blasphemous teachings; in their position, they are clearly
>ANTI-Christian.
Then you are not required to read the newsgroup if it its created;
Justin B. Alcorn
>group. The unitarians deny the diety of Jesus, as well as the doctrine
>of the Trinity. Yet, according to my understanding, they claim to be
>Christian.
>
of Jesus. We have members who are christian. We even have members who are
Trinitarian! Of course we also have members who are Jewish, Buddhist and
Pagan. And don't forget our Secular Humanists, Agnostics, Atheists are
assorted rabble rousers. We reach out to include heterosexuals, homosexuals,
bisexuals and (if you can find them) asexuals. We have Democrats,
Republicans, Libertarians, Socalists and Communists.
The only thing we don't have is small-minded bigots who don't like it when
people have differing opinions.
>Consequently, the unitarian-univ group constitutes a cult with heretical
>and blasphemous teachings; in their position, they are clearly
>ANTI-Christian.
>
>Therefore, I urge all Christians to join me in voting AGAINST the
>creation of this proposed newsgroup.
>
What ever happened to 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'?
--
"Darn These Computers, They're so naughty and complex!" +-----------------+
+------------------------------------------------------+ | Team OS/2! |
| jal...@wariat.org | Independent Systems Consultant | | |
| (216) 768-3929 | Cleveland Heights, OH | |Ask me how to fix|
+------------------------------------------------------+ | broken Windows! |
OS/2 Certified Engineer and Emissary +-----------------+
===========================================================================
# "There may be one, many, or no gods, I'm really not sure #
# but I'd love to talk about it over coffee." - Mac #
===========================================================================
Timothy VanFosson
In article <774196772jal...@marvin.wariat.org>,
jal...@marvin.wariat.org (Justin B. Alcorn) writes:
>
>>Consequently, the unitarian-univ group constitutes a cult with
>heretical
>>and blasphemous teachings; in their position, they are clearly
>>ANTI-Christian.
>>
>>Therefore, I urge all Christians to join me in voting AGAINST the
>>creation of this proposed newsgroup.
>>
>What ever happened to 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'?
I've seen this a couple of times in this discussion (although I haven't
been following it closely) and I felt I had to comment. As in this case
this response is often found in the context where a Christian asserts
that some behavior or idea on the part of someone else is morally or
spiritually wrong, the responder interpreting Jesus to mean the
equivalent of the pagan "If it harms no one, do as you will". I, and
most Christians, believe that it means nothing of the kind. The
interpretation hinges on what does Jesus mean by "love". It is not
acceptance or tolerance -- although Jesus also says that we should
honor and respect one another -- but rather putting the needs and interests
of others ahead of your own. To illustrate, the "loving" thing for me
to do for a friend who thinks he can fly and decides to jump off a building
is to stop him, not accept his belief system and let him jump.
If you examine the Bible in more depth, you will find that Jesus would
not be very accepting by your definition. In fact, Jesus says
in Luke 12:51 that He did not come to bring peace on earth, but rather
division, meaning that He came to separate out those who believe in
Him from those who don't. He also didn't leave much room for other
belief systems, claiming that "I am the way and the truth and the life.
No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).
The long and the short of it is that the "loving" thing that I as a
Christian can do for someone who does not believe in Christ is to help
them see that they are wrong. That Christ is real. That He is the
Son of God and is God. That only He, through our appropriation of
the forgiveness offered as a result of His death on the cross, can bring
us to the Father and give us eternal life. If I do anything else, in
a very real way I am condemning you to hell.
I am not trying to defend the post to which you responded. I haven't seen
the whole thing, and you may be correct that the poster wasn't kind,
or respectful, or whatever. That is not the point I am trying to address.
The problem I have with your response is that you seem to think, and
project upon Jesus, the idea that in order to "love" you I have to let
you do whatever you want and agree that it is okay. Unfortunately, He
didn't leave that as an option, and *consistent* with my belief system
I, too, must oppose anything that doesn't acknowledge Christ as Lord.
--tv
--
Timothy VanFosson E-mail : ti...@ccad.uiowa.edu
Senior Systems Analyst US Mail : CAD-Research
University of Iowa 330 IATL
Phone: (319) 335-3373 FAX: (319) 335-3380 Iowa City, Iowa 52242
Jan Isley
David R. Throop <thr...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>I don't think it was a bigot. I think it was a troll.
Religious intolerance and trolling are *not* mutually exclusive.
Justin Alcorn
Timothy VanFosson <ti...@ccad.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Consequently, the unitarian-univ group constitutes a cult with
>>heretical
>>>and blasphemous teachings; in their position, they are clearly
>>>ANTI-Christian.
>>>
>>>Therefore, I urge all Christians to join me in voting AGAINST the
>>>creation of this proposed newsgroup.
>>>
>>What ever happened to 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'?
>
>I've seen this a couple of times in this discussion (although I haven't
>been following it closely) and I felt I had to comment. As in this case
>this response is often found in the context where a Christian asserts
>that some behavior or idea on the part of someone else is morally or
>spiritually wrong, the responder interpreting Jesus to mean the
>equivalent of the pagan "If it harms no one, do as you will". I, and
[post about loving us by saving us deleted to save space]
I don't ask that you accept us as *ok*. I don't even care if you
worry about my soul. It was the original poster's two assumptions
that I object to:
1) UUs are ANTI-Christian (emphasis his)
The poster did NO research, and just made an automatic
knee-jerk "Heresy! stamp it out!" post. Now, according to that
poster's belief system, my personal spirituality is wrong. It
might even be heresy, by his standards. but he had NO RIGHT to
make an accustaion of heresy without first looking at the
statement of principles. If he had, he would have seen that the
UU church is not heretical at all - it can't be, since it has no
creed. It is also not Anti-Anything, except maybe hate, bigotry
and oppression.
2) His posts' tone was NOT one of concern about my, or anyone
else's, well being. It was one of obvious fear and bigotry
against anything different. If the poster chose to try to convince me that
Jesus is the only way, and I shoudl accept him, fine. I'm free to
ignore him, and I would. The poster, however, made an attack
reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition, where the assumption was
made that it was up to him to stamp out our precense on the
usenet. well, if 'sysop' (whose real name he was too afraid to
post) is watching, I have a message for him....
We're Here To Stay. If you don't like it, lump it. If you choose
to post to the s.r.uu newsgroup, as long as you are respectful and avoid
blatant bigoted attacks, fine. A post like that, and I would vote
to have your posts filtered as a matter of course. His tone makes
no positive contribution to anything.
(p.s. note I say 'I would vote'. UUs believe in the democratic
process. If there were enough interest in the SRUU newsgroup to
read his posts, I would then allow them. Another difference
between my way of thinking and his - I won't unilaterally censor.
Would he make the same committment and carry SRUU on his system if
he was asked? I doubt it.)
Dennis Ahern
In article <18545QRSN...@mbm.com>, sy...@mbm.com writes...
>P.S. Although I recognize that they have the _legal_ right to free
>speech, that does not imply that I must condone their speech. By my
>free speech, and God's Holy Word, I urge all Christians to make
>themselves heard in their opposition to this proposed group.
If this is what you call Christian, I wouldn't want to be one.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
^ ^
Dennis J. Ahern (.\ /.)
First Parish in Bedford, Mass. \ U / Devil's Advocate?
ah...@topdoc.enet.dec.com `-' Or just a devil?
V
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Groos
>
>I for one am opposed to the creation of the SOC.RELIGION.UNITARIAN-UNIV
>group. The unitarians deny the diety of Jesus, as well as the doctrine
>of the Trinity. Yet, according to my understanding, they claim to be
>Christian.
>
>Consequently, the unitarian-univ group constitutes a cult with heretical
>and blasphemous teachings; in their position, they are clearly
>ANTI-Christian.
So? Their newsgroup isn't in the Christian hierarchy, so I
don't see that there's a naming issue here. And there are plenty
of other newsgroups for non-Christian groups already in existence
on the net, and you're not calling for the removal of those. Yet.
So what's the deal?
Face it - Usenet is not a Christian organization, and attempting
to impose some kind of exclusionary Christian dogma on it is
inappropriate.
-Groos
scaldwell on BIX
>The problem I have with your response is that you seem to think, and
>project upon Jesus, the idea that in order to "love" you I have to let
>you do whatever you want and agree that it is okay. Unfortunately, He
>didn't leave that as an option, and *consistent* with my belief system
>I, too, must oppose anything that doesn't acknowledge Christ as Lord.
>--tv
>
>--
>Timothy VanFosson E-mail : ti...@ccad.uiowa.edu
>Senior Systems Analyst US Mail : CAD-Research
>University of Iowa 330 IATL
>Phone: (319) 335-3373 FAX: (319) 335-3380 Iowa City, Iowa 52242
So if it doesn't acknowledge Christ as Lord on USENET, then
you want it banned? Would you ban s.r.islam, s.r.judaism, alt.pagan,
etc? Most USENET groups don't even mention Jesus ... let alone
acknowledge him� as Christ and Lord. Would you ban these groups?
Steve Caldwell @@ scal...@bix.com @@
sy...@mbm.com
Dear Anita,
To say that you are Christian because of how you live is to put the cart
before the horse.
We are Christians NOT because of anything that we do, but because we
accept, by faith, the blessings of Jesus Christ who accomplished all
things for salvation.
My lifestyle is the RESULT, not the condition, of a faithful Christian
life.
I do indeed love my neighbor; I do not condemn sinners, but I do condemn
sins -- just as Jesus did when He taught against sin. If I were not to
speak, I would not be loving; out of Christian love, we point out errors
-- so that they may be confessed and corrected.
I would not be loving if I let people persist in error without telling
them.
I hope my message has persuaded some people to vote AGAINST the
newsgroup.
It is because I am Christian that I wish to speak God's Word. What you
now do is between you and the Holy Spirit. I have done my part by being
a faithful servant of Christ.
Sincerely,
Sysop
Lance A. Brown
PEOPLE!
The CFV for s.r.u-u has not even been posted yet! Let's at least wait
until after a CFV is underway.
To: Mr. Sy...@mbm.com
The discussion period for s.r.u-u lasted for a full month. Why did
you not speak out then?
Lance,
s.r.u-u proposer
Trif
>I hope my message has persuaded some people to vote AGAINST the
>newsgroup.
It has persuaded at least one person who wasn't going to vote at all
before to vote *FOR* the group, in order to counteract this intolerance.
sy...@mbm.com
Dear Mr. Brown:
I just read your reply to my previous message. I am affraid that you
have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire by what you said.
Any organization that claims to be "non-credal" is inconsistent. It is
by our beliefs (or "creed") that acceptable beliefs are defined;
thus, a "non-credal" orgaization has no basis to determine acceptable
beliefs. Therefore, a truly "non-credal" orgnization would be
accepting of all beliefs.
So, you should be accept the beliefs that I articulated; clearly, such
is not the case.
By virtue of proposing the newsgroup under SOC.RELIGION, the tacit
assertion is that UNITARIAN-UNIV is a religion.
The Christian faith accepts the words of Jesus, when He said: "I am the
way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father, but by
me." (John 14: 6, RSV)
The pagans, of course, do not accept these Gospel words. So, any
organization that contains pagans, jews, and buddists, is against the
Christian faith.
The unitarian-univ is a cult because it erroneously claims to be
consistent with the Christian faith. Thus, no true Christian can be a
unitarian-iniv. (It is acknowledged that some nominal Christians may be
unitarian-univ, but a true Christian cannot be -- because the
unitarian-univ denies the John 14: 6 claim of Christ, as shown above.)
You are correct in that I will not carry the proposed newsgroup on my
BBS. I urge my fellow Christians to vote AGINST this proposed
newsgroup, for the reasons already stated.
Sincerely,
Sysop
P.S. You asked why I sign "Sysop" and not my "real name." The reason is
simple: this is not personal correspondence. When I write to
people in a personal capacity, I use my personal account.
From the "Sysop" account, I speak for Ministry By Modem BBS.
(Although, make no mistake about it: I firmly believe all that I
say from the "Sysop" account.)
sy...@mbm.com
Dear Ms. Patterson:
Some of the statements you made in your letter are also made by others,
to whom I responded at length. I urge you to read my other replies for
a full understanding of my positiion.
Now, you ask if I could show the humane side of Christianity. My
response is that I am already doing so: the worst thing I could do would
be to let you continue in error without pointing out your error.
The unitarian-univ religion (in its present form) dates back only 200
years, and originated in the United States of America.
As to whether or not I have better things to do with my time than to
write these letters: yes, and I do them, too. These letters are only
one expression of the Christian faith.
As to Christianity be bigotted, etc. It is true that some people have
used the name of God for their own purposes. But, it is right and
proper to correctly apply God's Holy Word to daily life.
In John 14, Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one
come to the Father, but by me." So, I urge you to study God's Word, the
Bible. If you can show me, by correct a[pplication of God's Word, that
I am in error, than I will withdraw my statements.
However, I believe my position to be correct, and your letter made no
reference to the Bible. So, I again affirm my position. Correctly
applied, God's Word does NOT divide people along the lines of raceism,
etc; however, God's Word is not compromising, so it may divide along the
lines of Christin vs. non-Christian.
But, God's desire is for all people to be saved; if you reject Jesus as
Lord and Savior, then that is YOUR problem -- not the Christians.
Sincerely,
Sysop
Lynn Diana Gazis
: Dear Ms. Patterson:
: Some of the statements you made in your letter are also made by others,
: to whom I responded at length. I urge you to read my other replies for
: a full understanding of my positiion.
: Now, you ask if I could show the humane side of Christianity. My
: response is that I am already doing so: the worst thing I could do would
: be to let you continue in error without pointing out your error.
Nobody is asking you to refrain from pointing out the error of
Unitarian-Universalists. People are just pointing out that it's
grotesquely intolerant to vote down a group on Usenet on grounds that the
beliefs to be discussed in the newsgroup are misguided. Good grief, it's
not even under soc.religion.christian. The Muslims who objected to
soc.religion.islam.ahmadhiyya said that they would accept the group if it
were directly under soc.religion and not under soc.religion.islam, so you
are showing yourself more intolerant than they were. Personally, I think
a number of newsgroups are devoted to discussing views which are absurd,
but I would firmly oppose any attempt to prevent these groups from being
created which was based on the wrongness of their views.
Lynn Gazis-Sax (a Christian who is going to vote in favor of the group -
and believe me, I do read the Bible quite faithfully and I don't find it
dictating that I deprive non-Christians of forums to express their beliefs)
Robert Hettinga
> Now, you ask if I could show the humane side of Christianity.
Excuse me, don't you mean Evangelical, not to mention Fundamentalist,
Christianity?
It really burns me when people claiming to be True ("I'm going to Heaven,
and Y'all are goin' to Hell. Say Hal-lay-loo-ya, brother.") Christians,
are really just narrowly focused members of a cult of christianity
themselves. There are gnostics, who are way older in organization than
even the orthodox and catholic churches, there are mormons, who, while a
"new" sect of christianity, predate the modern evangelical movement by 50
years or so.
It seems to me that evangelical christianity, like rock-n-roll, jazz, and
huge chunks of popular culture, owes most of it's theological and
stylistic existence to the african-american slave-church liturgy. A rude
shock to most of it's more "raceist" and less well-read members, I'm
sure...
> The unitarian-univ religion (in its present form) dates back only 200
> years, and originated in the United States of America.
<evangelismMode(on)>
Like mormons, UUs like to think farther back than the so-called "great
awakening" in post-revolutionary America, in which most modern American
religions take as their jumping off point (e.g. mormons, the fission of
baptism into many conventions, etc). There was a unitarian Hungary in the
middle ages. In the early enlightenment, Michael Servitus was burned at
the stake by calvinists in Geneva for espousing unitarianism. The longest
reach back into history which holds up to some scrutiny is the claim that
before the Council of Nicea (the bishop of whom moved on to Alexandria
ordered the burning of the library there, I believe), christianity itself
had no official concept of the trinity at all, and was thus unitarian by
default.
The popularity of the concepts of unitarianism and of universal salvation,
the universalist part of of unitarian universalism, came about as a
reaction to the great awakening's more dogmatic "enthusiasms" (oddly
enough a theological term). They are believed to be a lineal result of the
enlightment-made-real ideology of the founders of revolutionary America.
These ideas started in New England, and followed settlers west in the
migration, to places like Chicago, St. Louis, and San Francisco. Now just
about every large college town in America sports at least one UU church,
primarily because UUism seems almost like "liberal arts" theology. If you
hold science, skeptical inquiry, and intellectual freedom to be inviolate
truths, then you're most of the way to being a UU.
That's probably why the denomination is small, about 250,000 at last
count. The entrance dues are high: a college education, and the logical
failure of one's birth religion in the resultant "reality check". It's
interesting to note that only 15% of current UUs were born that way.
I would speculate that the percentage of UUs is significantly more on the
net than our percentage in the general population, primarily because of
the percentage of academic sites on the net, and all those college town
churches I talked about.
By the way, I believe all of you forgot plain old agnostic secular
humanists, as a category of UU. I know, I've been one all my life, even
though I've only been a UU since I was 15 (20 years now).
Obviously, the formation of this group has my vote. As a long-time
net.head, I can't wait for an actual newsgroup for UU's. I figure if a
denomination as small as the scientologists have one
(alt.clearing.technology), I expect we will generate sufficient volume to
keep the group alive. As an example of UU loquaciousness, I offer my own
post. ":-o.
Cheers,
Bob Hettinga
I can't wa
--
Robert Hettinga (r...@shipwright.com) "There is no difference between
Shipwright Development Corporation someone who eats too little
44 Farquhar Street and sees Heaven and someone
Boston, MA 02331 USA who drinks too much and sees
(617) 323-7923 snakes." -- Bertrand Russell
Vance Kochenderfer
>Dear Mr. Brown:
>
>I just read your reply to my previous message. I am affraid that you
>have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire by what you said.
Yes, now the Brownian has revealed himself as being a UUA/CUC/x-Hungarian
Unitarian with each new post
>The unitarian-univ is a cult because it erroneously claims to be
>consistent with the Christian faith. Thus, no true Christian can be a
>unitarian-iniv. (It is acknowledged that some nominal Christians may be
>unitarian-univ, but a true Christian cannot be -- because the
>unitarian-univ denies the John 14: 6 claim of Christ, as shown above.)
Do you deny that each year 2.5 million coffee beans are murdered in
the name of UNITARIAN-UNIV?
Niles D. Ritter
> Any organization that claims to be "non-credal" is inconsistent. It is
> by our beliefs (or "creed") that acceptable beliefs are defined;
> thus, a "non-credal" orgaization has no basis to determine acceptable
> beliefs. Therefore, a truly "non-credal" orgnization would be
> accepting of all beliefs.
Just as physics has its "metaphysics", and mathematics has its
metamathematics (e.g. Goedel's Theorem about mathematical theories)
so can religion have a meta-religion. For example, here are two
opposing meta-religious statements:
1) There is a single, TRUE religion and all others are heretical
and will lead the followers to ultimate suffering
2) There are many VALID religions, and each may have teachings of
value we can learn from.
Many religions share the conviction that statement (1) is true, (e.g
fundamentalist christianity, judaism and islam), but differ radically
on *which* religion is the "true" one. However, there are religions
which subscribe to greater or lesser extent, to proposition (2).
"SysOp" is assuming that all religions hold to the meta-religious
statement (1), which is patently untrue.
Science is "non-credal" in that even though it may have a current
set of beliefs on how the world works, it has a metaphysical set
of rules called the "scientific method" by which old theories
and hypotheses may lose out to new theories. In areas which are
currently weak on data, multiple schools of thought may exist for
a while, until definitive tests may be devised. In the same way a
"non-credal" religion may have a set of meta-religious ideas to guide
how a person may determine the truth *for themselves*, rather than
appealing to a dogmatic personified authoritarian figure.
> The pagans, of course, do not accept these Gospel words. So, any
> organization that contains pagans, jews, and buddists, is against the
> Christian faith.
Buddhist has an "h" in it. This is a public service announcement.
BTW, does this mean that the National Football League is against
the Christian faith?
>
> The unitarian-univ is a cult because [etc...]
>
> You are correct in that I will not carry the proposed newsgroup on my
> BBS. I urge my fellow Christians to vote AGINST this proposed
> newsgroup, for the reasons already stated.
I always thought a "cult" could be recognized by the closed-minded
refusal to listen to alternative points of view. In which case, the
author "sysop" seems to have provided an excellent example of this.
Thank God I'm a Buddhist (:-), and don't have to worry about my religion
being associated with the mindset of this person. In any case, s/he has
convinced me to vote for the creation of this newsgroup.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T H E C A U S E |
M ^------------> A | Niles D. Ritter, Mathematician
A | | N | Jet Propulsion Labs
I <------------v D | n...@tazboy.jpl.nasa.gov
T C E F F E E H T |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fridrik Skulason
>I hope my message has persuaded some people to vote AGAINST the
>newsgroup.
more likely: Your have convinced some people to vote FOR it, to oppose
intolerant people like yourself.
-frisk
Jane Patterson
>The unitarian-univ religion (in its present form) dates back only 200
>years, and originated in the United States of America.
The age and origin of the religion is hardly related to its merit: if it
was, many major religions (including all the various sects and cults of
Christianity) would be in trouble.
>As to Christianity be bigotted, etc. It is true that some people have
>used the name of God for their own purposes. But, it is right and
>proper to correctly apply God's Holy Word to daily life.
I did not say that Christianity was bigoted. Some people who call
themselves Christians are bigots, unfortunately. And these people are not
truly Christian, based on the lessons my Presbyterian grandmother taught me.
>In John 14, Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one
>come to the Father, but by me." So, I urge you to study God's Word, the
>Bible. If you can show me, by correct a[pplication of God's Word, that
>I am in error, than I will withdraw my statements.
(And who gets to decide what is correct? It is possible to "prove" all
sides of many opposing arguments using the Bible...which is a matter for
entirely another thread, however.)
The above quote probably proves that UUs who are not also Christian will
not be saved, but it DOES NOT prove the UU church anti-christian, or
blasphemous. You apparently took no heed of my suggestion to find out
what the UU church is really about - it does not claim to be a Christian
church, but it does accept the Christian faith as a source of truth and
understanding, as well as many other faiths. The divinity of the
Christian god is not rejected, it is just not endorsed, as is the
divinity of Shiva, Buddha, Ganesha, Inanna, etc.
>
>However, I believe my position to be correct, and your letter made no
>reference to the Bible. So, I again affirm my position. Correctly
Is it necessary to refer to the Bible when logic and common sense should
be sufficient? UUs are not anti-Christian; some UUs _are_ Christian; the
right of non-Christians to congregate is not questioned by any major
Christian sect, and is guaranteed by law, at least in the United States,
where both you and I live.
>etc; however, God's Word is not compromising, so it may divide along the
>lines of Christin vs. non-Christian.
As has been pointed out quite a few times in this discussion, "Christian"
and "Unitarian Universalist" are not mutually exclusive categories.
There are *many* *Christian* UUs. That is a fact that no quote from the
Bible can change. So in advocating voting against this newsgroup, you
are in fact discriminating against Christians - as well as a large group
of the rest of humanity.
>But, God's desire is for all people to be saved; if you reject Jesus as
>Lord and Savior, then that is YOUR problem -- not the Christians.
Exactly - and those of us who wish to explore other religions, who need
to find truth for ourselves instead of blindly accepting the word of
others will harm noone be congregating on Usenet and discussing our searches.
I am not trying to insult your faith, or damage the Christian religion.
But where in the Bible does it say that Christians should persecute
non-Christians? Especially non-Christians who have broken on law, harmed
no Christian, and merely gather together in discussion and community?
Jane
Robert Smits
>By virtue of proposing the newsgroup under SOC.RELIGION, the tacit
>assertion is that UNITARIAN-UNIV is a religion.
>
Aren't you a little confused? These people are proposing a NEWSGROUP, not
debating what kind of religious belief constitutes a religion. They seem
to want a newsgroup wherein they, and others interested in the subjects
can discuss religious issues. How does establishing a newsgroup for these
people harm your or indeed, other, religions?
>The Christian faith accepts the words of Jesus, when He said: "I am the
>way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father, but by
>me." (John 14: 6, RSV)
>
>The pagans, of course, do not accept these Gospel words. So, any
>organization that contains pagans, jews, and buddists, is against the
>Christian faith.
>
Uh huh. So every government, every business, every organization, even the
Internet itself - because they're all full of us pagans, and Jews, and
Buddhists, and Muslims, and atheists - all these organizations are against
the Christian faith? You need to go out and buy a clue!
>The unitarian-univ is a cult because it erroneously claims to be
>consistent with the Christian faith. Thus, no true Christian can be a
>unitarian-iniv. (It is acknowledged that some nominal Christians may be
>unitarian-univ, but a true Christian cannot be -- because the
>unitarian-univ denies the John 14: 6 claim of Christ, as shown above.)
>
Some of us could be convinced that any religious group constitutes a cult
of one form or another, so that line of argument's not particularly likely
to be successful. It's also completely irrelevant, since we're not
discussing whether or not u.u.s can be or are a religious organization,
but whether or not we should set up a newsgroup to allow them to carry on
their religious discussions.
>You are correct in that I will not carry the proposed newsgroup on my
>BBS. I urge my fellow Christians to vote AGINST this proposed
>newsgroup, for the reasons already stated.
That's not particulary relevant, either. We're discussing creation of a
USENET newsgroup, not asking you to carry a group you're not interested
in. I find it difficult to fathom why you want to prevent others from
reading a newsgroup you clearly have no interest in. Fortunately, most
Christians are far more tolerant than you appear to be. And also
fortunately, Usenet, is not restricted to Christians.
>
>
>P.S. You asked why I sign "Sysop" and not my "real name." The reason is
> simple: this is not personal correspondence. When I write to
> people in a personal capacity, I use my personal account.
>
> From the "Sysop" account, I speak for Ministry By Modem BBS.
> (Although, make no mistake about it: I firmly believe all that I
> say from the "Sysop" account.)
Perhaps you should rename your organization. Intolerance by Modem would
seem far more accurate.
e...@ham.island.net (Robert Smits Ladysmith BC)
John Booth
: Dear Mr. Brown:
Advice to *Mr. Brown* deleted.
......................................................................
Sy: By virtue of proposing the newsgroup under SOC.RELIGION, the tacit
Sy: assertion is that UNITARIAN-UNIV is a religion.
Who appointed you lexicographer for internet? I quote from Webster's
New Collegiate:
religion n. 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held
with ardor and faith.
If you don't believe we UUs hold with ardor and faith to the belief
in freedom of speech and freedom of choice in religious beliefs
then you do not understand our religion.
^^^^^^^^
Interpretation of passage deleted from New Testiment omited.
.....................................................................
Sy: The pagans, of course, do not accept these Gospel words. So, any
Sy: organization that contains pagans, jews, and buddists, is against the
Sy: Christian faith.
Boy, talk about paranoid!
Sy: The unitarian-univ is a cult because it erroneously claims to be
Sy: consistent with the Christian faith. Thus, no true Christian can be a
Sy: unitarian-univ, but a true Christian cannot be -- because the
Sy: unitarian-univ denies the John 14: 6 claim of Christ, as shown above.)
Its Unitarian-Universalist, please note the correct name and use it
in future posts (including the caps!)
Sy: You are correct in that I will not carry the proposed newsgroup on my
Sy: BBS. I urge my fellow Christians to vote AGINST this proposed
Sy: newsgroup, for the reasons already stated.
What you do on your BBS is your business, and I suspect there are
enough misguided souls around to support it, but keep your cottin'
pickin' attempts at religious censorship off of the net!
Sy: P.S. You asked why I sign "Sysop" and not my "real name." The reason is
Sy: simple: this is not personal correspondence. When I write to
Sy: From the "Sysop" account, I speak for Ministry By Modem BBS.
Anonymity is a coward's attempt to hide. I suppose I could indulge
in a cheap flame by saying *simple is as simple does*.
: (Although, make no mistake about it: I firmly believe all that I
: say from the "Sysop" account.)
Am I wrong, or did the apostles of Christ have enough belief in
what they said to identify themselves publicly? Perhaps modern
evangelists are not so bold.
John Booth, who signs his name (real).
John Booth
Comment deleted.
: sysop <sy...@mbm.com> writes:
Sy> group. The unitarians deny the diety of Jesus, as well as the doctrine
Sy> of the Trinity. Yet, according to my understanding, they claim to be
Sy> Christian.
Your understanding is grossly defective, there are even some agnostics
and (shudder) ahtiests among us as noted below!
LAB: You understand incorrectly, and need to read the RFD for
LAB: soc.religion.unitarian-univ which explains our beliefs a bit.
LAB: Unitarian Universalism is non-creedal, and encourages the personal
LAB: search for meaning and truth in life. Individual UUs are atheist,
LAB: buddhist, jewish, *christian*, pagan, etc.
Sy> Consequently, the unitarian-univ group constitutes a cult with heretical
Sy> and blasphemous teachings; in their position, they are clearly
Sy> ANTI-Christian.
Comments by LAB dekelted.
.....................................................................
Sy> Therefore, I urge all Christians to join me in voting AGAINST the
Sy> creation of this proposed newsgroup.
LAB: Why? Because we aren't christian? Doesn't sound like much of a
LAA: reason to me.
No, because the is afraid the nasty Unitarian-Universalists will
corrupt some poor innocent souls before he can *save* them. They
shoud be so lucky!
LAB: The last you could have done is signed your message with a real
LAB: name. Sheesh.
John Booth, who boldly signs is own name (real.)
David R. Throop
accept that he seriously believes this, and wasn't just trolling us.
But he's still beyond debating.
David Throop
Jim McCollum
supposed to initiate it and why hasn't he/she done so?
__o
Lang may your lum reek! _ \<._
Jim McCollum (_)/ (_)
ji...@rochgte.fidonet.org
FidoNet 1:2613/244
Jim McCollum
Lance A. Brown
> When do we get the CFV on this, already? Who issues it? What's the delay?
The delay is that Dave Lawrance was on vacation and then got a
do-it-now project dropped in his lap when he went back to work.
I have been in contact with the USENET Volunteer Vote-taker assigned
to run our CFV and have signed off on the CFV document. I assume he
has sent the CFV to Dave L. and we now must wait until Dave has time
to process his news.announce.newgroups queue.
Lance
scaldwell on BIX
>The unitarian-univ is a cult because it erroneously claims to be
>consistent with the Christian faith. Thus, no true Christian can be a
>unitarian-iniv. (It is acknowledged that some nominal Christians may be
>unitarian-univ, but a true Christian cannot be -- because the
>unitarian-univ denies the John 14: 6 claim of Christ, as shown above.)
>You are correct in that I will not carry the proposed newsgroup on my
>BBS. I urge my fellow Christians to vote AGINST this proposed
>newsgroup, for the reasons already stated.
[the above is a partial quote .... ]
FWIW, Unitarian-Universalism is a religion ... we've
got the tax exemption to prove it. :)
Steve Caldwell @@ scal...@bix.com @@
[who is secure enough to put his name *and* email ID in his
sig.]
Sandra Hoyt
: l...@biostat.mc.duke.edu (Lance A. Brown) writes:
: >I have sent all the required information to the UVV coordinator. As
: >soon as the discussion period closes I will ask him to post the CFV
: >and we'll get the vote rolling.
Could you tell a neophyte how we vote. I would certainly rather read
this group than some of the other really gross groups. I just don't
subscribe to the rediculous ones. There is so much to read on the news
net that I don't waste my time on the drivel.
--
Sandra Hoyt _ () _
ho...@eskimo.com \||/
Seattle WA ____||____
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Larry Loen
|
[snip bigoted, patronizing, ignorant nonsense]
I seldom flame, but you deserve it:
Mr. Coward (what else can I call you if you won't sign your name?):
You have clearly never set foot in a Unitarian Universalist church.
You don't know who we are or what we stand for. You are quite
idiotically distorting our organization and your not very hidden
agenda is to hijack and limit the democratic process on this
world wide net to only viewpoints acceptable to your fellow
Christian bigots.
Your cheap hit-and-run tactics are transparent to a five year old.
We're not your kind of Christian, so you want to organize your
fellow bigots to vote us out. Frankly, this is the wrong grounds
to vote out anyone, least of all us. That is the net of your position,
now stated twice. That someone, somewhere doesn't believe what you
do sticks in your craw and instead of behaving like Thomas Jefferson,
you behave like any number of totalitarians of history.
In fact, some of us _are_ Christians; even trinitarian ones. We
make room for a lot of people. That seems to be our "official" crime; we
don't fit your narrow version of what "religion" is. Well, neither would
some brands of Buddhism. Why on earth should your view
disqualify us from internet when just about everyone else
you don't like (pagans, gays, muslims) are already here?
Not only are you a despicable censor, you are late to the party, and
your excuses are lame.
|>
|> Sincerely,
|>
|> Sysop
|>
|> P.S. You asked why I sign "Sysop" and not my "real name." The reason is
|> simple: this is not personal correspondence. When I write to
|> people in a personal capacity, I use my personal account.
|>
|> From the "Sysop" account, I speak for Ministry By Modem BBS.
|> (Although, make no mistake about it: I firmly believe all that I
|> say from the "Sysop" account.)
Then have the moral courage of your Savior and sign your name to the
next diatribe. I am personally insulted by your bigotry; if you continue
to hide behind "sysop" I will regard you identically to those good ol'
boys who used to hide behind white hoods. Get some guts or get out of
here. You are a coward of the worst sort; my comparison to the white
hoods is very apt; anonymity and bigotry go together, historically.
It is all too easy to do what you're doing from behind a curtain.
Try it in the sunlight, friend, and we'll see if you have even a
minimal amount of courage in your convictions.
--
Larry W. Loen | My Opinions are decidedly my own, so please
| do not attribute them to my employer
email to: lwl...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
John Booth
: The unitarian-univ religion (in its present form) dates back only 200
: years, and originated in the United States of America.
I must politely point out that you err in every detail of this statement.
Unitarianism was founded in Transylvania. The union of Unitarianism
with Universalism to form the Unitarian Universalist church is a
recent event. Please, in your future posts have the courtesy to refer
to the Unirarian Univrersalist church by is correct name.
On to substantive matters. Any attempt to prevent the formation of
a newsgroup on religious grounds violates the spirit, ethics, and
etiquette of the net. As to your previous reference to Unitarian
Universalism being a cult and not a religion, I return to my
trusty Webster's Collegiate:
cult: n 1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP.
I guess that makes your organization a cult too! Ah, the study
of language is full of pleasant surprises!
John Booth
Max Stalnaker
: I for one am opposed to the creation of the SOC.RELIGION.UNITARIAN-UNIV
: group. The unitarians deny the diety of Jesus, as well as the doctrine
: of the Trinity. Yet, according to my understanding, they claim to be
: Christian.
: Consequently, the unitarian-univ group constitutes a cult with heretical
: and blasphemous teachings; in their position, they are clearly
: ANTI-Christian.
: Therefore, I urge all Christians to join me in voting AGAINST the
: creation of this proposed newsgroup.
: Very truly yours,
: Sysop
: P.S. Although I recognize that they have the _legal_ right to free
: speech, that does not imply that I must condone their speech. By my
: free speech, and God's Holy Word, I urge all Christians to make
: themselves heard in their opposition to this proposed group.
Thanks for enlivening a boring CFD. But a Jewish lady once told me that
a cult is any religion with less than 100,000 members. If so, we are not
a cult. In fact, my understanding is that we recently attained world
regilion status, a highly technical definition triggered apparently by
the growth of our contingent in Thailand. So, technically, we stand on
the same footing, the same status, as Christianity and Islam. Thus, we
should be no more threatening to you than soc.religion.islam.
Also, you should be a bit more compassionate with us. My
understanding is that most people join Unitarian-Universalism after
having been mistreated by their original religions. And I think you are
mistreating us some more! This suggests that if you are concerned about
growth of UU membership, you should work on cleaning up your own
backyard, instead of trying to censor people whom Christian institutions
have failed.
--
stal...@acm.org Max M. Stalnaker, CNE, MSE Astar Computer Consulting
BROADWELL GEORGE AARON
I support the formation of soc.religion.unitarian.univ. I am not the
least bit persuaded that an newsgroup has to be consistent with any
sort of Christianity to be a part of USENET.
USENET is a forum for the discussion of all sorts of ideas --
there ought to be no political or religious litmus test for starting a
new newsgroup. I urge those of you out there who oppose
censorship to vote in favor of soc.religion.unitarian-univ.
--
******************************************************************************
Aaron Broadwell | `To anyone who find that grammar is a
Dept. of Anthropology | worthless finicking with trifles, I
Dept. of Linguistics and | would reply that life consists of
John Booth
: Dear Mr. Brown:
Stuff deleted here.
: The pagans, of course, do not accept these Gospel words. So, any
: organization that contains pagans, jews, and buddists, is against the
: Christian faith.
What say we cross post this to:
soc.culture.jewish
soc.religion.eastern
soc.religion.islam
alt.religion.scientology
alt.atheism
alt.atheism.moderated
alt.censorship
alt.hindu
alt.pagan
alt.religion.all-worlds
alt.religion.sabaean,
alt.religion.santaism
alt.satanism
listserv.hindu-d
and I'll bet you can think of others!
Stuff deleted again.
: The unitarian-univ is a cult because it erroneously claims to be
: consistent with the Christian faith. (More stuff deleted here.)
Final stuff deleted.
I have a question:
When was the last time a the formation of a newsgroup was
turned down because it represented a cult?
John Booth
Jim Jewett
|> When was the last time a the formation of a newsgroup was
|> turned down because it represented a cult?
talk.religion.islam.
The most famous is soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya (if I have the name right).
Both were turned down not for lack of interest, but for an excess of NO
votes from Moslems who felt that it represented heresy. (In fairness,
there were other votes against the talk.religion.islam vote, from
people fed up with the moderator hijinx in soc.religion.islam. On the
other hand, I voted YES in an attempt to keep their next jihad out of
my mailbox.)
_________ Have a favorite group or mailing list? Describe it to
| grou...@pitt.edu
jJ | Take only memories. ji...@eecs.umich.edu
\__/ Leave not even footprints. jew...@pitt.edu
ol...@mv.mv.com
group will have the wrong name. It may be that 'Unitarian' has more name
recognition, but 'Universalism' describes our faith infinitely better and
more accurately. It should have been named "Universalists" or
"Universalist&U" or something like that, but surely not that part of our
name that describes us least.
Olav - voting yes for the group, but reluctantly and feeling as though
more than 1/2 of my faith is being left out of the name
--
Max Stalnaker
: Dear Mr. Brown:
: I just read your reply to my previous message. I am affraid that you
: have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire by what you said.
: Any organization that claims to be "non-credal" is inconsistent. It is
: by our beliefs (or "creed") that acceptable beliefs are defined;
: thus, a "non-credal" orgaization has no basis to determine acceptable
: beliefs. Therefore, a truly "non-credal" orgnization would be
: accepting of all beliefs.
: So, you should be accept the beliefs that I articulated; clearly, such
: is not the case.
Actually, you put your finger on an interesting aspect of UU. IMO, the
membership is intolerant of intolerance. This is an interesting paradox
in my mind. I partially attribute it to the memberhsip having a history
of being harmed by intolerance, for instance, the intent of your
missives. After s.r.Unitarian-Univ is approved, you should raise in the
usegroup the issue for discussion.
Larry Loen
I agree that when the newsgroup is formed, "sysop" should come in and
raise the questions "he" has raised.
But, in fact, intolerance of intolerance is easy enough, at least in this
particular case. One cand and should let neoNazis, Christian Fundamentalists,
survivalists, ultraliberals, and any and all other such unconventional and
potentially bigoted groups have their say.
Sysop, however, is trying to place a religious test on the formation of
an USENET newsgroup. The "cover" story is that we aren't logically coherent
enough or something, but this pose is quickly dropped. The real agenda is
muzzling the competition. It is hardly intollerant to stand up for
equal rights; tolerance does not inherently mean turning the other
cheek or standing idly by while (say) the neoNazis take over. Some
people may define it that way, but many more do not.
The proper antidote to bigotry that leaves room for every point of view
is to let everyone have their say, but to visibly and demonstratively
oppose the forces of bigotry when they try to narrow society's options.
This is what "sysop" is clearly trying to do and I don't think it
in any genuinely sense intollerant to "call" him on it. Not only is
it against my particular interest as a UU, it is also against my
general interest as someone who loves a free society. The proper
action, in my view, is to expose these people (especially the
anonymous types -- itsn't amazing how often the bigots hide behind
some kind of mask) early and often.
In short, "sysop" can say the same thing in talk.religion.wherever,
and that's fine. But, making it an organizing principle of a
"no" vote for a CFV will get nothing but the scorn it deserves from me.
TomUpshaw
VanFosson) writes:
> The
>interpretation hinges on what does Jesus mean by "love". It is not
>acceptance or tolerance -- although Jesus also says that we should
>honor and respect one another -- but rather putting the needs and
>interests
>of others ahead of your own.
I think this was the point, to respect one another, by allowing every
religious group the freedom of speech, on the internet or elsewhere.
>The long and the short of it is that the "loving" thing that I as a
>Christian can do for someone who does not believe in Christ is to help
>them see that they are wrong.
Yes, but by censoring the free speech of non-Christians you will only
suceed in doing just the opposite: you will create a movement against your
censorship, since it will rightly be perceived as a direct attack on the
First Amendment of the Constitution. "Helping someone see that they are
wrong" is fine, but this cannot be acheived by *force*. When will you
learn that?
[deletia]
>The problem I have with your response is that you seem to think, and
>project upon Jesus, the idea that in order to "love" you I have to let
>you do whatever you want and agree that it is okay. Unfortunately, He
>didn't leave that as an option, and *consistent* with my belief system
>I, too, must oppose anything that doesn't acknowledge Christ as Lord.
So rather than convincing others you are right, you will admit the
weakness of your religious position by forcibly censoring others (denying
them a newsgroup)? This certainly says a lot about your religion and its
"values."
TomUpshaw
>I do indeed love my neighbor;
Maybe if they're Christian, that is.
>I do not condemn sinners, but I do condemn
>sins -- just as Jesus did when He taught against sin. If I were not to
>speak, I would not be loving; out of Christian love, we point out errors
>-- so that they may be confessed and corrected.
So your suggestion to censor us is supposed to somehow prevent us from
sinning? Excuse me, but that is patently ridiculous. By preventing UU's
from discussing their religious beliefs, you ultimately deny them any
chance of a healing process which may conceivably result in their going
back to Christianity if they happen to move in that direction in their
beliefs. So your censorship will just keep them angry at Christian bigotry
and hate and will accomplish the opposite of what you *claim* to support.
TomUpshaw
>Any organization that claims to be "non-credal" is inconsistent.
No, just non-creedal. We are not insecure and hence don't require a
special dogma (toll gate to heaven), in order to exclude people who have
different beliefs.
>It is by our beliefs (or "creed") that acceptable beliefs are defined;
So, who gets to choose whose beliefs are acceptable? You? LOL
>thus, a "non-credal" orgaization has no basis to determine acceptable
>beliefs. Therefore, a truly "non-credal" orgnization would be
>accepting of all beliefs.
>So, you should be accept the beliefs that I articulated; clearly, such
>is not the case.
No, actually, UUs would agree that you have the right to believe whatever
you choose. It is only when you attempt to force your beliefs on others or
censor beliefs which are different from yours, that it becomes a problem.
Try reading the Bill of Rights sometime.
>By virtue of proposing the newsgroup under SOC.RELIGION, the tacit
>assertion is that UNITARIAN-UNIV is a religion.
Which it clearly *is* and has been for several centuries.
>[deleted Biblical quote]
>The pagans, of course, do not accept these Gospel words. So, any
>organization that contains pagans, jews, and buddists, is against the
>Christian faith.
Why do you assume that people with different beliefs are somehow "against"
you? Are you that insecure in your own beliefs that you must be so
paranoid? Why can't you let us live in peace without you constantly trying
to attack us?
>The unitarian-univ is a cult because it erroneously claims to be
>consistent with the Christian faith.
As has been pointed out, this is not true. We do NOT claim this.
>Thus, no true Christian can be a
>unitarian-iniv. (It is acknowledged that some nominal Christians may be
>unitarian-univ, but a true Christian cannot be -- because the
>unitarian-univ denies the John 14: 6 claim of Christ, as shown above.)
It's really interesting how every intolerant bigot claims to have the only
key to "true" Christianity. Everyone else is presumably inferior. Heil
Sysop!
>You are correct in that I will not carry the proposed newsgroup on my
>BBS.
Then you should be replaced by someone who respects the First Amendment.
>From the "Sysop" account, I speak for Ministry By Modem BBS.
Oh, now I begin to understand why you still have a job after posting this
bigoted trash....
Kim Goolsby
and in the past I've subscribed to the UU mailing list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Goolsby Data General Corp. gool...@dg-rtp.dg.com
Technical Writer Research Triangle Park, NC 919-248-6019
Broken Hill Proprietary
As I recall, Unitarianism is a religion concerned with the
Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, and the Neighborhood
of Boston. UU's are otherwise pretty spread out so they need
some way to communicate.
Personal opinion, of course,
Will Morse
Jeanette Fielden
Jane Patterson <jpat...@willamette.edu> wrote:
>In article <19936LMOK...@mbm.com>, <sy...@mbm.com> wrote:
>>
>>Dear Ms. Patterson:
>>The unitarian-univ religion (in its present form) dates back only 200
>>years, and originated in the United States of America.
>
>The age and origin of the religion is hardly related to its merit: if it
>was, many major religions (including all the various sects and cults of
>Christianity) would be in trouble.
The scientologists have their own usenet group and they've been around less
than 50 years. The mormons have only been around slightly more than a
hundred. Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian so it's been around more than
200 years. A great many of the fundamentalist groups are less than a
century old.
Usenet is a place for everyone to discuss their ideas and beliefs.
I didn't really care whether there was a UU group but I will vote
yes for it now and urge my friends to.
My favorite quote to pharaprase Voltaire--
I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death
for your right to say it.
I think everyone has a right to speak on the net even if their beliefs
and attitudes don't conincide with mine. Yours (sysop) a case in point.
I support your right to be here and to express your opinions but I will
fight you every step of the way when you try to prevent others from
expressing theirs or dictating what can or can't be discussed on the
net.
If you don't agree with their beliefs you don't have to read them or
you can be a net.gadfly and post endlessly in their group arguing
with them.
>
>>As to Christianity be bigotted, etc. It is true that some people have
>>used the name of God for their own purposes. But, it is right and
>>proper to correctly apply God's Holy Word to daily life.
I can't remember the exact quote or where(one of the four gospels
Matthew Mark Luke or John)
but approximately
Many shall come in my name an I shall not know them all,
ala false prophets and all the rest.
>
Frances Teagle
>
>As I recall, Unitarianism is a religion concerned with the
>Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, and the Neighborhood
>of Boston.
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
Isn't it amazing how unreliable memory can be. ROTFL.
> UU's are otherwise pretty spread out so they need
> some way to communicate.
Yup, we're all over the civilised world.
>Personal opinion, of course,
>
>Will Morse
Personal opinion, of course,
Frances. _
/ \
__________________| |__________________
/ | | \
< Boston, Mass 3174 | | Boston, Lincs, 84 >
\__________________| |__________________/
| |
| |
| |
Mark Jackson
> As I recall, Unitarianism is a religion concerned with the
> Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of Man, and the Neighborhood
> of Boston. UU's are otherwise pretty spread out so they need
> some way to communicate.
That's the Whichness of Whatever and the Siblinghood of Personkind, if
you please.
You got the Boston part right, though.
---
Mark Jackson
I can speak to almost anything with a lot of authority.
- Fred Barnes
Walter Wilson
> out of Christian love, we point out errors
> so that they may be confessed and corrected.
Unitarians and Universalists have been burned at the stake
by both Catholics AND Protestants, because of their "errors";
but to paraphrase Jan Hus as the smoke started to rise:
"You can burn me, but not my message. The fire you light today will
shine for a thousand years."
I think soc.relition.unitarian-univ is appropriate
--
Walter G. Wilson (wal...@watson.ibm.com)
The opinions expressed here are my own.
Mark Line
>In article <19943LMOK...@mbm.com>, sy...@mbm.com writes:
>>It is by our beliefs (or "creed") that acceptable beliefs are defined;
>So, who gets to choose whose beliefs are acceptable? You? LOL
I've come in late to this mess, but it looks to me like some people
calling themselves "Christians" are opposed to the creation of a
newsgroup for people whose beliefs they don't like.
Thanks, guys. I've never had any contact with UU's, but this
Inquisitional crap from the Christians is plenty reason for me to vote
in favor of creation of the UU group, which I .... just did.
>>The unitarian-univ is a cult because it erroneously claims to be
>>consistent with the Christian faith.
The Christian faith is a cult because it erroneously claims to be
consistent with the truth.
>>Thus, no true Christian can be a
>>unitarian-iniv. (It is acknowledged that some nominal Christians may be
>>unitarian-univ, but a true Christian cannot be -- because the
>>unitarian-univ denies the John 14: 6 claim of Christ, as shown above.)
No Christian can ever be a true Taoist and achieve Enlightenment,
because only an enlightened Taoist lives in complete harmony with the
Tao, and no Christian can live in harmony with the Tao. Funny how
you should place such great stock in your silly little modern (merely
2000-year-old) cult. Taoists are prepared to let any of you poor,
misguided Christians live out your lives in unenlightened ignorance
that are not interested in climbing out of your well. We feel your
pain, though.
-- Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark P. Line Phone: +1-206-733-6040
Open Pathways Fax: +1-206-733-6040
P.O. Box F Email: mark...@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Bellingham, WA 98227-0296
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Smith
mark...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Mark Line) wrote:
> Thanks, guys. I've never had any contact with UU's, but this
> Inquisitional crap from the Christians is plenty reason for me to
> vote in favor of creation of the UU group, which I .... just did.
Same here. Word about this nonsense is spreading, and I think a number of
folk who otherwise wouldn't have voted are now voting yes. Hope it
continues to backfire.
Stephanie Smith -------------------------- st...@wimsey.com
Trif
Stephanie Smith <st...@wimsey.com> wrote:
>In article <1994Jul30.0...@henson.cc.wwu.edu>,
>mark...@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Mark Line) wrote:
>
>> Thanks, guys. I've never had any contact with UU's, but this
>> Inquisitional crap from the Christians is plenty reason for me to
>> vote in favor of creation of the UU group, which I .... just did.
>
>Same here. Word about this nonsense is spreading, and I think a number of
>folk who otherwise wouldn't have voted are now voting yes. Hope it
>continues to backfire.
What a way to get a newsgroup to pass, eh? Have someone make controversial
noise about the group ostensibly to get it voted down. :)
Please note that the above comment should not be construed to be an
accusation against the U-U'ers. I fully expected the newsgroup to pass
based on the very evident support present both on Usenet and in the
mailing list. They certainly did not need to "anti-woof" their proposal
through in order to get it to pass with flying colors. I too have voted
yes on this group as an action of opposition to sysop's bigotry.
le...@progress.com
I vote YES for soc.religion.unitarian-univ. I also think that
sy...@mbm.com should spend more time reading the Constitution of the
United States, instead of hiding behind a net-name and the Bible.
-Jim
Larry Loen
(Trif) writes:
[snip]
|> >Same here. Word about this nonsense is spreading, and I think a number of
|> >folk who otherwise wouldn't have voted are now voting yes. Hope it
|> >continues to backfire.
|>
|> What a way to get a newsgroup to pass, eh? Have someone make controversial
|> noise about the group ostensibly to get it voted down. :)
|>
|> Please note that the above comment should not be construed to be an
|> accusation against the U-U'ers. I fully expected the newsgroup to pass
|> based on the very evident support present both on Usenet and in the
|> mailing list. They certainly did not need to "anti-woof" their proposal
|> through in order to get it to pass with flying colors. I too have voted
|> yes on this group as an action of opposition to sysop's bigotry.
|>
|>
Thanks for your "yes" vote. But, speaking as a UU and one who has had
some contact with their very wide diversity, the one thing that would
most surprise me is for someone to be so Machiavelean. Besides, it was
a little too well done for someone who didn't believe all that stuff.
In brief, from the UUs I know, we don't have that much guile in us.
Stupidity, yes. Respect and advocacy of both the sublime and rediculous,
sure. Even occassional criminality. But I don't know anyone that could
have concocted what sysop did.
I know you didn't mean the comment seriously. But, in the current climate,
I'm feeling a little paranoid, except that so many net.adults and net.veterans
seem to be arising to put these kind of folks in their place. Thank
you all from the bottom of my heart. Keep it up.