Survey of UCC ministers

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Oh, I definitely want to comment on that article, but I want to do some homework on the actual quotes first, and I'm about to take Zach for a run. Later tonight.
 
Is bi cycle as two cranked bi king or two leaders going in sear cus ... wishing to burn the other's how (hoe)?

That's the end of ground turning events ... without a hoe to upend things ... ploughman's lunge?
 
I
BetteTheRed said:
You know, I don't think I see as big a difference as you all do.

Gretta's 50% was clearly off, but Richard's survey has a clear 30% rejecting a supernatural god. I think "theism" is a bit dicier to unpack than "supernatural".
Click to expand...


Bette, I think both the terms need a great deal of unpacking. I find that people use both of these terms quote differently. I know what *I* mean by them, but, as I listen to people talk, I get the sense that they're often using different definitions for these terms.
 
The term "supernatural" tends to have negative associations. We tend to associate something alien or eerie with "supernatural."
'Theism" sounds like a holier and more religious word.
 
according to the online etymology dictionary
Heres their entry "early 15c. "of or given by God," from Medieval Latin supernaturalis "above or beyond nature, divine," from Latin super "above" (see super-) + natura"nature" (see nature (n.)). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since 19c"

I notice that the association w ghosts etc is in the same century when the modern Spirituality movement started with the shenanigans of those two NYS sisters and the ghost who communicated through rappings in 1848

Obviously spirits (also neighbours, alien abductors, demons, fae) are here to seriously eff with us :3
 
RichardBott said:
I
Bette, I think both the terms need a great deal of unpacking. I find that people use both of these terms quote differently. I know what *I* mean by them, but, as I listen to people talk, I get the sense that they're often using different definitions for these terms.
Click to expand...
The fact that you're even discussing this point about "unpacking" the meaning of a supernatural God would drive some Christians nuts. Given a survey written by Baptists and scored by Baptists, they might describe 95% of your clergy as "atheists". To some Christians, you're an entire denomination of heretics. Fer crying out loud, look around you. Some Christians openly mock you. Not with any discernible sense of humour, but they try really, really hard.

I don't think you guys get just how Christianity-lite you are, even at your most improbable. You are one step up from UUs. Like it or not, that's your market niche. That's your brand.
 
chansen said:
The fact that you're even discussing this point about "unpacking" the meaning of a supernatural God would drive some Christians nuts. Given a survey written by Baptists and scored by Baptists, they might describe 95% of your clergy as "atheists".
Click to expand...

There are many evangelical denominations in Canada. Any particular reason you're singling out Baptists here? :LOL:

chansen said:
I don't think you guys get just how Christianity-lite you are, even at your most improbable. You are one step up from UUs. Like it or not, that's your market niche. That's your brand.
Click to expand...

That does tend to be how they are known in evangelical circles.
 
I don't have any problem with being one step over from the UUs. They've got a lot going for them.

If I no longer fit within a Christian framework, they'd be the first community I'd explore participating with.

And you're right. Even the majority of people who are considered "orthodox" in the UCCan would be considered wild liberals by much of the rest of the Christian tradition.

So what?

If our niche is to be liberal Christians, great. Someone needs to fill that space.
 
RichardBott said:
I don't have any problem with being one step over from the UUs. They've got a lot going for them.

If I no longer fit within a Christian framework, they'd be the first community I'd explore participating with.

And you're right. Even the majority of people who are considered "orthodox" in the UCCan would be considered wild liberals by much of the rest of the Christian tradition.

So what?

If our niche is to be liberal Christians, great. Someone needs to fill that space.
Click to expand...
So what? So you'd be an atheist to a fundamentalist. You'd be in Gretta's shoes in another denomination. Gretta's 50% looks downright conservative if judged through the lens of a more fundamentalist denomination, which almost every other denomination is.


Pr. Jae said:
There are many evangelical denominations in Canada. Any particular reason you're singling out Baptists here? :LOL:
Click to expand...
Because it's faster to type than "fundamentalist Christians".
 
chansen said:
So what? So you'd be an atheist to a fundamentalist. You'd be in Gretta's shoes in another denomination. Gretta's 50% looks downright conservative if judged through the lens of a more fundamentalist denomination, which almost every other denomination is.



Because it's faster to type than "fundamentalist Christians".
Click to expand...

Why would you type Baptists instead of fundamentalist Christians"? Not all Baptists are fundamentalists. I'd hazard to say the majority of us, including myself, are not.
 
chansen said:
So what? So you'd be an atheist to a fundamentalist. You'd be in Gretta's shoes in another denomination.
Click to expand...


And again... so what? I'm not part of another denomination.

If I were, I would probably have to... well... leave and find a denomination that would fit with my belief/experience structure.
 
Pr. Jae said:
Why would you type Baptists instead of fundamentalist Christians"? Not all Baptists are fundamentalists. I'd hazard to say the majority of us, including myself, are not.
Click to expand...
GZtI4xt.jpg
 
RichardBott said:
And again... so what? I'm not part of another denomination.

If I were, I would probably have to... well... leave and find a denomination that would fit with my belief/experience structure.
Click to expand...
It goes to show that anyone can be an atheist in this discussion, and that maybe a group used to being mocked for lack of faith and literally contains 5% atheist clergy and likely at least that proportion in the pews, wouldn't get so worked up over it. But more importantly, what of that 5%? What now? Do they get weeded out? What happens to the non-believers in your congregations? What of the young people who don't believe? Who can't believe? I mean, removing Gretta makes you like any other church. That's hardly a worthy goal these days.
 
It is a pure problem in metaphysics ... superficially! Sublimation is another flakey item ... snow job at all just the denial of heat!

If you explore such words (dark things) it designates a parallel form ... like something off on a tangent and thus thinking is separated from emotions ... so those people out-of-it can experience emotions first hand (or initially) if they haven't been here blind in the first place and thus aboriginally an unseen of rye form of eM ... collective social order ... when the scattered floc gets it together ... invisible force fields ... like gravitas ... and miss us call a'bash! James Durante's imaginary friend ... off in the dark zoan ... or Zohar NG! Can you abstract that? Thus redaction and condensation by the stoically fixed ... still listening but deaf to the silence there ... piece at last!

One has to get out of the "ankh" ... once in a while! Thus "ankh's" moving on chit we assimilate for a bit ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top