Grog

No, I am talking about the beliefs that have been incorporated into the UU Church. You have mistakenly referred to the UU church as secular, when it is not. One of the seven principles of the UU Church is:

Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

"Spritual growth" is clearly not a secular principle.


There seems to be some confusion regarding the evolution of beliefs and their later incorporation into an organized form of religion. When I talk about the evolution of Jesus-belief, I am talking about the evolution of an idea, not the incorporation of that idea into an organized religion. That is not to say that some "religions" are not founded out of whole cloth by individuals. J-D has given some clear examples. I will take two: Scientology and LDS. We can trace both of these back to clear founders who basically made "sh*t" up (sorry if I offend). It's possible that Islam is similar (but I don't tend to think so).

Both Scientology and LDS share traits that we do not find in early Christianity. While the latter two have tightly controlled belief systems, controlled originally by the Founder, then by the founder's successors in the hierarchies formed, what we find in early Jesus-belief is a wide range of variety. In both LDS and Scientology, the words and writings of the founder are constantly referred to, argued about, appealed to for authority. We don't find that in Christianity until well after the "Jesus-meme" appears in the historical record. Then what we find is struggle over the nature of Jesus.

For example, Paul rarely refers to Jesus' teachings when making his points, exactly opposite of what we find in religions that are founded by an individual who preaches a message accepted by others. Even well into the second century, there are few appeals to the actual teachings of Jesus to establish the credibility of a position. When Paul does refer to Jesus, he appeals to revelation, not teachings that have been passed down to him from oral teachings of Jesus (the only way that Paul could have learned anything about Jesus).

Jaybees

Just exactly what does "spiritual" mean, then. I see it used a lot by people of widely differing beliefs, ranging from atheists to theists.

Most recently it seems to be a substitute word used to describe their views by anyone who doesn't want to be labeled "religious" though, to me, the two terms appear to be virtually synonymous.

Dictionary definitions don't seem to have caught up with at least some of current usage.

Grog

from bing [emphasis added]:
sec·u·lar
/ˈsekyələr/
Adjective
Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: "secular buildings"

spir·it·u·al
/ˈspiriCHo͞oəl/
Adjective
Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

I don't think it's all that hard to make a distinction.

Iskander

It is not about being saved and it is not about the mercy of god. It is about what happens to people here in this life and it is about the justice of god,

It is not about confessing a sin and it is not about being forgiven.

Why do the righteous suffer? The friends say that god is a just god; he punishes the bad and rewards the good. Job claims that god is not a just god.


The KJB was a great achievement and Job is a particularly difficult book to translate and understand.

Davka

I referred to the UU as "an almost completely secular organization." That is to say, it is nominally spiritual, but in actual practice most congregations are agnostic or even atheist.

Davka

This is a complete misunderstanding of what is meant by "salvation" in the OT. It has nothing to do with the Christian concept. It literally means to have your ass yanked out of the coals, as in when you are about to fall off a cliff and a friend grabs you and pulls you back, saving your life. It's all about this life.

Yes, it is. Read Job. Job's friends regularly press him to confess his sin.

Correct.

Considering the material they had to work with, it's not bad. But it's a notoriously flawed translation, especially when compared with most modern translations. If you read Hebrew, you know this.

Grog

"Most congregations?" Do you have data to support that? The UUs I know usually seem to advocate for some higher undefined presence or force (or even THE Force). Agnosticism does fit well with UUs, but the organization itself, nor its underlying philosophy as contained in its 7 Principles, is not secular.

aa5874

The struggle about the nature of Jesus must be very near the time when the Jesus story was first introduced.

It is not logical at all nor expected that the nature of Jesus would be first argued 100 years after the Jesus story was known in the Roman Empire.

The earliest arguments AGAINST the nature of the Jesus character are in the Late 2nd century by non-apologetic writer Celsus in "True Discourse".

The earliest argument AGAINST the Pauline Corpus by non-apologetic is sometime in the late 3rd-4th century.

Well, if Jesus did NOT exist or Paul wrote in the 2nd century or later then he would have to make up stuff.

Paul made up stuff about the resurrection which were unknown by all the Gospels authors.

Plus, Jesus in gMark did NOT teach anything much except that he would be delivered up by the Pharisees and others, that he would be killed and then resurrect.

Mark 9:31 NASMark 9:31 KJV Jesus taught nothing that the Populace understood--In the earliest story of Jesus, he deliberately spoke in parables so that they would REMAIN in Sin.

Jesus did NOT even teach the populace he was the Christ.

In fact, all the authors of the Epistles, not only the Pauline Epistles, did not write about the teachings of Jesus. [Jesus did not exist]

See the Epistles to the Hebrews, James, John, John, Peter and even Revelation.

The argument that the Pauline writings were early and that Jesus was crucified somewhere in the heavens is Upside Down and back to front.

Davka

Not really, just a lot of anecdotal evidence. I was raised in LRY (Little Red Yoyos? Luscious Raspberry Yoghurt? Legendary Rotating Yurt?), and went to campouts with other UU kids. All the UU churches I've been to or heard of are pretty much like "God? Maybe, I dunno - what about philosophy, and what's for lunch?" I remember once the minister made some crack about God being on an indefinite holiday in the Bahamas, so we were just gonna have to make do for now.

So, yeah, mostly I just have experience, and the reflections and memories of other LRYers out there.

What is an organization, if not a collective made up of its members? Sure, the leadership tend to sputter on about woo from time to time, but if the laity are generally secular, can the organization itself truly be said to be non-secular? The UU I grew up with was essentially a social organization.

Grog

Different UU congregations have different compositions. There's definitely a move in the UU Church overall to bring the spiritual back in. I think most UUs are agnostic about a "God" in the traditional sense, but that doesn't discount some kind of spiritual belief. A spiritual belief is by definition not secular.