Oo, oo [raising hand], call on meeee!

Background: Born a Unitarian (literally — before merger). Raised a Unitarian Universalist. Have been in the process of converting to Universalism for several decades now.

In the course of which conversion, I’ve been rejecting the easy priveleged religion of my Unitarian forebears, where we humans were going experience “salvation by character” and then make “progress onwards and upwards forever.” As a post-Christian, I’ve been rejecting the idea that we are so fully in control of our own destinies, and rejecting the meta-narrative that says we’ll eventually get everything right (which is, after all, just a slight reworking of the old story of salvation that says that heaven will come later in history, in some inconceivable future time). As a post-Christian Universalist, I’ve been rejecting the system that so valued gradual progress (gradual, so it wouldn’t upset the applecart of Unitarian privelege?), and carefully considering the claims of ultra-Universalists like Hosea Ballou who taught that any punishment for sin must come in this lifetime.

No final answers (as always). Stay tuned for further developments.

I would say that his teachings aren’t just about the Golden Rule. I think some people just try to redue his message to that of a social teacher who taught people to be nice. I disagree with that characterization. I think he was a lot more than that. Lots of people have taught some form of the Golden Rule besides Jesus. Nothing unique there, really. But I also think that what he did teach, and live, was a message of radical inclusion, as well as rejection of institutionalized religious authority that colluded with political authority. It was a joyous celebration of God’s in-breaking presence on earth–which was why he partied so much, including with prostitutes and tax collectors. I would argue that he sought a world in which God’s will for mercy and social justice, rather than the will of Caesar and his religious collaborators, defined the way the world was run–which is to say, the Kingdom of God.

This is a message that resonates a lot with me.

And even being special doesn’t translate into a value in and of itself. Would any of us be the same if Genghis Khan had never been born? Or Louis Pasteur? Or if Marie Antoinette hadn’t been beheaded? We are talking about pivotal events that affected the world, but not all stories affect us as individuals the same way, and I wouldn’t say that Marie Antoinette or any of these other historical figures are more special because of their role in history. They are remembered, they are honored (or demonized), they are at the center of controversy, they had a great deal of power, etc. but there have been many thousands of great people (especially women) whose names we’ll never know, and whose influence we’ll never comprehend.

I lean more towards the words “and the greatest man is nobody.” (from the Way of Chuang Tzu)

I think what I’m trying to put a finger on is what the person’s life taught us, not the abstract principles itself. There are people whose lives move us and change us in ways far beyond their words.

Mystical Seeker, the question I’m coming back with is: Does it matter if Martin Luther King, Jr. was unique or not? I’d say that none of us here would be who we are if MLK had not been who he is. I’m trying to point beyond regular, ordinary uniqueness, to people who are uniquely unique.

Anyway, I reject all of them, because I don’t find it useful to stuff Jesus and Christian terminology in where none is needed.

So, to go with Buddha, without Gautama, we wouldn’t know that life is a cycle of dis-ease leading to dis-ease. Or, to go with Jesus, that our ethics should be framed by the knowledge that we are all brothers and sisters (Abba, father). Their lives taught us these things in a way that no one else did, and maybe in way that no one else could have.