Posts Tagged ‘Unitarianism’

feedingthepoor1Today I signed up to become a volunteer in a local program that offers food, counseling, and just plain old human kindness to homeless people in this new city that I just moved to. I came to the conclusion that as of late, I have been a bit of a hypocrite–I was missing something.

I keep on going on about how certain religions or religious persons are in the wrong because of their lack of real involvement in the needs of people and our environment, but I myself am not doing much of anything either. I guess I was just telling myself that this was my time to study and learn… not actually “do” something. Besides, isn’t it just a lot easier to point out the faults in other people?

I read this the other day and it really got to me,

If you cannot love man, animals, and plants, I doubt that you can love God. The capacity for loving God depends on your capacity for loving humankind and other species.

— Thich Nhat Hanh, Going Home

Don’t worry this kind of compassion is all over the bible as well,

For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;  naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’  “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?  ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?  ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’  “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.

— Jesus, Matt 25:35-40

Now if you profess to believe the bible, and in that scripture above, then what would that actually look like?

Also, would not also the opposite of that verse be true? If every time we are kind to a stranger we are kind to Christ then every time we are unkind we are unkind to Christ. Every time we let someone starve we are letting Christ starve.

Something to think about.


For more heresy please join me on my new blog at www.evolitionist.com


Read Full Post »

enviro churchWell everyone, after several days of sleepless nights and living like a hermit in my 10×12 room–I finally finished my mock church proposal for an environmental, socio-political church.

It took longer than expected; granted:

  • It is 40 pages long
  • I designed a logo for it (not the image to the right)
  • Full branding guideline and standards manual
  • Website
  • Marketing Materials
  • Marketing Plan
  • Mission/Vision Statement
  • Core Values
  • Demographic breakdown of my proposed area. With graphs and charts.
  • Breakdown of over 50 community organizations to establish partnerships with
  • Programs Offered
  • Bio of the proposed pastor (me)

Not to mention the fact that halfway through this project I decided that there was no way I could ever consider myself to be a born-again Christian. That kind of threw me for a loop, and took some wind out of my sails. It’s hard to design a fundamentalist Pentecostal church when you yourself go to a Unitarian one, and practice Buddhist meditation.

However, I modified the project and turned the church into a multi-faith congregation; affiliated with both religious and secular institutions and organizations; highly involved in human rights, feeding the hungry, environmentalism, animal rights, and social justice. Heck, I even have it suggested to team up with Food Not Bombs, to hold religious tolerance meetings, a plan to get into the local Universities, and start up a counseling program for “at risk” kids.

One of my favorite parts was the mention of teaming up with the local Gay Rights chapter and having a booth at the Pride Parade. As well as the Tree Planting teams, and nature hikes while meditating on various proverbs.

Funny part is that this could actually work, and I would personally go to such a place… in a heartbeat.

Too bad there is no way in hell that any chapter of the Assemblies of God, or PAOC would ever let this thing fly. Although, who knows? There has to be some kind of a religious organization out there that would welcome me as a member and a leader.

Sorry, nothing deep to say tonight about religion. Nothing witty. I am just stoked that my paper is done, and that after a day or tow of rest things may get back to normal for me. I was certainly burning out.

If anyone is interested in seeing my actual paper–let me know. I’d be happy to share a pdf with you.

Take care all.


For more heresy please join me on my new blog at www.evolitionist.com

Read Full Post »

Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons!So, I had this great analogy I was going to use about Star Wars and the  Church, but seeing how I “blew my proverbial Star Wars load” on the last post, I am going to have to go old-school on you all and bust out with some Plato. Or, as none better than Vizzini puts it in The Princess Bride,

Have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons!

Let me propose to you this simple series of questions:

Which of us can rightfully say that he or she understands the works of Plato better than Plato himself? Whom among us can grasp the concepts of Platonism better than Plato did? Who can claim to better understands the intent of Plato than Plato?

Granted, you may have been able to memorize his works better than he ever did, and maybe you can quote Plato to Plato til blue in the face; however, can you really ever claim to know his intent better than he?

Sorry, this would have been much cooler using George Lucas as the example.

Anyway, the point is pretty clear: No you can not know Plato’s work (the desire, intent, purpose, reason, point, and passion behind it) better than Plato ever did. That would be impossible.

In Church history we have “built off the knowledge” of certain founders, apostles, preachers, scholars and theologians. The basic idea being that all of them before us thought that they “had it right”, but they really did not have it right. Maybe they had a part that we like and keep, but the rest of it was pure nonsense. They thought that what they had was sacred and unchangeable; they were wrong. However, what we have now is right, is unchanging and infallible.

How can it be that we who are further away from the source (i.e. Jesus) of Christian intent can say that we understand this intent better than someone who was nearer to the source? Would not Jesus know his intent more than any other, followed by his disciples, then their students, and so on and so forth? Yet, we claim to now with our “better and more educated understandings” come to new revelations that Peter, Paul, and the founders of the church simply missed?

It is only in our our pride and ignorance we can say that we know the teachings and heart of Christ better and more than our Founding Fathers.

How can we “build off of” the works of Luther? Either he had it right or he suffered mental illness, was an Anti-Semite and a child molester.

We all know that the New Testament was compiled by men in the church because they believed that the God in the Old Testament and that the God of Jesus in were different Gods; we disagree with them, but we use their bibles.

When people point out that the God of the Old Testament seems a lot different than the God of the New Testament we discredit them; we say that they understand less than we do; yet, our Founders declared that they were different and should not be read as one.

We all call this New Testament divine and as a Church declared it “infallible”, then later removed several books from it that no longer fit with their “new understandings”.

We do not recognize that fact that even further back all Christianity was the Roman Catholic Church.

We quote men as heroes in our religion, as great theologians, who were Gnostic – not fundamentalists – who believed in reincarnation (i.e. Origen), who did not believe in a literal heaven or hell, and did not even believe in a historical Christ; they taught that the entire story of Jesus (birth, life, death and resurrection) was just an allegory (metaphor).

Most of these men we both burned at the stakes and made into Saints.

Either they are the heretics or you are; enough with these “new revelations”, let us go back to the source.

I propose that returning to a true Christianity would result in doing away with the religion of Christianity. I propose that if I were to suggest that there was no literal (historic) Christ – that this would not revolutionary but counterrevolutionary (going back to the source); if I were to teach reincarnation it would not be heretical but historical.

I propose that all religions that seek after One are One.


For more heresy please join me on my new blog at www.evolitionist.com

Read Full Post »