United With God

[Carolla]

@BetteTheRed

You sound like more like a "non-traditional believer" than a "non-believer" to me. And you have mentioned on other threads that Jesus is still talked about in your circles.

In my church (which defines as progressive, inclusive and life-affirming) we are in a similar but not identical place, I would say. God is never referred to as He by the minister although the Sunday School co-coordinator sometimes uses this language. We use The Voice version of the bible. The words at communion are "bread for the journey" not the cannibalistic version, although the more traditional words were used on Good Friday.

We have the Lord's Prayer (we still call it that) about once a month. Sometimes traditional , sometimes sung, sometimes paraphrased.

Very different from what is found down the street at West Hill!

Sometimes it seems to me that folks assume they are in a similar theological space to Gretta but they really are not. The post-theists at WHUC would probably not be up for your worship service, from what you have said.

I think I would like your church P3 ... mine has done a bit of backsliding in language etc. in the past 5-7 years; I notice it, a few others seem to as well, but it's a bit stuck there at the moment.

 

[Dave Henderson]

But I do not believe in anything, P3. God is good-orderly-direction (channelling Linds, but also another well known organization of my acquaintance), the next right thing, the impulse to compassion. I'm absolutely fine with a completely scientific cosmos. I have no belief or even opinion about what happens after death, although one memorable dream suggests to me that everything is okay. I can use the words "holy mystery" to cover most ground. I most emphatically reject a personal interventionalist God. I think humans need to stay in community of some sort, in order to keep themselves a bit more honest. I don't really care if a ski club or a church does it for you; the advantage of the latter is that they'll generally keep an eye on you in your old age, even after your fixed pension means you have very little to contribute financially. I grew up Christian, after the age of 5 anyway, when I was old enough to "take myself to church", because the parents sure weren't taking me. I've always loved English literature, as well, so the Christian mythos is almost embedded in my DNA, so it's easy to be in community, to regulate my personal spirituality, within a Christian context. I have a very small family, most of whom lives in the U.K., and except for my canal-boating cousin, I'm not terribly close to any of them, and I don't have a particularly close relationship with either of my sisters, particularly one of them. So the church is very much my substitute family. Don't need any sort of concept of god or deity to belong. It's also, realistically, my "keep myself busy and active into retirement and old age" strategy. I love Judaism; I'd have aspired to be a cantor if I'd been lucky enough to be born Jewish.

Hi BetteTheRed, This is my point exactly. You are most welcome to come and worship in the the Christian faith community that is the United Church of Canada. And as you say, while you are not in essential agreement with the creator God that is a cornerstone of the United Church's Christian faith community, you are comfortable worshipping within a Christian context. The United Church of Canada is a Christian faith community. Blessings to you as you worship with our community!

 

[chansen]

@chansen since you are so convinced we need to be more welcoming of non-belief, could you give us your vision of what this would look like?

In your view, would all of our churches become duplicates of West Hill and its worship style? Would we all cease using God-talk, stop reading from the Bible and no longer identify as followers of Jesus Christ? Or are you thinking only some of our congregations need to follow West Hill's example?

I suspect you would like us to evolve away from belief all together.

What do you recommend for the traditional believers we still have in our denomination? They are likely going to remain with us for the foreseeable future.

I think West Hill is an extreme case. Obviously it is. But I'd say you need to see where the experiment goes. You tolerated it this long. You let it get to this point. You let people get comfortable in a spiritual home. I don't agree with it. I don't want a spiritual home. But these people do. And because it didn't fail, people want to pull the rug out from under them. And the catalyst, or final straw, seems to have been a message from Gretta that atheists killed and wounded by self-proclaimed agents of God don't need more talk about God. Somehow, that slice of obvious was too much.

If what West Hill does has legs, it will spread. It could do so under the UCCAN umbrella. If what West Hill has can't work, it won't. West Hill wasn't on anyone's radar until it was obviously growing. Then it was a problem. A church on the rebound became a problem because they were doing it without beliefs that are difficult enough to defend without a clergy member rejecting them as well.

Post-Christianity could be an option. Whether people believe in the divinity of Jesus or not, you can agree on the content of the message and cooperate on good actions. You don't need to ban faith or non-faith. But the reality is some of you will not agree to coexist. If your faith was as strong as some of you insist, then this wouldn't be such a big deal.

 

[chansen]

I just want to be clear. I don't want to kick any "heathens" out.

Of course not. You just want to make it clear that anyone who agrees with them can't lead. And if they manage to collect enough heathens in one place so that they are the majority, it won't be allowed.

That's not kicking them out - that's choreographing their graceful exit.

 

[Mendalla]

Of course not. You just want to make it clear that anyone who agrees with them can't lead. And if they manage to collect enough heathens in one place so that they are the majority, it won't be allowed.

That's not kicking them out - that's choreographing their graceful exit.

You are assuming here that @Dave Henderson agrees with the UCCan's action on Gretta and I'm not sure he's actually said that anywhere (I'm happy to be corrected, though). Just because he sees God as central to the church's faith does not mean he is automatically in the "DSL Gretta" camp.

 

[chansen]

I base my post on my recollections of his posts and positions. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong.

 

[Dave Henderson]

Of course not. You just want to make it clear that anyone who agrees with them can't lead. And if they manage to collect enough heathens in one place so that they are the majority, it won't be allowed.

That's not kicking them out - that's choreographing their graceful exit.

Hi Chansen, The United Church of Canada is a declared Christian faith community. It has been since its formation in 1925. As a Christian faith community, it has stated, "This is what we believe." http://www.united-church.ca/community-faith/welcome-united-church-canada/what-we-believe Leaders in our faith community must be in essential agreement with what we as members of the United Church believe. If a person, or a group of people don't believe as we do in the United Church, they are more than welcome to create their own faith community. Or if they don't profess a faith at all, their own social community. I'm not kicking anyone out. And if folks want to worship with us but not believe, that's no problem. It will certainly make for some interesting discussions during coffee time. But they should know that they are worshipping in a Christian faith community. And those who wish to be leaders in our Christian faith community must be in essential agreement with what the community believes.

 

[Mendalla]

And those who wish to be leaders in our Christian faith community must be in essential agreement with what the community believes.

So you support the action being taken on Vosper, then (which is what chansen is ultimately referring to)?

 

[chansen]

But Dave, a good chunk of your community does not believe. Not the way you want them to.

The cat is out of the bag. The horse has left the barn. And the kids ain't buyin' it, either.

You have nothing particularly believable. And you want to choose this moment to enforce belief. Your timing is atrocious.

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

But Dave, a good chunk of your community does not believe. Not the way you want them to.

The cat is out of the bag. The horse has left the barn. And the kids ain't buyin' it, either.

You have nothing particularly believable. And you want to choose this moment to enforce belief. Your timing is atrocious.

Actually, Chansen, you might be wrong here. The overall situation of the world, economical, political and ecological is pretty bad. In those times, people tend to look for easier answers (as we see in politics ), and straightening out the UCC belief system might actually increase their popularity.

 

[Luce NDs]

I think West Hill is an extreme case. Obviously it is. But I'd say you need to see where the experiment goes. You tolerated it this long. You let it get to this point. You let people get comfortable in a spiritual home. I don't agree with it. I don't want a spiritual home. But these people do. And because it didn't fail, people want to pull the rug out from under them. And the catalyst, or final straw, seems to have been a message from Gretta that atheists killed and wounded by self-proclaimed agents of God don't need more talk about God. Somehow, that slice of obvious was too much.

If what West Hill does has legs, it will spread. It could do so under the UCCAN umbrella. If what West Hill has can't work, it won't. West Hill wasn't on anyone's radar until it was obviously growing. Then it was a problem. A church on the rebound became a problem because they were doing it without beliefs that are difficult enough to defend without a clergy member rejecting them as well.

Post-Christianity could be an option. Whether people believe in the divinity of Jesus or not, you can agree on the content of the message and cooperate on good actions. You don't need to ban faith or non-faith. But the reality is some of you will not agree to coexist. If your faith was as strong as some of you insist, then this wouldn't be such a big deal.

Believe it or not the situation will change ... if only to allow the God-devil complex to lie beneath the visions of mortal ... thus internalized out there where you couldn't imagine such things as nothing and eternal ... tis beyond our simplified comprehension!

 

[chansen]

The marketplace of ideas is on a more level playing field than ever before. Not believing used to be frowned upon here in Canada. No more. This attitude is spreading. Religion is losing the ability to stigmatize nonbelievers. Couple that with the more pervasive arguments for nonbelief through the Internet, and the world has changed in ways that are not so reversible.

But my post was about conditions within the UCCan right now. Dave wants to make nonbelievers less welcome, but not "not welcome". Just limit their opportunities to see what they believe accepted or promoted in any meaningful way.

 

[Luce NDs]

Of course not. You just want to make it clear that anyone who agrees with them can't lead. And if they manage to collect enough heathens in one place so that they are the majority, it won't be allowed.

That's not kicking them out - that's choreographing their graceful exit.

Thus heathens remain the lesser powers ... powers being them juiced .. explaining the grapes of wrath ... if you are wrathed or a wraith hung up in de vine case ...

Now on English Literature ... is English a complex of a great many foreign linguistics that have been compromised by English Dog Ma ... the bulldog with wings as a Griffon? Ugly as a bear when confronted with bull ... but that's the nature with lies as they Set here ... like I sees/I'sis as the spirit of Ur ... coming from the ancient mother as mity condrea ... the husk of de cells ... thus they were sold on it even if Jinn ethic-ally altered ... across time ... whats the rush ... patience ... still that lesser voice ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Question: what does the UCC really believe in idea that can be tested and tried ... or is that beyond present rules on forensic pathology ... like mental emotions? Kind ov' a simile based on sol-spirit connects .. albeit dissociated by polity of prime emotions leading? Could be a mere opinion and thus must be racked and stretched to see if it holds virtue ... life in the testing is a pain ... er perhaps a pane on heaven if you're thicj skinned as declared in the conventional, accepted definition of goth ... search it out!

Something grand to uncover as previously convened ... as sacred knowledge not to be shared and thus a beautiful thing like D'avid perspective of Bacchus ... the ideal of whine and rest ... sometimes the aggressive one needs to sloe down ... an see through the metaphor of aD onus ... tis our internal problem or enigma ... we just don't knoe wit yet ... a funny thing in deep space?

 

[Luce NDs]

Some do not even believe literal words contain literary devices ... things hard to test with profound contemplation ... that state will still Eire about it ...

 

[paradox3]

I think West Hill is an extreme case. Obviously it is. But I'd say you need to see where the experiment goes. You tolerated it this long. You let it get to this point. You let people get comfortable in a spiritual home. I don't agree with it. I don't want a spiritual home. But these people do. And because it didn't fail, people want to pull the rug out from under them. And the catalyst, or final straw, seems to have been a message from Gretta that atheists killed and wounded by self-proclaimed agents of God don't need more talk about God. Somehow, that slice of obvious was too much.

If what West Hill does has legs, it will spread. It could do so under the UCCAN umbrella. If what West Hill has can't work, it won't. West Hill wasn't on anyone's radar until it was obviously growing. Then it was a problem. A church on the rebound became a problem because they were doing it without beliefs that are difficult enough to defend without a clergy member rejecting them as well.

Post-Christianity could be an option. Whether people believe in the divinity of Jesus or not, you can agree on the content of the message and cooperate on good actions. You don't need to ban faith or non-faith. But the reality is some of you will not agree to coexist. If your faith was as strong as some of you insist, then this wouldn't be such a big deal.

Agree that the letter you reference was the final straw for many in the church. I know you think the wider church was somehow threatened by West Hill's success . . . you have made this clear in many of your posts.

But you still haven't answered my questions about how the church, in your opinion, is to go about accommodating both believers and non-believers. Are you assuming the believers will all disappear eventually?

 

[Luce NDs]

Agree that the letter you reference was the final straw for many in the church. I know you think the wider church was somehow threatened by West Hill's success . . . you have made this clear in many of your posts.

But you still haven't answered my questions about how the church, in your opinion, is to go about accommodating both believers and non-believers. Are you assuming the believers will all disappear eventually?

All encompassing faith? Is this possible with the roots of mahaineim? Possibly a general isolated entity (according to the Hebrew ... a once sacred icon as laid down on a flat sheet)!

That's des crypt ... described essence of incubus versus succubus ... when conjoined ... bang on ...

 

[chansen]

Agree that the letter you reference was the final straw for many in the church. I know you think the wider church was somehow threatened by West Hill's success . . . you have made this clear in many of your posts.

But you still haven't answered my questions about how the church, in your opinion, is to go about accommodating both believers and non-believers. Are you assuming the believers will all disappear eventually?

I don't care if believers or nonbelievers disappear. If I were to wager, it would be that the entire UCCan will disappear within a couple of generations.

I don't see why you shouldn't be able to coexist. Except for the impression I get that believers are threatened. That they feel they can't be seen to accommodate non-belief or post-Christianity. I think they're embarrassed and don't want other churches making fun of them (too late), I think some probably figure God will be mad (sure), and I think some are fearful that acceptance of non-belief will allow their young people to not believe. And I think that last one is vitally important to the possible survival of the UCCan. Give your young people an intellectually honest way of sticking with the church, where they don't have to pretend to believe if they don't.

 

[Dave Henderson]

So you support the action being taken on Vosper, then (which is what chansen is ultimately referring to)?

Hi Mendella, I try not to comment on issues that involve human resources because they are a highly sensitive issue. But since this has become a public issue, yes, I support the United Church's actions to ensure that leaders in our Christian faith community are in essential agreement with the beliefs of this faith community.

 

[Dave Henderson]

But Dave, a good chunk of your community does not believe. Not the way you want them to.

The cat is out of the bag. The horse has left the barn. And the kids ain't buyin' it, either.

You have nothing particularly believable. And you want to choose this moment to enforce belief. Your timing is atrocious.

Hi Chansen, I am not picking any particular moment. I believe in God as articulated through the Father/Mother, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I have always embraced God. I will always embrace God. As for having nothing particularly believable, that is your opinion and you have every right to espouse it.