Posted on 12/08/2004 10:14:16 AM PST by gidget7
This stuff is from an "INDEPENDENT" organization trying to influence the UUs. http://www.uupa.net/
Polyamory bump.
Unitarians used to have one dogma - "There is no more than one God". Now anything goes and they "like you as you are". You might be surprised but there are even UU congregations that welcome conservatives.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to refer to the Unitarians as a church. Someone once told me that it's really just a secular social club. I have no direct knowledge of them, just throwing that out.
There explanation made me want to laugh, cry, and spit at the same time. She does not believe Jesus is the word made flesh but 'some people I know at church think that'. She went on to say that they did not try to explain God only to understand him, and the quest for understanding was more important than any belief.
I pointed out that if she believed in God but not Jesus maybe she should call herself Jewish, or if not the Hebrew God she could call herself a Buddhist. She continued to push my buttons when she said something along the lines of 'naa I like being called a Christian, and I dont think only people who think Jesus is God should have that right'.
I told her I though Mohammad was an insane man and that the Qu'ran (sp?) was full of lies to set make him rich. I then asked if I could in good conscious call myself a Muslim... Unbelievably she answered yes.. They are a social club not a church..
The reson I reply at all is because my wife and I have had a similar conversation. She had a *very* hard first trimester and she said if I wanted any other kids I would have to get a second wife. I said to her basically what you just said 'I have enough trouble with one, why would I want a second'.
It would have to be the second, at least. Eros was worshiped in Rome for a long time.
So is slavery. There isn't such a shared tradition for divorce.
Life expectancy rates were different (and childbith/childhood was even more more fatal). If you were a farmer a large family was an easy way to get a lot of farmhands.
Not weighing in for/against with this post (although polyamory group sex itself, especially unmarried, seems hedonistic).
Good point about slavery and different family dynamics.
I've never heard the term "polyamory" 'though I can break down the word and figure out what it means. I had thought most several-spouse arrangements were more of a sequential thing.
Either way, I have no moral problem with it -- just a practical problem (since three's a crowd).
well, I rather do care. I hope he keeps stating it, loudly, so people will do something about him being in office! One can hope!
Unmarried (or adulterous swinger) polyamory is also what's known as "an orgy". Menage A Trois. Etc.
Someone is likely bisexual in the encounter.
I have a lot of issues with it, but that's not the point. The government should not endorse, or sanction any immoral behavior. Tolerance is one thing, endorsing is quite another!!
Got it -- thanks! Yes, that undoubtedly sounds hedonistic (and kind of dumb).
Agreed. The question, though, is determining whether this is immoral. In this case, the litmus test many people use (the Bible) does not call polygamy immoral. That begs the question of what standard outside the Bible we're using to determine an act's morality or lack thereof.
>>>I hope he keeps stating it, loudly, so people will do something about him being in office! One can hope!<<<
You've got a good point there, kiddo!!
<><
I suspect that in the case of uniformitarians, this is history rather than a prediction.
Thanks for the chuckle.
I disagree with you. There is a distinct difference between the Founding Fathers and the rantings of Jonathan Edwards that sought to make a name for himself among the various sects within Puritanism. Edwards "Sinners In the Hands of An Angry God" stirred not the Revolution you speak of, but it was the beginning of the end of the non-conforming Congregationalists and the zeal of Puritanism. To quote an old New Englander, we were doing just fine without Edwards and his fire and brimstone antics.
But the revival took on a life of its own. Edwards spoke of the itinerate revival preachers not under his charge as braying beasts that stirred their listeners into shrieking mobs. He was shocked after his initial actions that the mobs turned violent. Certainly not what the Bible refers to as giving your heart to Jesus. Edwards later tried to justify his youthful actions with later tomes entitled Doctrine of Original Sin Defended (1751) and The Nature of True Virtue (1758). Edwards tried to resolve emotion with virtue (fruits and actions), as well as the question of free will choice in static predestination. But by this time American enlightenment was well established within the colonies' elites and was quickly holding the colonists firm in mind with humanism, rationalism, and capitalism.
I will also note that the average mortality age was about 40 years for a man, and that many women died in childbirth. Given this thought, I ague that the first revival's convulsions sparked a generation before the American Revolution, youths grew up either not knowing or not caring a tinker's dam about Edwardism. Jonathan Edwards died in 1758 in his mid fifties from smallpox and his writings were soon shelved rather than preached.
If what you assert is true then revivalism would have produced decades-long endured substance. But by the writings of John Adams, America was in not in the throws of a revival during or after the Revolution. Note the Second Great Awakening was needed (?) though the first one was supposed to wake everyone up to Christ. It is also important to note that the second revival was prevailing in different parts of the country than the first. New England was bled dry. The West was the fresh territory with the advent of the Methodist movement and Millerism.
Also, if your theory that the first revival brought forth the American Revolution, surely the second Great Awakening (1830's) brought forth a second Revolution. The Civil War did not occur until the 1860's, well past a generation. And I might remind you that commentators of the times were shocked at the deplorable spiritual condition of the country when Lincoln took office. Washington DC itself was a city of ill-repute with a shockingly high percentage of the population engaging in prostitution and other vices. May I suggest you read The Five Corners, or watch the movie loosely based on it called Gangs of New York to see the conditions of spiritual enlightenment from the Second Great Awakening to the Civil War.
IMO the Awakenings you speak of had no effect except to shake up established religions with emotion and fear. They certainly did not lead to the American Revolution. On the other hand, the Enlightenment still has a hold on the American mind. Hume, Franklin, Jefferson, Belcher, Hamilton. and all had more of an effect than Jonathan Edwards ever could.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.