Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

Talk:Unitarian Universalism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

So it's more or less the "First Amalgamated Church" from Furturama.— Unsigned, by: Kill Master / talk / contribs

I used to be a participant in them - I used to go to services of the Unitarian church here in Australia (which is kind of an international cousin of the UUA, not quite the same but pretty similar), and I used to be a member of the "Church of the Larger Fellowship" (i.e. mail outreach org) of the UUA in the USA. But the thing that ended up putting me off them was the very fact they didn't believe in anything in particular. There was nothing to agree with, nothing to disagree with, just some wiff-waff which was so vague few decent people could possibly disagree with it. I think the original Unitarians or Universalists weren't that bad - they had some definite beliefs then, be those beliefs right or wrong. The problem started when they let all the humanists in - they stopped believing in God then, but they didn't start believing in atheism or agnosticism either. They just decided to stop believing in anything - you lot all believe what you want. They aren't really a religion any more, because religions believe in things, and this church believes in nothing in particular. --(((Zack Martin))) 22:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Orthopraxy. Heard of it? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
True, but they don't really have any fixed practices either. Their services are pretty well anything goes, within limits. The only limit they seem to have, in belief or practice, is rejection of certain ideas, like racism or homophobia - and it's good they reject them. But their religion is purely negative - here are the things we don't do and we don't believe in. OK, but what do you do, what do you believe in? Anything and everything, except for the things we don't. --(((Zack Martin))) 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I always saw the Unitarian Universalists as an organization providing the machinery of church to free-thinkers, so they would not actually have to agree on any doctrine or practice. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any problems with the UU church, at least they do not shove religion down people's throats and they accept other religious groups. Plus they provide ministry training for more obscure religions. So all in all I have respect for the UU church.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

UU Joke[edit]

I recall hearing some joke where an atheist is trying to run for some public office and he says to his friend "I can't get elected, I'm an atheist." Then his friend says, "That's why god gave us the Unitarian church, son." Anyone know where this comes from? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is why the UUs have been so much more successful in the US, than their cousins in some other countries. Because a lot of Americans feel some need to go to church even if they don't believe in any of it, so a church that doesn't believe in anything attracts them. In other countries, not so many people who feel that way - if you don't believe you, you just don't go. --(((Zack Martin))) 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So where is the boundary between UUCs and 'broad and hazy' Anglicans (as distinct from 'Low and Lazy' and 'High and Crazy' (ie Anglo-Catholicism? (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Anglicans still have a long list of things you are supposed to believe (e.g. 39 Articles), although you can quite easily get away with doubting or questioning most of them, and if they don't say what you want, you can always reinterpret them to say something else. Anglicans at least put on an act of believing in something (and some of them really do, and others really don't). But UUs don't even pretend to believe things. They explicitly advertise themselves as non-creedal, "you can join us and believe whatever you want". Anglicans don't claim that officially, even if some of them follow that in practice. UUs think that's a good thing; I think it's like a political party without a platform "vote for us, we'll do whatever we feel like at the time!". Why should anyone vote for them? Likewise, if UUs don't believe anything in particular, why join? Why not just sit on the couch and watch television? Or go for a jog or bikeride? Or to the movies or a cafe? Or read a book? (((Zack Martin))) 19:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Community. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You can get community in a lot of other ways. Sports, hobbies, bookclubs, etc. (((Zack Martin))) 08:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Not the same kind, though. Most book-clubs do not last hundreds of years, as a large number of churches have. One does not grow up in a particular book-club with the expectation that one will attend that book-club their entire lives (the church's influence began to wane about the time that the Industrial Revolution disrupted the old patterns of church-going). Churches (with the exception of some modern "WITNESS TO THE GOSPEL OF JAYZUS EVERY SINGLE MINUTE!" evangelical megachurches) are not focused around a special interest. Before the State took over large parts of the social safety net, and to a limited extent still today, the church acted as its backbone and/or clearing-house. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
What you describe is true of some churches, but not true of many. A number of evangelical or Pentecostal Protestant churches I've been involved in, to varying degrees, they very much have this deliberate ignorance of church history, the last book of the NT was written, and then bang we reach today. Even in terms of their own recent history, I wouldn't say they hide it, but they often have a deliberate disinterest in where they came from or how they fit into the bigger picture. Denominational links when they exist are often de-emphasised; the church while formally being linked to a larger denomination won't highlight this fact. Denominational boundaries are loose anyway - people frequently switch churches, because they move or because they like the service better or because of where their friends are going (one person I know, he switched churches because he didn't want to go to the same church as his ex), they'll interact with people from other churches in parachurch groups, etc., and there is no real sense of sticking within the boundaries of the denomination. (Now, switch to a very different style of Christianity, like Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, or liberal Protestantism, or so on, that'll get noticed.)
On the other side of the fence, my family background is Catholic. Catholicism does have a much clearer notion of being connected to history. But one can scarcely call the Catholic Church a community, it is way too big for that. The individual parish, that's a community. But while one might grow up a Catholic expecting to be a Catholic for life, one is unlikely to spend one's whole life in the one parish. The modern reality of inter-suburb, inter-city, inter-state, inter-nation migration ensures that. But, it's not really a modern reality — migration has been a fact of life for centuries, millennia.
So I don't think your description of churches really matches the reality — maybe sometimes it does, but in many cases it doesn't — more some romanticised idea of church that you have. And a bookclub may not last for a hundred years, but its members won't either, so why should they care? Friendships tend to last as long as both parties still find value in them, some are short-lived, but others last a lifetime. 'Community' is basically just an interlocking grid of friendship and/or family connections. (((Zack Martin))) 01:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Community is exactly why I spent a lot of time in a UU congregation. It has been said that the UU church is a haven for agnostics with children, which fit my case right down to the ground; my kids were in elementary school, and our local congregation seemed like good folks, with a fully functioning Religious Education (RE) program. Civilize the little savages, give them a little exposure to discussion of ethics and acceptance in group time with peers outside of the M-F, 9-3 school context that so many of us learn to despise. Also the choir director was cute, and it gave me a chance to do some group music-making. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


As far as i'm aware, most reliable souces give it sums [1], [2] Pass a Method (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reinserted Chrisian category/template[edit]

While individual UU's identify as following any number of belief/non-belief systems, the UU church came out of the Christian tradition/is part of the history of Christianity (especially in the USA) and still acknowledges its Christian roots in its mission statement. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 16:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

UUism is distinct from Christianity and having the template here is misleading, since it's not a Christian religion. Having the Christianity template here is like having it in Islam. The tenants of UUism, such as they are, have no overlap with the tenants of Christianity. I'm removing the template. (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

UU Christmas carol: "It Came Upon a Midnight Clear"; also: "Jingle Bells." — Unsigned, by: Mcm / talk / contribs

Early History[edit]

Technically both Unitarianism and Universalism have been present in Christian thought for for millennium, this may be important to note because it provides justification for their beliefs on the basis of tradition which as you all know is very important for a religious sect to have. Arianism, Sabellianism, and Psilanthropism were all basically Unitarian. Some people who espoused Universalist (though not Unitarian) beliefs are, Origen, Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Didymus the Blind, Diodorus of Tarsus, Saint Macrina the Younger, Titus of Bostra, and probably Saint Isaac of Nineveh. Hence it may be justifiable to reinstate the "Christian" template. Alsto003 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Alex

For somewhat practical reasons, I think that template should be there. As described somewhere above, UU is a kind of amorphous blob whose territory includes Christianity and the grey area at the boundaries of Christianity. Analagously, a purist may not like frozen yoghurt and ice cream being in the same section of the store, but, practically speaking, they're close enough to belong together. MarmotHead (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You had me at dessert related analogy... B4Xiphos (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)