A response to Elizabeth Massie
Since Elizabeth Massie continues to post comments about me on the Augusta “Free” Press blog (from which I am banned for being a “hateful,” “bigoted,” “wingnut”), I am forced to respond to her false allegations here (my comments are in blue):
To clarify for anyone who thinks they understand the full spectrum and range Unitarian Universalism but does not, let me explain that there are a variety of beliefs under a main umbrella belief of respect and compassion for all humanity and an open search for truth.
– There is one truth: Jesus Christ.
There are Christian UUs, Jewish UU, agnostic UUs, atheist UU, and more. To suggest that Unitarians are confused…
– I think the fact that “There are Christian UUs, Jewish UU, agnostic UUs, atheist UU, and more” is proof enough of the confusion.
… or that they “need help” reflects a lack of understanding and prejudice born of ignorance.
– As an author, Elizabeth should know better than to put in quotation marks something that I never said. If you want to paraphrase me, fine; do so, but at least be courteous enough to say that’s what you’re doing. Here’s the ACTUAL quote from me: “He’s a Unitarian, which certainly doesn’t help.” Plus, for some reason, she leaves out the last sentence of the post: “He needs prayer.”
I dare say if someone were to question a Unitarian about his/her beliefs they might be surprised at the lack of confusion and the sense of peace the person has.
– Having a “sense of peace” has nothing to do with believing the truth. It is subjective. But a denomination that accepts Christian beliefs and Buddhist beliefs and Jewish beliefs and Muslim beliefs and atheist beliefs and pagan beliefs is, by definition, confused.
And back to Chris being “anti-Christian.” Just because one does not approve of some of the oppressive, ungodly Christian fundamentalists beliefs (God certainly has no problem with gays and lesbians…
– Geneisis, Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Corinthians certainly attest to God’s “problem” with homosexual behavior.
… but folks like Janet Parshall seem to think He does, and seems to believe she can speak for Him on that matter and in doing so oppress the rights of same sex couples)…
– The Bible, Ms. Massie, speaks out against homosexual behavior.
… and speaks out vehemently against those beliefs does not make one “anti-Christian.” It makes one “anti-bigotry.”
– To compare Janet Parshall (a Christian) to a Nazi and to call a News Virginian letter writer ( a Christian) a fascist because Chris Graham disagrees with their stands on abortion and same-sex marriage, are certainly anti-Christian acts.
The strange thing about atheists is that even quoting what Jesus said is taken to be the same as speaking hate or holding bigoted views. They’re weird that way.
Actually, my last post to AFP wasn’t so much about you (“about me” you wrote) as for anyone who might read your comments and not have the full picture of UUs. And in my last AFP response I made no false allegations. I merely made clarifying points. There is a difference.
You say “Having a sense of peace has nothing to do with believing in the truth.” I would say in this case that that is a subjective remark. You believe you have a truth. UUs believe they have a truth. You believe your truth is true. They believe their truth is true. You have peace. They have peace. And by whose definition is such a congregation “confused?” How many UU services have you attended, and how many UUs have you interviewed regarding this unique brotherhood/sisterhood?
As to the Bible, Mr. Dolack, it was written by fallible human beings who were at some times Divinely inspired (there are beautiful passages about the profoundly loving nature of God) but in other ways very much a product of their culture. Hence the lack of understanding of human psychology, physiology, and the like. This is not a criticism of these writers because we know something about the world during which they lived and wrote. Yet it is something we, today, need to be aware of so we don’t fall prey to the all-too-human desires to unfairly condemn, harass, or oppress others in the name of God.
Personally I probably wouldn’t go as far as to call someone who disagrees with me on issues of human rights a Fascist or compare him/her to a Nazi, however, I will always speak out against those who would spread falsehoods about gays and lesbians and would attempt to strip them of their innate rights as human beings.
Apologies for using quotation marks incorrectly. It was a paraphrase and therefore not a direct quote. You are correct on that.
EM: Actually, my last post to AFP wasn’t so much about you (”about me” you wrote) as for anyone who might read your comments and not have the full picture of UUs. And in my last AFP response I made no false allegations. I merely made clarifying points. There is a difference.
BD: My apologies for saying they were “false allegations.” I should have used a better term.
EM: You say “Having a sense of peace has nothing to do with believing in the truth.” I would say in this case that that is a subjective remark. You believe you have a truth. UUs believe they have a truth. You believe your truth is true. They believe their truth is true. You have peace. They have peace.
BD: I stand by my statement. Having a “sense” of peace does not necessarily equate to having actual peace, which can only come from Jesus.
EM: And by whose definition is such a congregation “confused?” How many UU services have you attended, and how many UUs have you interviewed regarding this unique brotherhood/sisterhood?
BD: 1. Mine. You can accept or reject that definition. But I would like to pose this question to you: how do you view John 14:6 (Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”)? Jesus left no room for Buddhism or Islam or atheism or paganism. Do you believe a Christian must believe Jesus if the only way to the Father?
2. None.
3. None, although I do know some Unitarians as well as former Unitarians. The Unitarian denomination, as I have stated, is confused… it believes everything, and Jesus specifically spoke out against that. But most of the Unitarians I know are lovely people, compassionate people. And many times they are more loving than many Christians.
EM: As to the Bible, Mr. Dolack, it was written by fallible human beings who were at some times Divinely inspired (there are beautiful passages about the profoundly loving nature of God)…
BD: And how do we determine which parts are inspired and which are not? Do we discard all the parts we don’t like (such as “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”)?
EM: … but in other ways very much a product of their culture. Hence the lack of understanding of human psychology, physiology, and the like.
BD: Is God so small, so powerless, that He is unable to provide us His word without corruption from fallible human beings? That said, I do believe there are passages in the Bible that are cultural (head coverings), or apocalyptic (Revelations), but it is still the inspired word of God.
EM: This is not a criticism of these writers because we know something about the world during which they lived and wrote. Yet it is something we, today, need to be aware of so we don’t fall prey to the all-too-human desires to unfairly condemn, harass, or oppress others in the name of God.
BD: Throughout the Bible, God desires a righteous people. Jesus speaks of this, the Old testament prophets speak of this, and the Apostles speak of this. We cannot toss aside those passages that speak of what’s sin and what’s not sin because we have a newer or *better* understanding of the Bible. I do agree that we should not “unfairly condemn, harass, or oppress others in the name of God.” I hope that is not what I’m doing because it is certainly not my intent. To be clear: the Bible condemns homosexual behavior, not homosexuals.
EM: Personally I probably wouldn’t go as far as to call someone who disagrees with me on issues of human rights a Fascist or compare him/her to a Nazi,…
BD: I’m glad to hear that.
EM: … however, I will always speak out against those who would spread falsehoods about gays and lesbians and would attempt to strip them of their innate rights as human beings.
BD: As you have every right to do. I don’t believe I fall into that category as what I am condemning is their sexual behavior, which the Bible clearly says is sin, and not homosexuals themselves.
EM: Apologies for using quotation marks incorrectly. It was a paraphrase and therefore not a direct quote. You are correct on that.
BD: Apology accepted. Thanks.
I equate “sense of peace” as meaning the same thing as “peace.” As I would equate “sense of joy” with joy. One senses it because one has it.
As to you question about God being “so small, so powerless, that He is unable to provide us His word without corruption from fallible human beings,” I must say I’ve heard that before. And my answer is that God is God is neither small nor powerless. He could certainly provide His word without corruption from fallible human interpretation. However, I don’t believe that has happened.
How can we know which passages are Divinely inspired? By seeing which ones speak of His love and intimate concern for creation and speak of His will that we love Him and each other with active compassion. Many of the Biblical rules and regulations are from the human mind, not the Divine Heart. Sin is what intentionally wounds ourselves, our fellows, and our world. What we eat, what we wear, whom we as consenting adults fall in love with and decide to make our homes with (for God created us gay, straight, bi, transsexual, transgendered), whether men or women preach — such issues are societal.
I’m sure we’ll never convince each other but I appreciate the civil tone this conversation has adopted.
Let me amend/clarify something I wrote above. It should read “…whom we as consenting adults *are socially permitted to* fall in love with and make our homes with (for God created us gay, straight, bi, transsexual, transgendered)…”
I’ve taken a little time to reflect on this thread and I’d like to comment.
First, it has, as Elizabeth said, taken a civil tone and I, too, am grateful for that. Thanks, Elizabeth, for your part in keeping it that way.
Next, I’d like to go back to my original comment which spurred this back-and-forth, and take a second look at it: “Chris is confused. He’s a Unitarian, which certainly doesn’t help. He needs prayer.”
1. “Chris is confused.”
This was perhaps not the best choice of words. Actually, it may even be wrong. Chris, if nothing else, is totally committed to his beliefs. Confusion implies doublemindedness or uncertainly, and I don’t think that fits Chris. What I probably should have said (and I hope this doesn’t come across as an attack) is “Chris is wrong.” On both sides of this debate we feel we are right and the other person is wrong. Elizabeth, I think you’ll agree with that… you probably believe I am wrong on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.
2. “He’s a Unitarian, which certainly doesn’t help.”
This is where all the trouble started. Now, I stand by this comment, but let me better explain. I allowed myself to defend comments that I hadn’t directly made. I got off track and, as with the “Chris is confused” comment, said things the wrong way.
UUs accept virtually all theological beliefs in contrast to Jesus’ own words where he says the ONLY way to the Father in through himself. I hadn’t said UUs were confused, but then I went and defended that position. I’d like to retract that and say UUs are wrong. They may be sincere, loving, great neighbors, and–certainly–committed to what they believe, but when it comes to the truth, Jesus Christ, they are wrong.
The original statement I’ll still defend. Because I feel Chris is wrong (theologically and on issues of great importance such as abortion and same-sex marriage), his being part of a denomination that accepts these things “certainly doesn’t help.” Do you see what I mean? It was not intended as a slam against UUs, and I apologize for any further posts that came across that way. I have absolutely NOTHING against UUs, but I do believe in my heart of heart that they are totally wrong when it comes to Jesus Christ.
3. “He needs prayer.”
Without doubt. We all need prayer. Of course, I meant this in the context of Chris being wrong theologically and regarding social issues, and I still stand by that. He DOES need prayer and, believe it or not, I pray for him almost every day. I would love for Chris to have the same relationship I have with Jesus.
—
I hope that clears up some things.
And you’re right, Elizabeth, neither of us will convince the other that they are wrong. You probably realize I disagree with most of what you said in your last post, but I won’t counter any of it… I’ll let you have the last word on that.
I will add, however, that I’d still like to get your perspective on John 14:6. If you decide not to comment further, let me just say it’s been a good debate. Thanks for all your input.
Here is another interpretation John 14:6. Though I’m not a UU, I think it has a lot of merit: http://socinian.blogspot.com/2005/09/reinterpreting-john-146.html
I read the article and some of the responses, but I don’t buy it. The author presupposes many facts not in evidence. Throughout the piece he says things like:
“The whole premise of the Gospel of John is…”
“John saw not only [this]… but also [that]…”
“John perceived, in particular, that…”
“…it would be a misinterpretation to understand those to be…”
Every now and then, he admits it’s simply his opinion when he says:
“I would argue that…”
“I think we must…”
But beyond that, it appears to me that he’s taking a simple, straightforward statement and attributing all sorts of meaning to it. It’s true, we can make any passage in scripture mean anything we want when we start saying, “What he really means is…”
I agree that a lot of scripture is not meant to be read literally by our understanding. We must understand what the authors meant by certain words. But that can be diciphered by using scripture itself in most cases. When John, in Revelation, talks about the stars falling from heaven, one needs only to look at the Old Testament to see examples of that taking place (and it doesn’t have anything to do with literal stars). Stars falling, the sun going dark, the moon not giving its light, these are ways the Jews spoke about great shifts in political or religious power. That’s clear from reading the OT, although most evangelical Christians today don’t seem to accept that.
But if we can’t find a definition within scripture itself and come up with something that doesn’t have scriptural backing, it’s nothing more than conjecture at best.
Yet when you say, “But that can be deciphered by using scripture itself in *most cases*” you open it up again. Most cases isn’t all cases, and so there you have that gray area. There are many interpretations of the Bible. Everyone seems to believe they are correct.
Obviously you define some seemingly symbolic passages with passages found elsewhere in the Bible. Yet some readers hold all passages to be literal. Others will disagree on that should be taken literally and the ones that should be seen as symbolic. Each will say he/she is correct. So stepping back a bit, I would say there is plenty of conjecture to go around.
Should have typed, “Others will disagree on the ones that should be taken literally…” Am just typing too fast!
I may have used “in most cases” to leave myself a bit of wiggle room. I’m no Bible expert and don’t want to dogmatically say that in every single instance Scripture can be interpreted by Scripture, even though I believe it’s true. It would be too easy for someone to toss a passage at me and say, “So, what about this?” I very well might find myself responding with, “Uh…. can I get back to you on that?”
I think there can only be one correct interpretation of the Bible. Many applications, sure, but only one interpretation. That’s why it’s critical to look to Scripture itself for the answer.
Take the example I used earlier, of Revelation (and the related passages in Daniel and Matthew). The dominant view in evangelical Christianity today is pre-trib rapture (I assume you’re familiar with that term but if not, it’s the Left Behind series storyline). They take half of Revelation literally (stars falling to earth) and half symbolically (the beast with 10 horns and seven heads).
Yet they ignore multiple examples in the OT where those very same celestial terms are used symbolically. Even as far back as the story of Joseph and his brothers, Joseph has a dream in which the sun, moon, and eleven stars “made obeisance” to him. His father immediately rebuked him, saying, “What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?” He understood what sun, moon, and stars meant.
Just before His death, Jesus repeatedly said He would come again SOON. He said the generation standing then and there would see Him coming in glory. But because people interpret the sun going dark and stars falling to earth literally, and they haven’t seen that happen in history, they re-interpret Jesus’ promise to return soon into something that means 2,000 years and counting. They fail to see that Scripture has provided the interpretation, and they find themselves redefining words and making all sorts of exegetical leaps and bounds to fit everything together.
Sure, there is plenty of conjecture to go around, but that doesn’t change what’s true and what’s false.
Thanks for your thoughtful post. As long as people have those varied interpretations there will be, unfortunately, discourse among the believers. There are the extremes…some will take every line in the Bible as literal while others will swear by the “mystical/scientific” Biblical claims of someone like Swedenborg or the “restored” claims of someone like Joseph Smith (both of whom believed his revelations reflected the *true* Christian religion). And then there are all those denominations and belief systems that are somewhere in between the extremes.
We all believe our beliefs are true; that’s why we believe them. I’m sure you are correct that some of the symbolism in later scripture can be interpreted by passages that came before. But as to scripture as a whole, I don’t believe one can prove the Bible using the Bible. That’s where faith will come in.
My faith isn’t in a particular written work but in God, because I don’t believe anything any person has ever written or done or created is infallible. Yes, there that are beautiful passages that are clearly Divinely inspired, but is it Divinely inspired as a whole? I don’t believe so. But I also believe that believing that is okay. God created each one of us and understands us better than we could even imagine.
That’s all from me on this, though I don’t doubt we could go on and on with our disagreements. Thanks for the exchange.
And thanks to you as well, Elizabeth.