Skip to main content

This is why I'm a universalist and a unitarian

Comments

Andrew Bethune said…
I laughed out loud when listening to this (at work, with headphones on - to the bemusement of my colleagues). However, it's not really funny at all. It truly represents what many many evangelical Christinans seem to be saying, and chimes with what my mum said to me after church one day when I was about 12 : 'You do want to go to heaven when you die, dear, don't you?'. ( My mum was a nice lady and quite kindly at heart, but that little bit of our family's theology has stuck in my mind).

Today at the university where I work the Christian Union were giving out invitations to a series of lunchtime talks.

Here are the topics:
(1) Was Muhammad wrong about Jesus?
(2) The Bible: accurate history or absurd hopes?
(3) Atheists: free thinking or foolish?
(4) How can a loving God send people to Hell?
(5) Where was God in the Holocaust?

Only 4 and 5 are open-ended questions. No 4 is about the same thing as your clip. I will go to their talks ( there is a free lunch) and will be interested to know whether God is loving and doesn't send to Hell, is loving and does send to Hell, isn't loving and sends to hell, isn't loving and doesn't send to Hell - or none of the above.
4:38 pm
Andrew Bethune said…
I listened to today's talk "How can a loving God send people to Hell?" and it was none of the above. The speaker came up with a new level of theological horror that I hadn't thought of before - God loves us and hates us at the same time ( he said). He will send us to Hell (absolute poverty, agonising pain, angry presence of God, eternal continuation of suffering)unless we believe in Jesus in a certain way. Asked by a member of the audience why Jesus being dead for approximately 3 days (Good Friday to Easter) balanced against the idea of the rest of us languishing in Hell we were told that Jesus's blood is more precious to God than ours. I don't think I've ever heard such a load of unpleasant stuff before.

For me, I see God more as a loving friend or a parent. If I make a mistake, he forgives me because he loves me. Makes me more than ever glad I am a Unitarian and Universalist. End of story.
3:54 pm
Stephen Lingwood said…
I have been known to argue from scripture with hellites on this, but I find it a bit intellectually dishonest as I don't recognise scripture as an infallible authorative rulebook. But perhaps it is worth making space for other possible biblical ideas.
10:41 am
Andrew Bethune said…
Well, I think that was one of this guy's problems. He had a very very very fixed idea of what the Bible was for ( and only his interpretation was right - "I'm sure you'll agree" was frequent mantra. I am glad to say that both the CofE and Muslim chaplains were very worried about this series of talks.

Unfortunately guys like this can't see that there are other ways of understanding the Bible's meaning and value (nor the value of other holy writings).
10:37 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Drop the Free Christian!

Let me preface what I'm going to say by first saying this: I am a Christian. It's taken me a long time to be able to say that, and to know what I mean by that, and I'm very lucky that in the Unitarian church I have been given the space to come to that decision in my own time, on my own terms. But I am a Christian, I'm more Christian now than I have been for years. Now: I want us to drop this "Free Christian" from our title. It's a silly phrase that we need to get rid of. Why? "The General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches" is a long and unwieldy title. It would be much better if we traded under something like "Unitarians in Britain." It gives the impression that there are two separate and distinct groups: "Unitarians" and "Free Christians," this is not the case. It's not that there are Unitarians (who are not Christians) and "Free Christians" who are not Unitarians. There are not two dif...
21 comments
Read more

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...
11 comments
Read more

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...
14 comments
Read more