Well, Unitarian, this all depends on how we define "God."

If we define God not as a supernatural deity but as the natural universe, then God obviously exists. Then one can be a Religious Natuarlist or a Religious Humanist and a believer in God.

(As you see, Unitarian, I cover all angles, just to be safe)

Then one can be "With or Without God," as the (in)famous Gretta Vosper proposed.

But then one can also embrace some of our beloved traditions—without being hung up on them—as I propose.

Another great book on religious humanism is David Boulton's The Trouble with God...cms

Speaking of books, this one might fit in here:

http://www.amazon.ca/Sense-Goodness-Without-God-Metaphysical/dp/1420802933/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234211775&sr=1-1

.

thanks for your post, unitarian... during my search for my faith, i looked at the unitarian church very seriously.  i really identified with many of the statements.

please, can you expand on what you are talking about here??

Thank you all for your kind responses.

Yeah, the two books are in-line with what I have suggested. We can learn more about Religious Humanism from "The Trouble with God" and (Religious) Naturalism from "Sense and Goodness Without God."  Thank you for the suggestions.

Sorry, Arminius.  I am afraid simply renaming the Universe (or anything) by the name "God" could not reach the conclusion that "God obviously exists."  Carl Sagan had once said it was meaningless to worship the law of gravity.  When we say we believe in God in the sense of a theist, we mean more than mere existence.  We believe that the God is personal (1).  Equating the Universe with God is Pantheism and the pantheists' "God" (Universe) is impersonal.  Atheists know the existence of the Universe, what makes them "a-" is their understanding of the Universe as impersonal.

sighsnootles, thank you for looking into the Unitarian Church.  No matter whether you will find it suitable for you or not in the end, I sincerely hope that the process of exploration itself is enriching and enjoyable.  I am not sure whether I could expand on what I have said.  I'll try.  Conventionally, we might think that adherence to a traditional religion or believing in God is helpful or even necessary for us to lead a meek, thankful, loving, kind, and overall good life.  We tend to associate atheists with a shallow or even sometimes wicked lifestyle.  Some have argued for these ("good" life vs "bad" life) as the benefit of theism.  I tried to say that Religious Naturalism and Religious Humanism encourage people to lead a "good" life too by inviting them to appreciate, contemplate on, and love Nature, and to value, respect, and love humankind respectively.  Religious depth can be achieve by taking Natue and Human themselves seriously and religiously, without having to speculate on a God which we don't know whether exist or not.  For something we don't know, the most appropriate thing to do is to say "we don't know."  Religious Naturalism and Religious Humanism build on concrete existing foundations---Nature and human.  And these foundations can elicit deep religious responses when taken seriously and meditatively.  For example, when I hold a piece of leaf in my hand, I can appreciate the intrincate pattern of its veins and pray to give deep thanks to Nature for her wonderful work.  When I hear news about the China earthquake last year and the Australian fire right now, and the shooting unemployment rates, I realize that those who are suffering are fellow human beings as precious as myself and I must love my fellow neighbours as myself.  I concern them in my heart and donate (or by other means) to help.  Thank Nature and Humanity there is a UU church which fully embraces my faith and I can immerse fully into an inspiring religious community; no other church can. 

1 "...if you are a theist, you believe four things about God: Your god is personal. For example you can imagine your god, you can communicate with your god. Second: God merits worship and adoration because God is good and all-powerful. Third: God is separate from our world—above us, or beyond us somehow. And fourth: God is active in our world, here and now."
http://clf.uua.org/quest/2009/01/rzepka.html

Hi Unitarian:

How can the self-generative universe be impersonal if IT exists in every person?

What defines "God" to me is transcendence, or the tarnscendental power of the universe. At the heart of the universe there are two diametrically opposed principles—the cosmic Yin and Yang—together with the transcendental power that unites and separates the two. Because I perceive the cosmos to be in an ultimate  state of synthesis, I believe the transcendental power to be an innate quality of cosmic energy. Thus, the Yin and the Yang plus the transcendental power that unites and separates he two are united in Synthesis, but separate in the analysis, with the synthesis being the ultimate truth.

If someone objects to naming the self-transcendental universe "God," then they can name IT whatever they like. The important thing is to experience IT.

(You see, Unitarian, I am preparing the groundwork for a graceful way out of the old superstitions for conventional Christians. )

Unitarian,

there is always room for more :3

(there is a UU group up in the US that I like to go to -- their services remind me *so* much of my elementary school -- festooned with encouragement)

Laughing with the divine,

Inannawhimsey

More like brother and sister I'm finding as I explore the Progressive Christian movement . My position sometimes leans toward Religious Naturalism, but I'd need to explore it more to be sure. I'm glad to see another UU "face" around here.

Dear Arminius,

On the contrary, how can the Universe be personal if "persons" emerge only in the last minutes of Its life?  "Person" is just the illusion generated by a complex neuronal network (sorry, I'm consistently naturalistic).  Human might tend to think that the Universe is personal, just as horses might tend to think that the Universe is horse-like.  Understanding the Universe to be personal is to project our own nature to the Universe; science, on the other hand, draws an impartial picture of the Universe itself and hence is more reliable.  "Trancendental power" and "Yin/Yang" (of Taosim) can well be impersonal.  The notion that the Universe being "self-transcendental" is unproven at best and might even be cognitively meaningless.  I would avoid this kind of language.  Sorry if this offend.  Experience the Universe, yes, but no need to say that it is "self-transcendental" or not.

That said, I really appreciate your efforts of understanding and articulating the theistic faith in general concepts and terms, leaving behind the superstition of conservative Christianity.  Keep on your good work!

Hi Unitarian: Please keep on saying what you want to say without fearing to offend me; I can't be offended because I choose not to take offence.

Of course the universe is naturalistic, and is reflected in everyone and everything, including the life form that understands this conceptually, Homo sapiens sapiens.

In the synthetical universe that I envision, all is one, and all are one. Synthetical Truth cannot be expressed analytically, at least not with absolute truthfulness, but it can be experienced, and is being experienced, with absolute truthfulnees, in the pure, unconceptualized experience. The interpretations of that experience,  however, are neither wrong nor right but metaphorical. My homespun pilosophies are my creations, and not absolutely true.

The Pew Forum asked, "Is it necessary to believe in God in order to be moral?" http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=373

Ethical Culture www.aeu.org , an incarnation of Religious Humanism, is the most direct answer to this question.  It proudly announces a loud "NO" by its very name.

The answer to the "Science and Religion" problem can be very straight forward:

First, draw the best picture of reality by science impartially.

Then, build a religion based on the picture drawn by science.

This is Religious Naturalism. 

Dear Arminius,

Beautifully said.  Thank you.  I love "Homo sapiens sapiens."  I might be pushing you: Why not experience and revere and thank and meditate and love the Universe itself but creating some "Synthetical Truth" (a lot of people had invented a lot of funny names) that nobody understands? (sorry again, I meant to be frank, not harsh)

A book by the president of a Unitarian Seminary - Saving Pardise _ R Parker ( and Rita Brock)  They are process theologians and share with many Unitarians the influence of Whitehead - thus are panentheists - which many Unitarian Theologians are:

Please join us for a fascinating lecture!

"Neurobiology and Affective Psychology"
By Thandeka

Tuesday, February 17, 2009
7:00 to 8:30 p.m.
Albrecht Auditorium, Claremont Graduate University

In addition to teaching at Meadville Lombard Theological School, Thandeka is President of the Center for Community Values (www.the-ccv.org), and an affiliated minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Rockford, Illinois. She is the author of The Embodied Self: Friedrich Schleiermacher's Solution to Kant's Problem of the Empirical Self, and Learning to Be White: Race, Money and God in America. Her current research focuses on the nature, structure, and meaning of human affection and empathy in religious communities.

Thandeka's approach is interdisciplinary, drawing on historical theology, contemporary self-psychology, race and class theories, gender and cultural studies.

She has taught in the philosophy department at San Francisco State University, the religion department at Williams College, and has been a Fellow at the Stanford Humanities Center at Stanford University and a visiting scholar at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Before receiving her doctorate in philosophy of religion and theology from Claremont Graduate School, Thandeka was an Emmy award-winning television producer for sixteen years. An ordained Unitarian Universalist minister and theologian, she was given the !Xhosa name Thandeka, which means "one who is loved by God," by Bishop Desmond Tutu in 1984.

This lecture is free and open to the public. For more information, please call (909) 621-5330 or visit our web site at www.processthought.info.

_______________________

Hi Unitarian, Thanks for posting these links. SO that's what I am! I like the way you slice your cake. I was thinking perhaps I should call myself a poetic naturalist, Like Richard Carrier describes in the interview with him in the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There) but it seems this is the same as a religious naturalist. (I do prefer the word poetic to religious...) I used to be a pagan, then I thought perhaps I was just an atheist. I am spiritual, but unlike Arminius I refuse to use the word god. I don't like the word. But Arminius has been here a long time, and he is very happy with his personal way of experiencing and describing the universe. He will debate with you forever about the word God, and synthesis/analysis. He's got the best kind of take I can imagine on the word god. ; )

Arminius, a personal question though: Do you pray to God as you see it? Perhaps your prayer is a wordless meditation, a communion with existance? Do you seek to influence events in prayer by asking for things? That would sound like the Secret, or like Wicca~ (I like how things tie in together when you know enough.) But do you believe God hears you? Do you think it's possible to unite human minds to affect a change? OK, so it was 5 questions... But ya know, I think you might enjoy the Universalist church just as much as the United. Perhaps there would be more kindred spirits there. Heck, I think I might enjoy the Universalist group!

Hi Unitarian:

Please be critical without apologizing for it!

By "synthetical" I mean "being in a state of synthesis" or "pertaining to synthesis or a state of synthesis."

And, as I've said many times before, I believe and feel the universe to be in an ultimate state of synthesis.

Yes, I agree. I attach no supernatural connotation to the term "God"—"Universe itself" and "God" are the same to me. As I said before, by proposing that the two terms might be used interchangeably, I am pointing to a graceful way out of the imitativeness of the traditionalist Church into the creativeness of a freely creative, spiritual culture.

Where is the summer, the unimaginable

Zero summer?

-T.S. Eliot

Hi Elanorgold:

Yes, you guessed it! My prayers are meditative/contemplative attempts to link my individual self with the cosmic divine, to obliterate my sense of self and just be (the cosmic divine). This comes easy to me, as you will realize when reading on.

I don't believe in an interventionist God, and I frown on prayer as a petition for the fulfilment of wishes.

All this being said, the only time I earnestly prayed for the fulfilment of an unselfish wish, it was fulfilled beyond my wildest expectations!

One evening, after my evening meditation, I prayed to Jesus Christ to grant me a revelation of God. Two hours later I experienced the evolution of the/a universe, beginning with nothing and ending with the world of today. It was a six hour vision, during which I experienced and was the self-evolving universe! Ever since I feel at-one with the self-generative universe.

"shrooms last 6 hours?

Hi Atheisto:

I am constantly feeding off this huge, astronomically immense, cosmic mushroom. This has made me so delusional that I actually identify with IT.

Now, don't you tell me that the cosmos does not exist. It does! And don't tell me I can't identify with it. I do!

My universe, of course, is in a state of synthesis. Anyone can identify with IT.

Welcome to the Big Shroom!

Your Paradoxical Oxymoron,

Arminius

Hi Arminius, shrooms aside, why did you pray to Jesus for a revelation of god? You sound fulfilled by meditation and linking up to the universe in an atheist way. Or was that before you felt so right with the universe? Do you still believe in Jesus? Was your vision proof of Jesus's exixtance to you? At first you sound atheist, but then when you mention Jesus, you sound christian... I'm confused...

Elanorgold....paraphrasing the X-files...you are not alone.

Well, Elanorgold, I practiced Zen meditation for a long time prior to the event, was pretty much spiritual beyond belief (and I still am), but on the evening before my Peak Experience of cosmic evolution, I had a lesser mystical experience of three spheres of light within a bubble. Ah, the Holy Trinity!, I thought (not that I believe in the Holy Trinity). All day that day I had the feeling that there was a greater vision yet to come, and on that day I decided to return to the religion of my culture (not that I believe in it, just because it is all the same anyway, and I wanted to support the religion of my culture). After my evening meditation that evening I prayed to "Jesus Christ" for a geometric revelation of God, which I subsequently received.

As I said repeatedly, my spirituality is entirely experiential and beyond belief. Although I interpret my experiences, I regard my interpretations as metaphorical. If I have one single belief, then it is the belief in the synthesis as the ultimate Truth, which is sort of a nothing belief that can't be defined.

I prefer to describe my spirituality in philosophical poetry:

GETTING IT

IT is we; we are IT.

We can't comprehend IT without experiencing IT,

But we can experience IT without comprehending IT—

For we are IT!

IT reveals everything;

IT explains nothing.

The interpretations

Of ITs revealtions

Are our creations.

Yes I believe in our creations too, and to simply exist and experience. I can understand you're wanting to return to a part of your own cultural upbringing, "supporting" it. Many people do. I think it good and wise that you go way beyond that too though. Thanks for the explanation. I Get IT. : )

Atheisto: "You Are Not Alone" is also a quote from Dr. Who. Have you been watching that too? Professor Y.A.N.A... Awesome show!

Hi Elanorgold:

Looks like you really picked those Golden Apples!

We grow Golden Delicious here in the Okanagan.

Panentheism,
Thank you for the suggestion.  I love the tradition of diveristy of UUism and all the faiths represented, particularly panentheism.  I just think personally that the naturalistic worldview, by doing away with "God" altogether, is more straight-forward.  Thandeka seems to be a spiritually attractive figure.  Thank you for The Center for Community Values www.the-ccv.org, that is very useful for our budding small group.  What a pity that the center seems not very active after 2006.  Are they still functioning?

Elanorgold,
Glad that you identify with what I have introduced.  I like the name "poetic naturalist" too.  As you have mentioned the terms "atheist" and "spiritual", you may call yourself a Spiritual Atheist too.  A Spiritual Atheist is, to me, more or less a Poetic Naturalist or Religious Naturalist, as Naturalism is by definition atheistic.  Yes, I think you and Arminius might enjoy a UU church/group.

Arminius,
What is "synthesis"?  What is/are the evidence(s) for existence of "synthesis?
Equating Universe with God is Pantheism. Will you call yourself a Pantheist?  Why and why not?
If there were parallel Universes, will you call other Universes "God" (or "God number 2", "God number 3", ...)?
Why didn't you pray to Lao Tze for the revelation of Tao to you?  How did you know your 6-hour vision was from God and not from Tao?  Second Elanorgold, will you consider taking a step further and going beyond your own cultural upbringing?
That said, really appreciate your effort of navigating away from traditionalist Christianity towards a more general understanding of God.

Panentheism,
Thank you for the suggestion.  I love the diversified tradition of UUism all the faiths represented, including that of panentheists.  Personally, I just think that the naturalistic worldview, by doing away with "God" altogether, is more straight-forward.  Thandeka seems to be a respectful figure.  Thank you for The Center for Community Values www.the-ccv.org, that is very useful for our budding small group.

Elanorgold,
Glad that you identify with what I have introduced.  I like the name "poetic naturalist" too.  As you have mentioned the terms "atheist" and "spiritual", you may call yourself a Spiritual Atheist too.  A Spiritual Atheist is, to me, more or less a Poetic Naturalist or Religious Naturalist, as Naturalism is by definition atheistic.  Yes, I think you and Arminius might enjoy a UU church/group.

Arminius,
What is "synthesis"?  What is/are the evidence(s) for existence of "synthesis?
Equating Universe with God is Pantheism. Will you call yourself a Pantheist?  Why and why not?
If there were parallel Universes, will you call other Universes "God" (or "God number 2", "God number 3", ...)?
Second Elanorgold, why didn't you pray to Lao Tze for the revelation of Tao to you?  How did you know your 6-hour vision was from God and not from Tao?  Will you consider taking a step further and going beyond your own cultural upbringing?
That said, really appreciate your effort of navigating away from traditionalist Christianity towards a more general understanding of God.

How to delete my own post?

This may be slightly off topic but I have a question for Unitarians.  A few years ago, as part of a group studying other faiths I visited the local Unitarian church.  I was very impressed with what I heard and felt that if I ever left the United Church of Canada this might be the one I was attracted to  (we also visited a synagogue and a mosque and had a native spirituality person speak to us).

I ask, "Could a person be a Christian and the Unitarian at the same time?"  and I was told "No.  It would not be possible."

You claim the the UU and the UCC are cousins.  While they may share in lot of beliefs, they must be distant cousins because the last I heard the UCC is a Christian church.

Hi Unitarian: No need to delete your double post. It makes it doubly impressive.

"Synthesis" is a state of inseparable wholeness or oneness. Synthesis is also the diametric opposite of analysis.

To me, the evidence for the existence of synthesis is the Principle of Complementarity, whereby opposites necessiate each other. The Principle of Complementarity is also enshrined in the Principle of Proof in mathematics, wherein the thesis and the antithesis prove each other truthful. Far more than just explaining the particle/wave duality—and unity—the Principle of Complementarity appears to be THE underlying scientific and spiritual principle: A pair of diameteric opposites, united and/or seperated by the transcendental power that unites and/or separates the two. This is enshrined in the Yin/Yang symbol of Taosim. And, to me, it is also the interpretation of the Holy Trinity.

I don't adhere to any belief system. My spirituality is entirely intuitive and experiential, and my cosmic interpretations are speculative philosophy or metaphor. I could be regarded as an atheist, agnostic, pantheist or panentheist. I prefer to call my faith "spiritual atheism."

If there are parallel universes, I would regard all of them as one inseparable whole, and would call IT God, but those who are offended by the word "God" can call IT anything they like.

"TAO" and "God" are the same to me. I could just as easily have prayed for a revelation of the TAO, and just as easily prayed to Lao Tsu or Gautama the Buddha as to Jesus Christ, or even Mohammed—whose name be praised.

If the universe we analyze exists, and the analysis of it is true, then this same universe must also be in a state of synthesis, and the synthesis must be equally true. I regard the synthesis as more true, because it is the actual state of reality, whereas analysis constitutes a fragmentation of that state. The cosmic synthesis, however, can only be intuited or experienced, and is being expereinced, in the pure, undifferentiated or unanalyzed experience, as in intuition or meditation.

As you may realize, I have already gone one step further, beyond my cultural upbringing. In taking that step, I realized that all religious expressions are unique artistic expressions of the same mysterious reality in which we are implicated and which we, in the Christian tradition, call "God."

I trust that this answers all your questions.

seeler,

"Could a person be a Christian and the Unitarian at the same time?"

This super-short answer may suffice:

UU Christian Fellowhip  =  www.uuchristian.org

Hi seeler: I know a few Christians who were/are Unitarians.

I even know some Christians who are atheists.

Being "Christian" just ain't what it used to be.

How "Christian" was Jesus? The term and concept did not even exist, then. The movement around Jesus and John the Baptist was a spiritual movement, loosely based on the Judaic faith, but also different from it because it was totally inclusive.

Boy, I just discovered this long discussion, so I can only add an experiential comment. I attended the Unitarian Church in Vancouver for some 12 years of my adult life. I seldom felt "spiritual" about anything and found myself constantly in intellectual discussions on the nature of God, etc. Although there were people of all faiths there, few were encouraged to promote their own views. It was just a fuzzy ball of feel-good people in the end. I am now one of those "emerging" Christians (or atheistic Christians?)

God, for me, as I have said enough in other discussions, is a part of me because It created me, as it did all living forms through evolution. I am the only form that clearly is able to form a personal relationship with the "God-chip" within, and I am glad for this. God placed a part of Itself in every level of living creature (I believe). Our personal relationship with this God is OURS. It is totally experiential and personal -different for every person (as it should be). This Creative Force has evolved into a very complex force over time (Yes, God lives in Time). It does not intervene in our lives. It does not need to. It is a part of our lives at all times. We only need to use our divine selves to have a personal relationship with God. I suppose a dog would have a divine doggie relationship with its God. I don't know how dogs relate. It may just be that all of this evolution has been this God recreating Itself in another form.

Whoops...Humans becoming Gods? Well why not? It could be that this is the whole purpose of our evolution. We are not doing very well with this right now, but perhaps isn another 2000 years we will be able to read minds, to levitate and even walk on water. I don't know what God wants to look like, so this is just silly speculation. I rather suspect that when we die, we are recycled into our original Creative (and divine) Source. Somehow, sometime, somewhere, for some obscure reason....

Hi LumbyLad, 

Did you see the thread about Progressive Christianity and Unitarian Universalism?  There have been no posts on it for a few days, but it is still easy to find.  Mendalla, who is active in a Unitarian congregation, made several very interesting posts about UU.