What if you found a church website that had many password protected sections? What if those sections were about the board members? What if that church happen to have a "Build Your Own Theology" slant?
I found such a church and I have to say I'm a wee bit suspicious of any "organized religion" that was open to every form of worship.
Buddhism? Sure. Christianity? You bet. Judaism? Got it. Paganism? Bring it on. Mystical? Why not?
By embracing everything, they seem to be covering all their bases. "Well, God might prefer this...."
To me, Faith needs to be rooted, somehow, to a practice that holds one set of ideas and rites. How can you do that if you have hundreds or thousands of people creating their own version of theology at the same time? How do you say "this is what we believe" if you have no set standard?
Believing in everything is on par with believing in nothing. It's like a bad episode of Seinfeld.
They claim to be a creedless religion. Isn't that an oxymoron?
What is this church hiding when they have sections of their websites blocked from the general public?
Posted by DaGoddess at January 2, 2005 09:13 AMScientology?
Posted by: caltechgirl at January 2, 2005 10:00 AMNot the church I researched
Posted by: Da Goddess at January 2, 2005 10:17 AM...would this be "Unitarian"? I met a member of the PRSM (People's Republic of Santa Monica) who was proud that her church had members who were Athiest.
It was important, as I remember, that they felt included.
Ooooo-kaay.
Posted by: leelu at January 2, 2005 10:34 AMHalf a bingo to leelu.
Posted by: Da Goddess at January 2, 2005 11:21 AM
Sounds like the SF city council.. everyone welcome but the Mainstream Christians :)
Wow! This post is right up my alley.
Yeah, this sounds like the Unitarians to me. Or possibly the Universalists.
I wonder if they'd be willing to accept Satanists into their congregation? After all, it is just another religion... isn't it? So we mustn't judge them.
You're absolutely right in equating believing in everything to believing in nothing, they'll both get you the same result; inneffective faith. If you don't have any solid convictions then you can't really stand up for them.
Sounds like our local Unitarian Universalist 'Church'.
Religion is of man, Faith is of God. Baptist, Catholic, Unitarian is all religion created by (or interpreted by) man. Kudos to a church that puts the emphasis on faith based religion and doesn't classify by type.
Of course the reality is they're probably just cultists gettin' started on the internet.
Posted by: Stew at January 2, 2005 07:47 PMAs long as the kiddie pr0n lasts I guess...
Posted by: Yogi at January 2, 2005 11:26 PMWell, I can think of a lot of good reasons we all should respect for business parts of a web site to be password-protected. Salary discussions, backgrounds on board members, discussions that you wouldn't shout out in public.
I wouldn't mix them up with the public stuff, personally, but there are a lot of amateur dweebs out there building web sites.
But why would you care, unless you were planning to worshp there or do business with the church (like rent rooms or evenplan a wedding reception).?
Posted by: Liz at January 3, 2005 01:25 AMThere aren't ANY good reasons to have to put sensitive, password protected information on the Internet. You set up a corporate intranet. If you need to access it from outside, you use PTPT or some other protected access.
So even if the Unitarians aren't smart enough to figure that out, they should be able to hire somebody who is.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 3, 2005 01:34 AMI think this must be the church where I'm getting my online doctoral degree ($49.95 - framed!) in Psychic Buttreading. My minor is in Astral Projection.
Give these guys a break; they're doing a profound service to the educational foundation of society.
Posted by: David Kilpatrick at January 3, 2005 06:38 PMIn some cases, a group will claim that they accept any religion, but once you get involved, you find that there's a core set of beliefs.
This is possibly the case with all groups of this nature. I suspect that someone who joined a Unitarian Universalist Church and preached the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth would not be regarded as highly as other church members.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at January 3, 2005 09:24 PMSounds like the Church of The Militant Agnostic, run by Father Pious Hypocrisy. For them not only is God unknownable, but they have a mandate to enforce that point of view with large, pointy sticks. Like, sadly, many other religions.
Posted by: Stephen at January 4, 2005 06:28 AMWho was it that if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything?
Posted by: David at January 4, 2005 06:03 PMPersonally, I have a problem with any religionthat states, unequivocably, that their belief is "right" and everyone else is "wrong".
Organized Religion was founded by people. People are flawed. People once were sure that the Earth was flat. Others were sure that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Some thought tomatoes were poisonous. Recently, some believed that Macy Gray was talented...
NO man, woman or child has ever known the true nature of God. It's impossible. We have no point of reference. We are flawed beings in a flawed world.
Pick what suits you best, believe it with your heart, but keep your mind open...
Posted by: Thomas at January 5, 2005 07:02 AMHere in Boston, 16 of the 18 Congregational churches became Unitarian when they split along doctrinal lines (originally over the Trinity, hence the name). This led to the snide remark: "We kept the faith; they kept the furniture."
Thomas, if you find yourself with time on your hands on a Sunday morning, this is the church for you. They are about as non-dogmatic as you could want. Go there in December and they are as likely to call it Solstice as Christmas. It was also said that they believe in one God, maximum, but I'm not sure whether that's still true. Polytheism is probably not off the table. You'd better be ready to vote Green or Democratic, though, because Republicanism is the only for-sure sin they recognize.
Posted by: Mitch at January 6, 2005 06:41 PM