Flag/Unflag
It's interesting that so many religious points of contention and angles of (often competing) interpretation come about, even within these forums. My thinking is that it's important and utterly prudent in our recognizing that the heart of ALL religion is a matter of faith, not provable fact. Considering this reality, I believe it is a very wise and compelling approach to address any theological issue with a tremendous amount of humility. We should also maintain that same paradigm and be mindful to not attempt to enforce our beliefs onto public practice and policy. That approach would have helped us avoid or alleviate MUCH of the world's conflicts and ills, going back to the crusades, through the protestant reformation, Salem witch trials; all the way up through the Christian based anti-gay movement (i.e. NOM); not to mention the more recent and heinous world events like 9/11. It seems all the more applicable and relevant to this board as we ponder Christian based morals and scripture, much of which generates such popular anti-gay sentiment.
The way I look at it, if all these pieces of disparate ideology REALLY mattered to God, wouldn't he make absolutely certain we all knew what to believe and how? Maybe all that fighting and conflict is done over issues that matter less to God than a lot of people think? If it actually DID matter, I have a feeling we'd all know what's what instead of fighting or disagreeing over so much that, if we're being completely honest, in reality and at it's core, amounts to theological conjecture and guessing games. IF any side or specific argument was provable and supported by viable evidence, we'd all mostly be on the same page. But it's not, so we're not. In the end, maybe it doesn't matter all that much what we each believe or don't believe; and each person's spiritual reality and experience is uniquely pertinent only to that individual and not wholly applicable to the masses.
Along with that, I'm interested in finding out who might fall into or subscribe somewhat to the Unitarian Christian ideology. Going back to America's founding fathers, many of the primary figures held a "from below" Unitarian viewpoint of Christ - rejecting all miracles, the virgin birth and even the resurrection - including Jefferson and Franklin and Adams. Most of the influence seems to come from a Deistic vantage point and concept of God that grew out of the "age of enlightenment," which I also strongly adhere to...especially in relationship to the plethora of varying doctrine and belief systems (but sans the need to decide for or against the reality of biblical miracles/virgin birth/resurrection)...preferring the natural world and science to understand our commonly shared reality and experiences (which all comes from God anyway). This is a big part of why I truly embrace the Liberal Quaker perspective that the Light of God is in all of us, Christian and non-Christian alike. It operates from a much more inclusive spiritual posture, to accommodate numerous religions and accept them into the fold; not to mention Liberal Quakers are following that same tradition for those of differing sexual orientation. I would rather embrace a God that loves us all without the need of strict mandate and harsh or unfair judgement, and one who gives us all an opportunity to evolve spiritually, and each in our own way. Otherwise, it seems beyond unjust to be solely reliant upon what has proven to be entirely chaotic and conflicting (and unprovable) interpretations of God's wishes.
