Gregg

That was the one in Houston or Dallas, wasn't it? Howard Caesar?

Unfortunately, going to one Unity church doesn't really tell you that much about Unity, since every Unity church is different (funny for a church that calls itself Unity, eh? ). Some Unity churches have very little New Age stuff, and focus on Jesus and Unity teachings and on spirituality that doesn't involve tarots, crystals, astrology, etc., like that promoted by Emmet Fox, Alan Watts, and the like.

It's true that some Unity churches have a lot of New Agers, and Unity is pretty tolerant of it. However, Unity World HQ at Unity Village publishes a pamphlet, "A Unity View of New Age and New Thought," which completely rejects New Age superstitions and emphasizes the Christ within and the mind/prayer as our connection with God, with no need for New Age paraphernalia. Also, the pamphlet distinguishes Unity from the New Thought movement by emphasizing that Unity establishes Jesus as the standard and authority of its teaching. Finally, the classes they teach at Unity focus mainly on basic Unity texts and no New Age stuff is taught.

A long time ago Unity taught that Jesus WAS, in fact, unique and the "only way" to God. They said that humankind had become trapped in "sense consciousness" -- as a race we'd lost the ability to connect with Spirit, so it was necessary for someone to come from outside to give us a "spiritual transfusion." So Jesus came and established himself as a sort of escape hatch or lifeline we can turn to to help ourselves out of the mess. It sounds a bit like original sin, but it's more like "we got lost and couldn't find our way back, so Jesus came to show us the way home and in some ways BE the way."

Nowadays though, Jesus as THE way is mostly de-emphasized, and most people in Unity seem to regard him as the vanguard of human spiritual evolution, eliminating the notion of us having gotten "lost" at some point in the past. I think Unity mostly remains Jesus-centered in order to maintain a certain identity and focus. However, there are plenty of people in Unity who still identify solely with Jesus as their way-shower, teacher, guru, example, savior, what have you.

As to getting involved with ecumenical organizations, Unity has mostly avoided that up to now. It could changed in the future, though.

No, Unity definitely isn't a mainstream denomination at this point. Dunno if it ever will be. Definitely more traditional churches don't consider it Christian, but more liberal mainstream churches might be willing to do so.

As you can tell I was pretty heavily into Unity. I've since moved on, but not because I have anything against them--I enjoyed going to Unity services and the like, and I think you could do a lot worse when it comes to religious and spiritual beliefs. Also, Unity and its sister organization, the Association of Unity Churches, issued a joint statement some years ago declaring their commitment to diversity and the elimination of discrimination within their organizations and all field ministries and groups on the basis of age, sex, race, color, creed, ethnicity, disability, and sexual orientation. There are a considerable number of gay Unity ministers.

I get a little defensive when people dismiss Unity as merely a "positive thinking" or "feelgood" church. I guess some Unity churches may give that impression, but in my experience there was more to it than that. There would have had to be, because I've always been a serious-minded person and I wouldn't have been part of a church I thought all lite and shallow.

Anyways, if I felt Unity was moving more toward being like the Unitarian-Universalists I might have remained part of it, but I don't think that's the way it's going. I don't attend Unitarian-Universalist services but I do think of myself as a Unitarian-Universalist now.

Opera Nut

Thanks for the explanation. I stopped going to the Unity church in Houston (this was over 20 years ago) because on the one hand they didn't go in for hellfire and brimstone, but on the other hand they weren't rational. I did not have a very high tolerance for the new age stuff and the spacey people. In fact, I left because I got real sick of their babble, since I enjoy being rational in my spiritual search. I have very little tolerance for appeals to authority, threats of duress like "Oh you have free will to accept Jeeesus, but if ya don't yer gonna be barbecued baby back ribs in Hell," and such other illogical statements that Christianity is almost entirely made up of.

I guess that means the only place for me is the good old U-Us.

I've gotten to the same place you are, I suppose. I consider myself a Unitarian Universalist but don't attend services anymore. In the last couple of years I have gone to a Mahayana Buddhist temple that has a small but active English speaking group. I've been reading on Hinduism as a background to Buddhism as well. This Buddhist temple is the kind of place you could only find in a large diverse city such as Houston. If I was in a smaller town I wouldn't have a U-U church to check out, let alone Buddhists and Hindus.

So, my conclusion is the same as my original theory:There are no mainstream Christian denominations that reject original sin and substitutionary atonement. The key word is "mainstream" so therefore, I would say that my original statement stands, that is, that you can't be a Christian without taking on original sin and substitutionary atonement, which doctrines I consider to be productive of much mental anguish in depressed individuals, as I was.

As I have said above, for more info on how terribly harmful Christianity is to mental health, read HEALING THE SHAME THAT BINDS YOU, by John Bradshaw, Ph.D. He is an ex priest.

Gregg

Well, Unity minister Thomas Shepherd wrote a great book, "Friends in High Places" in which he challenges this quite well. Christianity actually has a very long but unfortunately not-very-well-known tradition of mystics and thinkers who rejected a literal hell, original sin, and the like, saw Jesus more as a guide and helper, and interpreted the crucifixion/resurrection as an object lesson by Jesus, demonstrating that divine life can't be contained by death.

As to having rationality in one's spiritual beliefs, again, I must say you can't judge the Unity movement as a whole on the basis of one church. One thing that appealed to me about Unity was its rational approach to faith and doctrine. Of course, that's "rational" from the perspective of a believer, rather than rational from the perspective of an agnostic or atheist.

converted

I don't get the hangup with original sin... Are you saying that you actually know someone who has never lied, cheated, stolen, uttered a harsh word, never been depressed, exhibits perfect humility, is always honest, is always a good friend, does not look down on people, is always charitable and not greedy, etc... ???

I don't personally know very many perfect people myself. Please introduce me to one.

Opera Nut

Converted, you have misread what I wrote.
Please read carefully. I'm not going to take the time to quote myself. You can read it. I've said all of this stuff further up in the thread.

I'm not perfect. Nobody I know is perfect.

I make mistakes. So do you. So does everyone else.

Original sin is wrong, because the church is blaming me for Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden of eden.

Just because I am human, and I'm breathing, I am ONLY responsible for the wrongs I commit personally.

I am NOT responsible for some arbitrary "sin" that is part of a doctrine based on an event which is an unprovable story.

Did you read what I said about "UNEARNED guilt and sin"??? The key word here is "UNEARNED".

Apparently not.

Read that phrase again please: UNEARNED GUILT AND SHAME

I refuse to feel guilty for something I did not do. You should not either. None of us are responsible for what Adam and Eve did, even if they really did exist, which I doubt.

Let me try another analogy, since the shampoo example didn't work:

Would you like it if the cops hauled you into court, when you had not broken any laws, that you were aware of, and the judge said "Oh, by the way, we're gonna indict you, try you and convict you for stealing a car."

YOU: But I didn't do anything.

JUDGE: But you're human and all humans have stolen a car at sometime in their life. Even children.

YOU: But that can't be true.

JUDGE: Yes, it is, it's in our statute book right here.

YOU: BUt I didn't do it.

JUDGE: Yes, even if you did not do it, you're still guilty, because Adam and Eve stole a car, and the laws in our jurisdiction recognize that.

YOU: Who?

JUDGE: Adam and Eve. It's in our statute books. It's in our Constitution. They stole a car and everybody in our society is presumed to have stolen a car. Just because they did. And everyone in our society must serve a jail sentence for that. Auto theft in this jurisdiction is 2 to 20 years.

YOU: But, but, but.....

JUDGE: Guilty!!! Court adjourned!
================
:banghead:

Gregg

Now this makes me think of a good contradiction! Getting this thread back on topic!

In Genesis God finds Noah righteous and decides to keep him and his family alive to repopulate the planet after the flood.

In Romans 3:10 we are told that "...there is none righteous, no, not one"

Oh, and by the way ... how is being depressed a sin

Gregg

And actually, God himself agrees with you! (Ezekiel 18:1-3)


Whoops. Now he doesn't (Exodus 20:4-6).

Which is it, God?

Opera Nut

Very good points, Gregg.

I didn't catch the one about "being depressed is a sin". The Christians I know seem to be very angry and self righteous, since they get in my face and are way too concerned about whether I am going to hell or not.
I think they are very depressed over their lack of control over the heathens, and mask it by being angry and self righteous.

I wish they would worry about feeding hungry children instead of what my soul is gonna do. I asked the Christians I knew for a job when I was depressed and starving to death and I decided that God wanted me to starve to death, since they were God's representatives on earth, and I do not have time to go to every church in the world to find the right one.

jbernier

I, too, do not know of many sects that do not subscribe to original sin or substitutionary atonement. I do know, however, of the Eastern Orthodox Churches in which substitutionary atonement never really surfaced and in which original sin, although present, never took on the Augustinian flavour that we see in the Western church.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity is generally much more concerned with apotheosis - deification. They tend to follow St. Ignatius' lead when he says that "God became like unto man so that man may become like unto God." The idea is not that one is doomed to hell by default because of one's esoteric spiritual unless a perfect sacrifice is made in one's place. The idea is much more that one cannot achieve God-likeness on one's own. This is due to the finite individual's ability to achieve infinity on his or her own. Thus God become like unto the human in the Incarnation. In the Eastern perspective it is the union of God and the human in Jesus which affects salvation: In the incarnation God and the human are no lower separate but fully reconciled in this one human life. The crucifixion is more than anything the inevitable result of how the powers of this world react to the perfection that was found in Jesus.

Hmmmm...this is problematic. How much of ancient history or history in general would be thrown out the window? I am currently assisting on a research project involving 16th century English military records. Because of the nature of the sources there are no other sources for the financial information contained therein. Thus no independent collaboration. Oh, I guess these records are arbitrary and useless as historical data. Same goes for probably the vast majority of historical research.

Only if you read into this statement a Benthamite panopticon. In other words you are reading this as "God is watching you all the time so you better watch out, you better not shout, you better be nice, I'm telling ya twice.." However there are other possible readings. For instance: "God is watching you all the time because He is a benevolent God who is always there for you no matter where you go." Each reading assumes something that was never said so what is the warrant for favouring one over the other?

jdlongmire

Benthamite panopticon... :notworthy