Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

Interesting post from another forum:

... M


Re: Roman Catholic Synod on the Family, October 4-25, 2015

A couple of interventions by lay auditors--both women--at the Synod have been striking. One I have in its original English text:

Intervento della Dott.ssa Anca-Maria CERNEA, Medico presso il Centro di Diagnosi e Trattamenti Victor-Babes e Presidente dell'Associazione dei Medici cattolici di Bucarest (Romania)

Your Holiness, Synod Fathers, Brothers and Sisters,

I represent the Association of Catholic Doctors from Bucharest.

I am from the Romanian Greek Catholic Church.

My father was a Christian political leader, who was imprisoned by the communists for 17 years. My parents were engaged to marry, but their wedding took place 17 years later.

My mother waited all those years for my father, although she didn’t even know if he was still alive. They have been heroically faithful to God and to their engagement.

Their example shows that God’s grace can overcame terrible social circumstances and material poverty.

We, as Catholic doctors, defending life and family, can see this is, first of all, a spiritual battle.

Material poverty and consumerism are not the primary cause of the family crisis.

The primary cause of the sexual and cultural revolution is ideological.

Our Lady of Fatima has said that Russia’s errors would spread all over the world.

It was first done under a violent form, classical Marxism, by killing tens of millions.

Now it’s being done mostly by cultural Marxism. There is continuity from Lenin’s sex revolution, through Gramsci and the Frankfurt school, to the current-day gay-rights and gender ideology.

Classical Marxism pretended to redesign society, through violent take-over of property.

Now the revolution goes deeper; it pretends to redefine family, sex identity and human nature.

This ideology calls itself progressive. But it is nothing else than the ancient serpent’s offer, for man to take control, to replace God, to arrange salvation here, in this world.

It’s an error of religious nature, it’s Gnosticism.

It’s the task of the shepherds to recognize it, and warn the flock against this danger.

“Seek ye thereforefirst the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.”

The Church’s mission is to save souls. Evil, in this world, comes from sin. Not from income disparity or “climate change”.

The solution is: Evangelization. Conversion.

Not an ever increasing government control. Not a world government. These are nowadays the main agents imposing cultural Marxism to our nations, under the form of population control, reproductive health, gay rights, gender education, and so on.

What the world needs nowadays is not limitation of freedom, but real freedom, liberation from sin. Salvation.

Our Church was suppressed by the soviet occupation. But none of our 12 bishops betrayed their communion with the Holy Father. Our Church survived thanks to our bishops’ determination and example in resisting prisons and terror.

Our bishops asked the community not to follow the world. Not to cooperate with the communists.

Now we need Rome to tell the world: “Repentof your sins and turn to God,for the Kingdom of Heaven is near”.

Not only us, the Catholic laity, but also many Christian Orthodox are anxiously praying for this Synod. Because, as they say, if the Catholic Church gives in to the spirit of this world, it is going to be very difficult for all the other Christians to resist it.

[01738-EN.01] [Original text: English]


Peace,
Michael

[MachineGhost]

Not an ever increasing government control. Not a world government. These are nowadays the main agents imposing cultural Marxism to our nations, under the form of population control, reproductive health, gay rights, gender education, and so on.

LOL, did they leave anything out of that list of New World Order conspiracies?  The more things change, the more things stay the same.

[Mountaineer]

A stroll through history - click link for the timeline of the Reformation:

http://lutheranreformation.org/history/ ... -timeline/

... M

The world was changing. New scientific discoveries had opened pathways for understanding more about our complex universe. The ocean, once feared for its danger and depth, was tamed for travel and trade. Peasants and workers, laboring under harsh and relentless conditions, sought revolution. The bubonic plague had claimed the lives of about 75 million people from 1347 to 1351. It continued to reappear and panic European cities. Political alliances, long forged between pope and prince, fractured as power centers shifted. Gutenberg’s press (1455), the first to use movable type, transported ideas from one person to the next with swiftness and ease. As the medieval era collapsed into the modern, changes seemed everywhere and limitless.

Yet even during these changing times one thing remained constant: our God, who grants forgiveness and grace to His people through Jesus Christ. Despite advances and transformations in science and society, politics and publication, God was working. He gave hope and life by His Spirit through Word and Sacraments. He bestowed comfort and joy in trying and often perilous situations. In changing times, His promises through His Son did not change, nor will they ever. They will never be altered, nor revoked. His Word pronounces us righteous through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. He alone is our Life and our Peace.

Significant people and events in the “Old World” as well as the “New” have been included for the years 1436 to 1600. Additional references include scientific discoveries, substantive works of art, and the arrivals of European explorers to the Americas. Items in bold indicate writings and events specifically relating to the Lutheran Confessions.

This timeline confirms what we know by experience: change will take place. But in changing times God’s Word reminds us that He is always faithful to His people. With hearty confidence and trust we can say with King David, “My times are in Your hands” (Psalm 31:15).

[Mountaineer]

Interesting response to "same-sex marriage" SCOTUS debacle.

http://www.antiochian.org/metropolitan- ... x-marriage

Excerpt:
The status of so-called "same-sex marriage" and the reason for this Directive

It is this "beginning" which is often forgotten these days. As manifest by the recent U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in a 5-4 split-decision (Obergefell v. Hodges, 26 June, 2015), now well-known to all, a significant cap-stone was placed upon the rapid movement in our county toward a re-definition of marriage, which, of course, in the Church we consider to be unacceptable. To be precise, the Supreme Court's decision does not make any new law. However, it rules as non-binding any law which limits the legal definition of marriage to that of an exclusive union of one man to one woman. In the light of these facts, we issue this Archiepiscopal Directive in order to underscore the natural definition of marriage as a word to our "parish"; namely, the region of North America, so that all people may be summoned back to God-given common sense. But we also offer comfort to our spiritual children, all the Orthodox faithful—of our own Archdiocese, as well as the entire pan-Orthodox faithful of our sister jurisdictions—in order to show the "more excellent way."

Specific directives are in the link.

... M

[rocketdog]

Where the Gospels Came From:

Have you ever wondered where the gospels came from? Here’s your answer, compiled from Bart Ehrman (for the telephone game) and too many atheist Internet sources to list. (Yes, this is satire.)

https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts ... uffer4bd79

The irony is that the author of that post still doesn't explain where the gospels came from, because nobody actually knows the answer to that question even to this day.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... p_and_date

[Fred]

Regarding the authorship of the Gospel of Mark, here's a decent, brief summary of the evidence:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Gospel-of-Mark.html

Since it was called "The Gospel of Mark" it is not surprising that the early church fathers unanimously attributed it to Mark. Do you think they had better resources available then than we do now to determine the authenticity of it, or could their own biases possibly be showing?

The interesting thing I find about Mark is that, as the earliest gospel, it has no birth narrative and no appearance after the resurrection. Matthew, Luke, and John came later so can you really blame someone for thinking there have been embellishments to the original story, like the annunciation of the virgin birth and the resurrection appearances? Especially when the accounts don't even agree with each other and in the case of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are widely different and beyond reconciliation without great mental gymnastics.

You can think of this as rabid atheists out to undermine the Bible in fulfillment of Bible prophecy if you like but I consider it simply rational thinking about religious claims.

[Fred]

The "early church fathers" lived alongside John Mark, so yes, they had a clearer view of the book's authorship than any revisionist scholar of today has. 

Well, you have to define "early church father". Some of those defined as such are in the second and third century so there is no way they could have known the person named John Mark. And I'm skeptical about even any of the early ones living "alongside" this person. If you have any references I'll be happy to read them.

The interesting thing I find about Mark is that, as the earliest gospel, it has no birth narrative and no appearance after the resurrection.

The second claim in bold is untrue.  The first is true, and I agree it is interesting that one Gospel author decided not to write about Jesus's birth, but it's certainly not evidence of anything significant (unless one wanted to claim that Jesus was not born, I suppose). 

Read it again and leave out verses 9-20 which just about everybody agrees aren't part of the original. Jesus does not appear to anyone in that narrative.

This is the way it ends....

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.[a]

Make of that as the end of the first, original account of the resurrection what you will.

[Xan]

Happy Reformation Day, everyone!  The 500th anniversary of the Reformation is approaching soon: just two more years.

[MachineGhost]

ave the decades (or sometimes centuries) needed for it to have developed the way all other ancient myths did. [/b]

You don't need decades or centuries for a tipping point equilibrium shift.  Especially one from rampant barbarism for centuries to more civilized compassion and mercy.  That was the real event that occurred, not so much Jesus' alleged resurrection.  Does the illusion really matter if the end results are good public policy?

[MachineGhost]

Jesus isn't showing us how to be better or more moral; He's saying something much more complex, and more radical.  I hesitate to quote a few verses like this, because His words need to be read and understood in totality, but I wanted to show that the main message of Jesus is not that we need to be nicer, more civilized, and get along better with each other.  It's far more profound than that.

Well, realistically, you can't tell the real Jesus now from the hyperbolism that each Gospel allegedly wrote about him, but if he was really an asshole, that seems rather at odds with what transformed the world.  I expect the religion rapidly spun out of control and took on a life of its own as all things seem to do when the Great Unwashed gets ahold of something.

Of course, if your interpretation is that Jesus wanted submissive masochists out of fear and kowtowing to some "God"...  well, that just smacks of rationalization for believing in what has no proof.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not extraordinary emotionalism.

[Fred]

Whether the end of the Gospel of Mark is authentic (in the original writings) or not, belief in the resurrection began almost immediately after the crucifixion, and that belief drove the rapid expansion of Christianity in the face of massive persecution. 

I'm currently reading a book called "The Rise of Christianity, A Sociologist Reconsiders History" that is challenging both the common belief in the rapid expansion of Christianity and that of massive persecution. The latter is being challenged quite a bit nowadays.

It's slow reading and I haven't gotten very far yet so I'll have to get back to you on the conclusions.

My current belief about the Historical Jesus is along the lines of Albert Schweitzer in "The Quest of the Historical Jesus", that he was an apocalyptic prophet, and Christianity was a failed apocalyptic movement that morphed into a religion. This is also now the prevailing view of most non-believing Bible scholars. In my opinion, it is the only way the New Testament makes any sense.

[MachineGhost]

My current belief about the Historical Jesus is along the lines of Albert Schweitzer in "The Quest of the Historical Jesus", that he was an apocalyptic prophet, and Christianity was a failed apocalyptic movement that morphed into a religion. This is also now the prevailing view of most non-believing Bible scholars. In my opinion, it is the only way the New Testament makes any sense.

I mentioned before your time here that self-proclaimed apocalyptic prophets were a dime a dozen in Roman times.  There were literally thousands of different Messianic stories floating around and probably hundreds of devoted groupie cults to match.  "Christianity" was just the winning composite of all that came before.  Victors write history.

Frankly, I think its Constantinople that institutionalized the "winner" and morphed it into a modern religion.  Let me know if the book declares otherwise.

[Pointedstick]

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

If a religious leader today said those exact words, I wonder what the world reaction would be.

[Fred]

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

If a religious leader today said those exact words, I wonder what the world reaction would be.

The "take up his cross and follow after Me" part must have elicited an interesting response from the audience, as in "what in the heck is he talking about"? Kind of like Marty McFly when he makes references to future events in "Back to the Future".

He either said that or somebody writing later is putting words in his mouth based on the known Christian narrative. Take your pick.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

If a religious leader today said those exact words, I wonder what the world reaction would be.

imagine how it might sound saying the same thing but if the speaker used the word enlightenment in place of the word me ..

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

“He who loves father or mother more than enlightenment is not worthy of enlightenment ; and he who loves son or daughter more than enlightenment is not worthy of enlightenment . And he who does not take his cross and follow after enlightenment is not worthy of enlightenment . He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for enlightenment sake will find it.

what a mind bender if the man fulfilling prophecy who was born enlightened and in touch with his relationship with god and the universe, used the word "Me" as a way of expressing "direct knowledge of god - a state of being available to all " it kinda gives it a whole different feel

just a speculative interpretation you may now return to your fire and brimstone understanding of scripture

after thought -- it works as a pretty authentic sounding zen koan if you replace the word Me with the word zen

[MachineGhost]

MG, I don't claim anything of the sort that you describe in your first or second paragraphs in the quoted post above.

But isn't that the inference?  Kowtow before your "God" or be damned to <insert reason #4283 here>?  Why else would anyone bother to follow such a sadistic prophet if he allegedly said such assholish things?  Fear makes people do strange things, but sweep the world in a massive change that we now recognize as enlightened liberal values?  I'm skeptical.

[Mountaineer]

Yesterday's White Horse Inn episode might be of interest if you have questions about first century Christianity, mythology connections, etc. that are frequently discussed on this forum by the "not-yet-believers"  :

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/entry ... -the-bible

Just be sure to recall that apologetics (defense of the faith) will never convert you, only hearing the good news that Jesus died FOR YOU will do that. His body, given FOR YOU.  His blood, shed for the forgiveness of YOUR sins.  Go to where Jesus has promised to be FOR YOU - in the Word, in the baptismal water, in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper.  Speech over.  Have a great week. 

... M

[Jack Jones]

after thought -- it works as a pretty authentic sounding zen koan if you replace the word Me with the word zen 

I prefer your first version. This came to mind (emphasis added):

CASE 8. DAITSU CHISHO BUDDHA

A monk asked Seijo, "Daitsu Chisho Buddha did zazen (meditated) for ten kalpas in a Meditation Hall, could not realize the highest truth, and so could not become fully emancipated. Why was this?" Seijo said, "Your question is a very appropriate one!" The monk asked again, "Why did he not attain Buddhahood by doing zazen in the Meditation Hall?" Seijo replied, "Because he did not."

Mumon's Comment:
You may know the Old Indian, but you are not allowed to have an understanding of Him. If an ordinary man attains enlightenment, he is a sage. When the sage is concerned about an understanding, he is only an ordinary man.

Rather than putting the body to rest, let the heart rest.
When the mind is realized, then one need not worry about the body.
If the mind and the body have completely become one,
This is the perfect life of sage, and praise is utterly meaningless.

[sigger]

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

“He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

If a religious leader today said those exact words, I wonder what the world reaction would be.

My favorite passage, which to me speaks out against dogma - as Jesus is cited doing so many times in the gospels.

[Mountaineer]

They certainly do. I lived with one such person for two years, and it was a heartbreaking, exhausting experience. The deck is so cruelly stacked against them, and you want to help, but you really can't; the hurt is bigger than you. I must also note that the worst abusers were Christians. Some physically abusive, others emotionally so. Another common story at that school was that of the gay child disowned by their parents after being forced to undergo traumatic Christian "gay conversion" therapy or similar things. By contrast, I have never known any atheist or Unitarian parents to inflict the same kind of abuse on their children. To be sure, I've known plenty of bad parents of those flavors, but their problems were always more towards neglect or failing to provide a financially or emotionally stable household--never the outright physical and emotional abuse that some Christian parents seem capable of inflicting on their children.

My Lutheran tradition is very nonjudgmental, just proclaims the Word faithfully and administers the Sacraments rightly with a view that Scripture interprets Scripture in context as I've discussed before.

But the dogma itself is judgmental, regardless of whether you think you or your congregation is nice or mean. You and your fellow congregants can be the nicest people here in the left kingdom, but you still think that my fate in the right kingdom is eternal torture at the hands of a baleful deity who is cosmically displeased with my very nature and existence. I get that your proselytizing is done out of compassion, because you want me to avoid that fate, but your religion allows for that fate in the first place, and buried deep, I suspect that there is something emotionally appealing about its dogma that makes you not only want to stick with it but feel positive being enveloped by its tenets. All these links I've been reading (and I have been reading them) describe very bluntly how we all deserve to be abused and murdered and eternally tortured because we're so flawed, so sinful, so offensive to God, our very creator--and all through no fault of our own! This is such a repulsive message to me that I cannot possibly believe it to be true. It must be different for you and others who believe it. Deep down inside, there must be something in you that feels that you and other people need to be judged, measured, and punished; that you deserve it, even; and that you are in need of a third party to rescue you from yourself. If you did not feel this way, I cannot imagine how you could continue to be content with your very judgmental and fundamentalist brand of Christianity that, as MediumTex so eloquently puts it, has you and everyone else standing on the trapdoor to hell. You would have to rebel against it once its nature became apparent to you and you would have to give up your faith, as so many others have. The very core of Christianity is judgmentalism. There is no way out of it.

Resurrecting this old post because, well, I belong to a Unitarian Universalist Church.

Our church participates in a local organization that provides temporary housing and meals for homeless families with children.  Once per month, we have volunteers staff the shelter (which rotates among churches that have appropriate facilities, like rooms with beds, etc., which our UU church does not have), which means shopping for and cooking a meal, and staying over night.  I have volunteered a few times myself, as has my wife.

Anyway, I recently learned that one local church (large, non-denominational Evangelical) decided to stop participating in this organization.  Basically, they issued an ultimatum: either kick the UU Church out of the organization, or we (the big church) are leaving.  My understanding is that Big Church's threat was rooted in the fact that our UU church is openly friendly to LGBT people.

The organization decided not to yield to the blackmail (which, I must admit, surprised me on some level), so the Big Church no longer helps out.

Which kind of sucks, IMO.  This is the exact sort of dogmatic judgementalism that PS talks about above and that I don't understand.

That is the type of behavior that gives Christianity a bad name.  Generally, from what I understand, the modern day "Evangelicals" tend to either fall off the road into the ditch of pride (judgementalism) or the ditch of despair.  It frequently comes from interpreting the Bible from a perspective of "it's all about me and what I have to DO" (Law) rather than it being "all about Jesus and what He did FOR me" (Gospel).

The specific case you mention above strikes me similar to a snob who refuses to have his Mercedes worked on by a mechanic that sometimes repairs a Ford.

... M

[Fred]

That is the type of behavior that gives Christianity a bad name.  Generally, from what I understand, the modern day "Evangelicals" tend to either fall off the road into the ditch of pride (judgementalism) or the ditch of despair.  It frequently comes from interpreting the Bible from a perspective of "it's all about me and what I have to DO" (Law) rather than it being "all about Jesus and what He did FOR me" (Gospel).

The specific case you mention above strikes me similar to a snob who refuses to have his Mercedes worked on by a mechanic that sometimes repairs a Ford.

... M

I thought you belonged to the LCMS.....

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/13/ ... uri-synod/

The Missouri Synod’s constitution prohibits members from taking part in worship services that blend the beliefs and practices of Lutherans with those of other faiths and Christian denominations.

[sigger]

That is the type of behavior that gives Christianity a bad name.  Generally, from what I understand, the modern day "Evangelicals" tend to either fall off the road into the ditch of pride (judgementalism) or the ditch of despair.  It frequently comes from interpreting the Bible from a perspective of "it's all about me and what I have to DO" (Law) rather than it being "all about Jesus and what He did FOR me" (Gospel).

The specific case you mention above strikes me similar to a snob who refuses to have his Mercedes worked on by a mechanic that sometimes repairs a Ford.

... M

I thought you belonged to the LCMS.....

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/13/ ... uri-synod/

The Missouri Synod’s constitution prohibits members from taking part in worship services that blend the beliefs and practices of Lutherans with those of other faiths and Christian denominations.

The coupling of institutional religion with fear of change/challenge go back to at least the crucifixion, no doubt plenty of examples before then as well.

[Xan]

The community service that TennPaGa describes is not a worship service.

[Fred]

The community service that TennPaGa describes is not a worship service.

That service at Sandy Hook didn't sound like a worship service either but I did see that the president of the LCMS apologized for reprimanding the pastor who took part.

I believe that this pastor has subsequently been ex-communicated however.

[Mountaineer]

The community service that TennPaGa describes is not a worship service.

That service at Sandy Hook didn't sound like a worship service either but I did see that the president of the LCMS apologized for reprimanding the pastor who took part.

I believe that this pastor has subsequently been ex-communicated however.

Looks to me like Pastor Morris is still at Christ the King in Newtown as of November 8, 2015. You can click the YouTube link to see his sermon.

http://www.ctklutherannewtown.org/pastors-portal.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDHMmn_ ... eranChurch

Pastor Morris Apology:  http://wmltblog.org/2013/02/letter-from ... ewtown-ct/

President Harrison Apology:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... ntroversy/

Read the last two links.  Good reminders that we are all sinners, all can repent, and all can forgive.  Church is for sinners and hypocrites and misfits - if church were for perfect people, the pews and pulpits would be empty.

... M

[Mountaineer]

Resurrecting this old post because, well, I belong to a Unitarian Universalist Church.

Our church participates in a local organization that provides temporary housing and meals for homeless families with children.  Once per month, we have volunteers staff the shelter (which rotates among churches that have appropriate facilities, like rooms with beds, etc., which our UU church does not have), which means shopping for and cooking a meal, and staying over night.  I have volunteered a few times myself, as has my wife.

Anyway, I recently learned that one local church (large, non-denominational Evangelical) decided to stop participating in this organization.  Basically, they issued an ultimatum: either kick the UU Church out of the organization, or we (the big church) are leaving.  My understanding is that Big Church's threat was rooted in the fact that our UU church is openly friendly to LGBT people.

The organization decided not to yield to the blackmail (which, I must admit, surprised me on some level), so the Big Church no longer helps out.

Which kind of sucks, IMO.  This is the exact sort of dogmatic judgementalism that PS talks about above and that I don't understand.

That is the type of behavior that gives Christianity a bad name.  Generally, from what I understand, the modern day "Evangelicals" tend to either fall off the road into the ditch of pride (judgementalism) or the ditch of despair.  It frequently comes from interpreting the Bible from a perspective of "it's all about me and what I have to DO" (Law) rather than it being "all about Jesus and what He did FOR me" (Gospel).

The specific case you mention above strikes me similar to a snob who refuses to have his Mercedes worked on by a mechanic that sometimes repairs a Ford.

I would expect that the members of Big Church believe that their actions are consistent with God's will.  I don't know how one could argue with their position, as it is a matter of faith, isn't it?

And, FWIW, I had not been aware of the case of the LCMS minister who had to apologize for participating in the Sandy Hook service back in 2013.

The community service that TennPaGa describes is not a worship service.

True, but these two cases don't seem very dissimilar to me.  However, I am not familiar enough with either religion's dogma to understand how their respective stances are justified.  I'm simply interpreting through my own admittedly imperfect human lens.

Tenn,

If you wish to pursue, I would be glad to answer questions you may have about the LCMS worldview.  I can also give some perspective about the modern "Evangelical" worldview as I was part of that for quite a while.  On a second topic,

This is a quick summary of what I know about Unitarianism.  I would like to know more if you care to share. 
http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... ITARIANISM

This is a quick summary of what I know about Universalism.  I would also like to know more if you care to share. 
http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... IVERSALISM

It would be great if you could share what drew you to the Unitarian Universalist church.  I really do not know a lot about it.

... Mountaineer