What is the general consensus regarding the Unitarian religion?
146502
All of the members are warm, witty, intelligent, tolerant  and devilishy handsome. Poor singers and unlucky in love, though.\n\nSeriously, there isn't a consensus. Also, we've been Unitarian-Universalist since 1961.\n\nA lot of people consider us a cult. Most cults are new, have a single charismatic leader and a single mind-set. We've been around 250 years (John Adams and John Quincy Adams were both Unitarian), have some eloquent people but no charismatic leader and have a variety of mind-sets. Nevertheless, we're perceived as a cult by most conservative Christians.\n\nWe're the church of last resort for some couples, when they come from different religious backgrounds. Not Methodist/Presbyterian, but Jewish/Catholic, Sikh/Protestant, Buddhist/Catholic, etc. To them we are a God-send.\n\nI maintain the web site for a small Unitarian-Universalist congregation. I answer the e-mail for it. I get offers to be saved every once in a while, from Christians who are sure we're on the wrong track. We're an annoyance to them.\n\nI get a message every six months or so from someone who doesn't fit - a gay man, a lesbian woman, an agnostic who still has spiritual issues - thanking us for being there. We are an oasis of reason and tolerance to them.\n\nOur congregation has 9 returned Peace Corps Volunteers out of 165 adult members, which is about 50 times the per capita average. That fact would add weight to the perception that we tend to be liberal, well-educated and willing to work to make the world a better place. We have about ten people with Ph. D's, too. (One is a twofer; Ph. D, and RPCV.)\n\nWe accepted gays and lesbians as equals in the 1970's. "Reverend" Fred Phelps, who maintains godhatesfags.com, hates us for that. He thinks we are in league with the devil. He also thinks Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, all liberal Protestants and many conservative Protestants are in league with the devil, so it is hard to tell if he hates us more than others. I won't guess at his perception of us. He hates a lot of things. In the house of the Lord there are many rooms. Freddy boy is a fly speck on the mirror in the bathroom in that house - the bathroom people use when their boots are muddy.
758673
1. You can't lump all Christians together; the more fundamental ones tend to be intolerant. UCC and other liberals are usually quite nice.\n\nJews seem to be more tolerant as a whole.\n\nSecular Humanists are much like Christians in that there is a diversity among their ability to tolerate religion and religious belief.\n\nBuddhists tend to be quite tolerant and accepting.\n\nI haven't had much experience with Hindus.\n\nWiccans are of many different ilks tool You have the group that fnds their identity in being persecuted, alwasy bringing up the burning times, almost thinking that they themselves were persecuted. On the other end you have the ones open to what others believe and able to have dialog.\n\nIn the end, intolerance isn't confined to any particular group; all are capable of showing it.
1015561
I find, as both a member of the ACLU and a Christian, that they are perfectly compatible.  Quite frankly, the only people it is not compatible with are the highly conservative "Christian" extremists, a la Falwell and Robertson.  Quite frankly, they merely use Christianity as an excuse for bigotry and hatred.  Ironically enough, historically, those people who you and I would really identify as acting in a Christian manner are those on the forefront of the progressive movement today.  For instance, the Christians who were anti-slavery in the 1850's, or those working for desegregation in the 1950's.  The fundamentalists were on the opposite sides back then.  If Robertson was alive in the 1850's I have no doubt whatsoever that he would be pro-slave. After all, there is much more biblical teaching that is pro-slavery than there is anti-gay.
1153197
they are some really nice people, in general. some of their philosophies are a bit overboard, and they can be a bit over zealous. but i think it's really hard to judge them on a fair basis because they are so many different people, and as for their religion, you have to read the book of mormon to understand them. \nit's really kind of a weird philosophy, but so are a lot of religions.
348870
Find a Universalist Unitarian Fellowship. They have a group that is affiliated with them called CUUPs (Covenant of the Universalist Unitarian Pagans). This is usually a group of people who follow various paths that get together to observe and celebrate the Sabbats and Esbats. Also, go hang out at any metaphysical stores you can find. Let the shop owner/s know you are looking for a teacher.
373544
What a great question!!!!! Thanks for asking. This is really neat.\n\nI'm a practicing Hindu.\n\nMy second-favorite religion would probably be Jainism. It stresses Ahimsa..nonviolence...of which I am a big fan of this sacred principal (practiced in Hinduism and Buddhism, too, but not to the degree of Jainism). I find myself very fascinated with so many of the teachings of Jainism and many of the similar practices between Hinduism and Jainism, and yet their differences...especially theologically.\n\nNow, just in case you are one of those folks that considers Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism to all be part of the "Hindu" branch....then just in case, my answer would then be the religion of Baha'i (it's technically Abrahamic since it comes from Babism which comes from Islam which comes from Christianity which comes from Judaism...long strand there!). The Baha'i religion is very tolerant, very respectful of other religions (just as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Taoism are). The Baha'is teachings are somewhat similar to Hinduism is some areas, but follow a more Abrahamic traditional approach. While their houses of worship are very different from Hindu worship and even Christianity's worship, it is still great. It is sort of like Unitarian-Universalism where there is a reading, some discussion, maybe some songs, etc. \n\nMy third would be Unitarian-Universalism....assuming you consider it a seperate religion....some consider it a denomination of Christianity. Mainly because of their tolerant views and their focus, not on a creed or religion, but on the inherent worth and dignity of every human being.
22510
Your question (part of it anyway) is pretty much your answer. "...as projected by the church" says it all.\n\nThe earlier response that Raymond M posted clearly shows Christianity's intolerance of Wicca based on lack of familiarity of any opposing viewpoint, as well as an unwillingness to listen. People like Raymond really scare me. Not because of his faith, but rather his comdemnation of other faiths and the people that follow them. Honestly, have you ever heard of anyone being killed by a fallen angel? \n\nHmmm...maybe if the angel actually landed on you at the end of his fall...but I digress.\n\nIn order for a new religion to gain a majority following (Christianity was new at the time, remember?), it usually has to discredit the existing religions, to make people feel like they're doing the right thing by converting. The easiest example is how Christianity, or at least some denominations of Christianity, demonizes Earth-based religions (Wicca included) by saying it is the work of the devil. There really is no evidence to support either side, other than each religion's own sacred texts, which of course will always support their respective religions. It's not limited to just Christianity vs. Wicca. Many religions are not very tolerant of each other. In fact, it's difficult (but not impossible) to find a religion that is totally tolerant of other religions.\n\nThink of it like a presidential election. The candidates usually try to point out each others' flaws in order to gain votes for themselves. Rarely do they try to get elected based on their own merit. \n\nI don't think there is one answer that will fit everyone for this question. Probably the best thing to do is to study a religion, either by research on the internet, or by attending a service or two, or by talking to people who follow that religion. Better yet, do all of those. Then make a choice on your own as to whether a religion is "good" or "bad" for you. A great place to start is: http://www.religioustolerance.org\n\nMy advice is to follow whatever religion(s) provide you with personal and spritual enrichment. Follow more than one if it fulfills you. Just make sure that your choice is YOURS. \n\nIt's one thing for someone to say why a religion is wrong for themselves; quite another for them to say why a religion is wrong for everyone else. \n\nGood luck to you...
833313
The Christian point of view varies, though fundamentalists won't tell you that.  My Church supports gay marriage, so do many others. \n\nThe gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.\n\nOne of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.\n\nOf course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.\n\nOn the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faith, which says it is ok to marry same sex couples?\n\nThe first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.\n\nEveryone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.\n\nRegards,\n\nReynolds Jones\nhttp://www.rebuff.org\nbelieveinyou24@yahoo.com\n\nPS In response to the person who answered directly above my answer.  Your answer is meaningless of course, if the Bible is not really divine and not the central foundation of Christianity.\n\nThe canon of the Bible was not formalized until the Council of Carthage -- when it affirmed a resolution of the synod of Hippo recognizing a group of books drawn together and claimed as divine by Bishop Anathasius.  Anathasius did not even coin the word canon until 327  and the Council of Carthage did not formalize the list approved by Hippo until the 390s, and then sent it on to "the Church across the sea" (Rome) for the Pope's approval.\n\nThere are no full copies of what is now considered scripture until the 4th century.  There are two copies from the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) together with hundreds of manuscript fragments of various forms (Papyrus and Vellum Manuscripts and Vellum Palimpsests).  Overall there are over 5000 copies of at least part of the present canonical Bible that are from the sixth century or earlier.  These range from a few verses to whole books, to Bibles that were read in churches.  According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, one of the foremost experts in the world on Textual criticism and Textual reconstruction, those manuscripts have between them at least 200,000 differences.  Some of those differences are minor, or meaningless -- but some are very important and would change core Christian doctrines like the Virgin birth
782477
I use this forum to witness to others about God and Christ. To each their own but I will continue to do what I do. Quakers are, as far as I know, very nice folks and they have their beliefs as I have mine. I was in the Army with a Quaker and he was a conscientious objector and would not go to combat. I respect him for that.
1174008
Some do. The United Methodists are fine with it and so are the Unitarian Universalists.\n\nAnd yes, of course its love.  Don't listen to them!!!
1012724
They are too diverse to list their beliefs though they exists within the possibilities that Protestants believe in.  They tend to be very ahistorical (especially the charismatic sects) and that makes it impossible to track exact beliefs from community to community.  \n\nHowever, a good starter would be to check this site and scroll to the Pentecostal section.\n\nhttp://www.creeds.net
709213
Sorry, there are no authorities about this.\nThere are only opinions based on religion.\nAnd oddly, the religious differ a great deal.\nI've seen hard line conservative Christians say that it was OK, and I've seen very liberal Christians say no way.\nSame with Jews.\nFor me, I have some gay friends, some lesbian friends, and what \nwhat they do has no effect on me.\nLive and let live, as it should say in the Bible.
579557
Do not generalise please. Most of the religious people are ok.
517924
The first question is ill-posed, for not every religion has a concept of salvation.  As far as I understand it, salvation is meaningless in Buddhism, which does not conceive of a God/Judge Who either saves or condemns its creatures.\n\nAs for your second question: Unitarian Universalism eschews speaking about God, and it embraces both people who believe in His/Her existence and people who do not.  Unitarian Universalists who may believe in an afterlife would certainly say that you don't have to follow their doctrine to be saved, if salvation has any meaning to begin with.
12285
Yes, I'm a big fan of the 1928 BCP. However, there are no traditional Anglican churches where I live. Only one very liberal Episcopal church. Bleh. I don't currently own my own copy of the 1928 edition though. I have the (dreaded) 1979 version as well as the 1946 version (given to me at my confirmation).
621022
LOL. I'll try to keep this short considering the answers you've already gotten. I'm an agnostic too, and have read and researched about different Monotheist religions. Now, people may not agree with me, but most of these religions have the same basic philosophy. That is, do no wrong, love thy neighbor, obey God, and thou shalt go heaven. The trouble, I've noticed, usually arises when the ritualistic side of religions pops out. It is mostly here that the main arguments stem from. \nIn essence all, relgions are continuations of each other.
824272
The Unitarin Universalists:\n\n"The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:\n\n    * Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;\n    * Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion and the transforming power of love;\n    * Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;\n    * Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;\n    * Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;\n    * Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature."