Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Unitarian Universalism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Source: [DOC

    WHAT IS THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION teachersites.schoolworld.com/.../WHAT%20IS%20THEOLOGICAL%20..]

    The explicit goal of theological reflection is not a dogmatic statement or a contribution to academic theology. Its goal is pastoral and practical: it aims at transformation of social structures and institutions and at fuller personal integration and conversion.

    As a result, it criteria for truth and value are practical as well. This theological reflection is “true” and successful when it liberates the fullest living of the Christian spirit possible in the context, the fullest and most aware response to what the Spirit of God is doing here and now and inviting us to do. As a result, it criteria for truth and value are practical as well. This theological reflection is “true” and successful when it liberates the fullest living of the Christian spirit possible in the context, the fullest and most aware response to what the Spirit of God is doing here and now and inviting us to do.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #32
      High fog index. Try a dictionary. Maybe even common sense. "Transformation of social structures and institutions ...," that might be something the International House of Justice or the Vatican could reflect on--if they wanted to be open to a little revelation.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        High fog index. Try a dictionary. Maybe even common sense. "Transformation of social structures and institutions ...," that might be something the International House of Justice or the Vatican could reflect on--if they wanted to be open to a little revelation.
        I am doing exactly that. I refer to authorities that provide good concise definitions, which represents good common sense. Yes, the problem is you are creating the High Fog Index by presenting a confusing description of 'Theological Reflection, which is not how it is used. I can provide several more references, but I doubt it would help.

        As described the Universal [not International] House of Justice and the Baha'i Faith as a whole does consult on 'change' as in science, and the evolving body of scientific knowledge as a form of revelation. Probably all religions and faiths involve some form of 'Theological, or Philosophical Reflection,' even UUs, but the purpose as defined is not Revelation, nor change in Doctrine nor Dogma of the foundation of the belief systems..
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-23-2014, 08:25 AM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          I am doing exactly that. I refer to authorities that provide good concise definitions, which represents good common sense. Yes, the problem is you are creating the High Fog Index by presenting a confusing description of 'Theological Reflection, which is not how it is used. I can provide several more references, but I doubt it would help.

          As described the Universal [not International] House of Justice and the Baha'i Faith as a whole does consult on 'change' as in science, and the evolving body of scientific knowledge as a form of revelation. Probably all religions and faiths involve some form of 'Theological, or Philosophical Reflection,' even UUs, but the purpose as defined is not Revelation, nor change in Doctrine nor Dogma of the foundation of the belief systems..
          I think you are missing my point. I am using the terms 'theological reflection' in a very normal sense of those terms. I do not think that its purpose is to be some kind of revelation or to change doctrine, nonetheless it certainly has contributed to the development of doctrine in the Christian tradition. In my discussions with you, you have presented some spiritual laws that you say cannot change without a new revelation, eg, the religious leadership of women. This is somewhat different from what has occurred and is still occuring in the Christian tradition. For example, you attribute the rejection of slavery to a new Revelation, whereas other religions did not need to attribute such progress to a new Revelation contained in new Holy Scriptures. Your critism of Christiannity sometimes seems to presume that Christians must share your own literalist view of some fixed spiritual laws that cannot change without a new revelation. Certainly many Christian fundamentalists do share your approach, but many do not and you prefer not to acknowledge or discuss those approaches found within the Christian tradition. It is also ironic that you will not acknowledge this same weakness when it is found in your own view of Revelation. You would prefer not to discuss those examples. If that is not true, prove me wrong and be willing to discuss your own views of Revelation from the same critical perspective that you direct toward other religions.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            ... Universal [not International] House of Justice ...
            Oops, sorry, I read that once on the Baha'i library website and it just seemed to stick, sounds too much like the International House of Pancakes! Is the original language for the name of this body Arabic? Happen to know the actual terms used?
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              Oops, sorry, I read that once on the Baha'i library website and it just seemed to stick, sounds too much like the International House of Pancakes! Is the original language for the name of this body Arabic? Happen to know the actual terms used?
              Never was described as such on the Baha'i library website. Sarcasm noted.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #37
                is this about baha'i stuff or unitarian universalism?
                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  I think you are missing my point. I am using the terms 'theological reflection' in a very normal sense of those terms.
                  No you have not, nor have you cited a source using it that way

                  I do not think that its purpose is to be some kind of revelation or to change doctrine,
                  Back peddling, yes you did.

                  nonetheless it certainly has contributed to the development of doctrine in the Christian tradition.
                  You are contradicting your above statement.

                  In my discussions with you, you have presented some spiritual laws that you say cannot change without a new revelation, eg, the religious leadership of women.
                  I was not as specific at this as you claim. I actually do not know how things will be changed in the future, nor how the revelation in this case would be.

                  This is somewhat different from what has occurred and is still occurring in the Christian tradition. For example, you attribute the rejection of slavery to a new Revelation, whereas other religions did not need to attribute such progress to a new Revelation contained in new Holy Scriptures.
                  The opposition to slavery in Christianity has been too inconsistent, and violent, because Bible scripture still endorses slavery without any clear guidance of the rejection of slavery. This remains the problem for many conflicting and contradictory issues in the modern world. The revelation of the absolute spiritual law against slavery was revealed in the Baha'i scripture and now is the international standard. Yes it is somewhat different between the Baha'i Faith and Christian tradition. There is not much change in Christianity except for more churches and sects teaching inconsistent beliefs. The fundamental Doctrines and Dogma Christianity is set in Old World archaic concrete and will not change. It still remains that 50% or more of the Christians in the USA reject the science of evolution (46% of the whole population). There is too much division rejection of science, and clinging to ancient beliefs such as the Fall and Original Sin for their to be any significant leadership for the world for true change.

                  Your criticism of Christianity sometimes seems to presume that Christians must share your own literalist view of some fixed spiritual laws that cannot change without a new revelation.
                  Sometime seems . . . makes assumptions about my view that are incorrect.

                  Never said the literalist rule in either my own nor any particular view. I did say that 50% or more of all Christians in America reject evolution and that is pretty consistent without much change in recent years.

                  Certainly many Christian fundamentalists do share your approach, but many do not and you prefer not to acknowledge or discuss those approaches found within the Christian tradition.
                  They just make up more then 50% of the Christians in this country, and remain an unchanged force in Christianity. No I never said this represents all Christians. The clinging to absolute no change in the basic doctrines and dogma of Christianity does represent by far the majority and the only change here results in more churches, based on archaic ancient literature, does come around and bite those seeking change, because the apostles and the Church fathers believed in the literal Bible, and Christian Theocracy.

                  It is also ironic that you will not acknowledge this same weakness when it is found in your own view of Revelation. You would prefer not to discuss those examples. If that is not true, prove me wrong and be willing to discuss your own views of Revelation from the same critical perspective that you direct toward other religions.
                  I could hardly be able to prove anything from your stone wall perspective. The Baha'i Faith acknowledges 'change in many things like science where there is impossible consensus in the confusion in Christian churches.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-23-2014, 08:55 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                    is this about baha'i stuff or unitarian universalism?
                    I prefer UU, but robrecht is pressing his agenda. UU did adopt Baha'i principles in their Humanist Manifesto. Including the common ground of many principles and beliefs, the UU has much in common with the Baha'i Faith. The difference is the UU is dominantly humanist, an the Baha'i Faith is Theist.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-24-2014, 08:42 AM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Never was described as such on the Baha'i library website. Sarcasm noted.
                      Yes it was. I was not being sarcastic.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        No you have not, nor have you cited a source using it that way
                        I have no need to be dependent upon sources when using normal words in their normal sense.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Back peddling, yes you did.
                        No, you are proving that you completely misunderstand. My point has always been that a literalist, propositional approach to revelation in closed written scriptures is not needed when one can accept the validity of theological reflection.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        You are contradicting your above statement.
                        Try to at least quote a full sentence at a time and you may be able to better understand. Just because theological reflection has produced new doctrines, sometimes over the course of several centuries, does not mean that the theological reflection was seen (then or now) or ever intended as a form of revelation or to produce new doctrine.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        I was not as specific at this as you claim. I actually do not know how things will be changed in the future, nor how the revelation in this case would be.
                        Yes you have been exactly as specific as I claim. See here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post110921 "As far as change, I do not believe this could change by other means, based on my review of the writings." I notice that you have again refused to address this issue.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        The opposition to slavery in Christianity has been too inconsistent, and violent, because Bible scripture still endorses slavery without any clear guidance of the rejection of slavery. This remains the problem for many conflicting and contradictory issues in the modern world.
                        History is messy, no doubt. How many Christians today endorse slavery?

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        The revelation of the absolute spiritual law against slavery was revealed in the Baha'i scripture and now is the international standard. Yes it is somewhat different between the Baha'i Faith and Christian tradition.
                        The great majority of people in the world have probably never heard of the Baha'i Faith so it is difficult to consider their revelation as the international standard.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        There is not much change in Christianity except for more churches and sects teaching inconsistent beliefs. The fundamental Doctrines and Dogma Christianity is set in Old World archaic concrete and will not change. It still remains that 50% or more of the Christians in the USA reject the science of evolution (46% of the whole population). There is too much division rejection of science, and clinging to ancient beliefs such as the Fall and Original Sin for their to be any significant leadership for the world for true change.

                        Sometime seems . . . makes assumptions about my view that are incorrect.

                        Never said the literalist rule in either my own nor any particular view. I did say that 50% or more of all Christians in America reject evolution and that is pretty consistent without much change in recent years.
                        I am assessing your approach the best I can in the midst of your refusal to speak directly to this issue. If you want to correct my assessment, all you need do is speak.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        They just make up more then 50% of the Christians in this country, and remain an unchanged force in Christianity. No I never said this represents all Christians. The clinging to absolute no change in the basic doctrines and dogma of Christianity does represent by far the majority and the only change here results in more churches, based on archaic ancient literature, does come around and bite those seeking change, because the apostles and the Church fathers believed in the literal Bible, and Christian Theocracy.

                        I could hardly be able to prove anything from your stone wall perspective. The Baha'i Faith acknowledges 'change in many things like science where there is impossible consensus in the confusion in Christian churches.
                        My 'stone wall' perspective. You are the one who is stonewalling here. I am trying to get you to speak freely about what I consider an important issue.
                        Last edited by robrecht; 10-24-2014, 11:43 AM. Reason: Corrected HTML tag
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                          is this about baha'i stuff or unitarian universalism?
                          It started out in this thread about my advice to you as to the the liklihood that Shuny would address the history of Christian theology as opposed to his standard critique, which is ironically enough never directed toward his own beliefs in a self-critical fashion. It originally began in a few other threads, especially one of his own threads in which Shuny argued that theism, which he laters restricted to Christian theism, was contrary to freedom of thought. He abandonded that thread, his own thread, I believe because he was shown to be contradicting himself on this point, and, in his own words, because it became 'muddled'. One of the items with which it became muddled was an argument he was having about Unitarian Universalism; so he started this thread rather than continue his participation in his other thread. I have also tried to discuss this issue with him in a thread on Revelation and in another of his threads on the Baha'i Faith. He is free to discuss this wherever he chooses, if he ever does choose to discuss this. My 'agenda' is merely to have this discussion with him whereever he so chooses.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            Yes it was. I was not being sarcastic.
                            You would have to cite the Baha'i source to justify this. Your sarcasm was in equating UHJ with the International House of Pancakes.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              It started out in this thread about my advice to you as to the the liklihood that Shuny would address the history of Christian theology as opposed to his standard critique, which is ironically enough never directed toward his own beliefs in a self-critical fashion. It originally began in a few other threads, especially one of his own threads in which Shuny argued that theism, which he laters restricted to Christian theism, was contrary to freedom of thought. He abandonded that thread, his own thread, I believe because he was shown to be contradicting himself on this point, and, in his own words, because it became 'muddled'. One of the items with which it became muddled was an argument he was having about Unitarian Universalism; so he started this thread rather than continue his participation in his other thread. I have also tried to discuss this issue with him in a thread on Revelation and in another of his threads on the Baha'i Faith. He is free to discuss this wherever he chooses, if he ever does choose to discuss this. My 'agenda' is merely to have this discussion with him whereever he so chooses.
                              First, I did not bring up the Baha'i Faith in this thread, you 'choose' to. Second, I did not abandon any threads. They are still active if you wish to stay on topic and address you problems with the Baha'i Faith in those threads. Third your challenging statements are unwarranted in this thread, and I have responded to everything you have posted in the other threads.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                You would have to cite the Baha'i source to justify this. Your sarcasm was in equating UHJ with the International House of Pancakes.
                                I did not equate them, merely said the the wording of the International House of Justice stuck in my mind because of the similarity with the International House of Pancakes. It is very easy to Google and find examples, but perhaps these will suffice to prove my good will:

                                The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá'u'lláh has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other.
                                http://bahai-library.com/uhj_election_infallibility_uhj

                                Usage note: in the Bahá’í writings it is sometimes called the 'Supreme House of Justice', the 'International House of Justice', or the 'Universal House of Justice'. Bahá’ís now refer to it as the 'Universal House of Justice', which is sometimes abbreviated to the 'House of Justice', or 'the House'.
                                http://bahaikipedia.org/Universal_House_of_Justice


                                t will be evident, therefore, that given favorable circumstances, under which the Bahá’ís of Persia and of the adjoining countries under Soviet rule, may be enabled to elect their national representatives, in accordance with the guiding principles laid down in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s writings, the only remaining obstacle in the way of the definite formation of the International House of Justice will have been removed. For upon the National Houses of Justice of the East and the West devolves the task, in conformity with the explicit provisions of the Will, of electing directly the members of the International House of Justice.
                                http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-3.html

                                So, if my good will is no longer in doubt, perhaps you can address my question: Is the original language for the name of this body Arabic? Happen to know the actual terms used?
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X