Church Services (upcoming event) and some thoughts on it

I give up.

The gist is Billy, that any church in Neualtenburg can be used for a variety of different services. Because some though consider the "church building" part of the religion, I think there were a variety of "church buildings" established in the city. St. Martin's Parish being one that perhaps Christians would be more comfortable worshiping in.

As any person's home in the city could technically become a place of worship, I think it is safe for you to say that all the "church buildings" in the city are open to various religious services. It is just a matter of someone setting them up.

I'm sure in the future the various religions will establish their own "church buildings" of preference. Some may even be set aside for specific religions just as other buildings in the city have their specific purposes. Right now we are working more with limited size and space, so some of the buildings are having to share purposes.

TY for the reply Pen... I like what you had to say and agree.

Kendra, if you are going to be the head of an entire branch of government I suggest you attempt to be less condecending, more open minded and not "give up" when asked a simple question.

As long as we're on the subject of religion, what are your positions on antidisestablishmentarianism? I for one am in favor of a complete separation of church and state. Much more so than we have in the U.S.

~Ulrika~

It had to happen sooner or later......but I hate saying it

I agree completely with Ulrika on this subject.

I am also for a separation from church and state.

And yes... lol... this is a monumental moment when both Talen AND I agree with Ulrika... hehe

If Kendra agrees with us the workd will explode!!!

hehe.. Well, as I already stated in another post, I could not agree with this more.

BOOM

I still say that if we are going to call it a Unitarian church that someone should actually contact the RL Unitarian church to see if they object to this. Who knows, maybe some Unitarian Priest will be interested and preside over services.

Otherwise I say that this should not be misrepresented as actually being a Unitarian church with Unitarian services when it really isn’t. Who knows, there may be a Unitarian who is an SL resident who may be offended if the doctrine of the Unitarian church is not followed or if a service called a Unitarian service does not have a RL Unitarian minister presiding over it.

my apologys, Billy --but the question had been answered numerous times in the thread already.

I understand what you are saying Billy. Personally, I think it is neither as complicated nor as simple as what you state. How is that for weird. hehe.. At this point, Gwyneth would be to best to answer your question on this *detailed* concern because she is more established in the faith than I.

If we agreed that it's non-denominational, does that mean we should take down all the pictures of Jesus?

Maybe it would be best to have the church imagery more abstract?

I'm leaning towards converting the space into dance club myself. How cool would that be? Partying at "The Church".

~Ulrika~

Like the Limelight in Manhattan! Ahhhhh I miss my club kid days now ::niff::::

STOP....yeah that wouold be cool lets do it...at least with one church

Ouch! This thread is getting explosive on religious wars, and I'm in the middle of it. So I hope I don't jump from the frying pan into the fire!!

Ok, first, I "assumed" (and assuming things is dangerous for your health in Neualtenburg) that there would be a complete separation between state and church... except in one fundamental aspect. Church "services", or church-related events, or any kind of religious events anyway - will be "Events", attract people, increase dwell, eventually get donations, and these will contribute to the City, even if indirectly. And Events are regulated by the Guild and monitored by the Academy, so there will be an overlap. Finally, Ulrika kindly suggested that the donation box of the church should be split among the event hoster and eventually a charity, and I haven't commented on this, because I think this should be defined by the Government. So there isn't a "complete separation" possible - all Branches will have a saying on church matters!

However, I certainly agree that there should be a complete separation between both in the constitution. BTW, we Euros had a lot of problems with the wording of our own recent constitution because some parties wanted to cross out any reference to "Christianity" in the constitution preamble. As a matter of fact, for the European population, the big issue about the constitution was probably one paragraph in the preamble so if I'm touchy about that, you know why

Back to Billy. Now, I certainly agree that services should be performed by ordained ministers of a particular religion - and which can prove being exactly that, and having a permit to perform the service inworld - and as a matter of fact have posted this twice already (this being the third time). The major reasons are a problem in setting up a mockery which could be unacceptable to the members of that particular religion; as well as some states/countries actually considering minister impersonation a felony. So there are moral and legal issues there.

I also added that eventually through the The Bishopry of Parthenia it may be possible to get a Roman Catholic priest with an allowance to perform Catholic Mass in Second Life. I certainly will try to figure that out. I won't do it "tomorrow", but certainly before the summer of 2005. As I said, this bishopry is quite weird since it "officially" represents all virtual communities on the Internet. they may be interested in SL as well.

Now back to Unitarian Church vs. Any Other Church. I certainly am not an "unitarian minister" and won't pretend to be one. However - and I'm not sure if this was clear - as I said, "Unitarian" is just a label, not a "religion". You have the Unitarian Universalists, which are an organization with several Unitarian churches joining together and agreeing generally on a few basic things. I would believe that one of those "basic" things would be some sort of certificate declaring one person to be an "official Unitarian Universalist minister". Something that I certainly don't have, ever pretended to have, or are interested to have

However, as a "label", any kind of "service" which broadly fits into "Unitarian" belief is acceptable. You are NOT required to have a certificate passed by the UU branch of your country to set up an "Unitarian service". And this is the point. This is precisely the same thing as declaring Neualtenburg to be a "social-democratic republic". We do not need to register Neualtenburg at the UN or somewhere else to allow us to use that "description". As long as we follow basic ideas expressed by social democracy as a CONCEPT, we should be allowed to use it (and this is also I'm very sensitive when applying the wrong labels to certain things...).

Precisely the same thing applies to the label "Unitarian". In the project, there was nothing mentioned that "the Neualtenburger Kirche will host official Unitarian Universalist services with a registered member at the UUA" (or any other UU organization). No. Instead, it stated that the services would be "unitarian" in the sense of the PHILOSOPHIC belief behind Unitarianism - embracing all faiths, having a "common denominator" which should be acceptable to any tolerant faith, and not much more.

If you like, this is a challenge much harder to meet (what are, for practical purposes, the common elements of all faiths?) than having some sort of "rotating service" at the church, allowing all kinds of faiths to hold services there. Because some of them wouldn't be possible technically - either because you need an ordained minister, or because you need a certain ritual which is impossible to perform (say, how do you present the Host in Communion... you can only present a virtual, symbolic representation of the Host, not a physical one, so this would leave out, at the very least, the Roman and the Orthodox Catholics, and probably some Anglicans as well). This means excluding those faiths for technical reasons, and I would be hard pressed to allow exclusion of any faith for that. That's why I said before that I don't have anything against any kind of religious service in SL, but we should take extra care about the technicalities. I'd not be very pleased to have some of the Lindens knock at our virtual doors telling us that we got abuse reports by official membes of Religion A or B because we were doing mockeries and insulting/offending people from certain faiths. Not nice. If we could avoid that, I would prefer that.

The "easy way out" is just to have "our own religion", if you wish. That way, we can still have some sort of religious services, and make sure that nobody gets offended. Unfortunately, as we know from our history, religious "wars" (even if on a virtual scale, ie. forum discussions...) are part of our human nature, and it's understandable that they pop up unexpectedly. I certainly didn't envision them. I definitely thought that "declaring" in the original project that the Neualtenburger Kirche would have some sort of unitarian service was a very clever idea to try to side-step the issue - but apparently it didn't work!

So, I can propose two things:

1) Allow people to host events related to their own faith, but not religious services. As explained before, I'm quite sure each one of us will find, in their own particular religion, some kind of secular event which can be "safely translated" into SL, is not offensive, and can be hosted by a non-ordained minister. A "Bible interpretation circle" hosted by a Mormon, a Christian, or by Isaac Asimov will be completely different, very interesting, and certainly thought-provoking. You don't need to call "Mass" to that event.

2) Change the wording on the Neualtenburg Projekt to get rid of the "unitarian" label. People have burned on bonfires in the 17th century for using that label and it seems that old habits die hard - even if the "flames" are now on the forums instead. Call it "Common Denominator Religious Services" if you like Don't call it anything at all. Actually, my first event ever in SL was called "The Soul Solace" for exactly that reason - I didn't want to get a discussion around "labels" but concentrate on common belief systems instead.

The rest of the discussion is purely a matter of theology and I will gladly go on - on another thread, or, better still, inworld

Wow!

~Ulrika~

I do not see dwell as a donation. The city owns the land therefore the dwell should go to the city. I will submit that yes, this is an indirect overlap but not within the spirit of separation of church and state. I do not look at the final destination of dwell as getting in the way of separation.
A RL church may have to pull a permit to have a RL event and it is not considered overlap. I see no difference here. I am unaware of what the Academy’s roll in monitoring events is. Could someone please explain that further.

I think that all donations to the church should stay in the church treasury to be used only by the church with the government having no say.
I do not believe that any branch should have any say-so in regards to church matters.
Agreed
You say this but contradict yourself by saying that there will be Unitarian services. Anyway, I am in complete agreeance with you in regard to requiring ordained ministers to preside over any formal service claiming to be of that religion.
The American Unitarian Association was organized on May 25, 1825 and they still are in existence today. The roots in fact go back to 1805. Sounds like a “religion” to me.

I also must say that after reading a couple of websites that they do in fact have religious beliefs and reject others. I do not see where they accept everything from all religions.

This is the inherent danger in labeling this as a Unitarian church. I do not think that there is a Unitarian expert among us so to label this church as a Unitarian church may in fact be very very offensive to a Unitarian. I for one want to respect their religion enough to not even come close to misrepresenting the church as Unitarian.

I read about them too. They call themselves Unitarians and I think would not agree that they are not.
Do you KNOW this? Have you contacted a Unitarian church to see if they concur? Until you do I do not think that you can say that this is a fact.
I do not know differently and am just curious where you got that information. Your source would be interesting to read and may have other useful information that is applicable to what we are doing.
I do not agree with the analogy because I recognize the Unitarian church as a religion.
I believe that labeling the service you intend to hold as anything but non-denominational would not be the right thing to do and to label it as a Unitarian service would not be respectful of Unitarian churches.
We all agree that a service from any specific religion should only be done by an ordained minister of that religion. I would let him/her worry about those issues.
Yet it is perfectly fine to exclude everyone except Unitarians.
I am confused now. Are you saying that the church is open to other religions now? You just said it was not. You clearly say in #1 below that it is not too.
You can’t possibly believe that creating a new religion is a good idea. You REALLY want to take on that responsibility?
This certainly is not a “religious war”. I was under the impression it was a religious discussion.
In my opinion it is just fine to hold conversations, studies, classes etc… but formal services… no.
Agreed
I do not agree if an ordained minister can be verified in RL I would be open to him/her holding a service.
I agree and look forward to attending something like this.
I suggest the Neualtinburg Church which if asked is a non-denominational church.
I didn’t just read you trivializing what happened to those people by comparing being burned to death with this CONVERSATION about the direction of the church. That is offensive and uncalled for. I sincerely hope that you did not intend to come across as so harsh.
I fail to see why you labeled the church as a Unitarian church then. That doesn’t make sense and is exactly what I am trying to point out as a bad idea.
That works for me. I would be happy to discuss this with you any time you would like.

God does not exist.

~Ulrika~

Damn. That's gotta be the first time I ever agreed with Ulrika about anything.

Ok, Billy, I agree: reading your arguments, I conclude that you're right.

I fully agree that we should stop calling the Neualtenburg Kirche "unitarian" and any services held there should not be called "based on Unitarian philosophy".

If we do it any other way, it will be too confusing. Actually, I had the same reaction in several different levels with some people inworld (the argument did not take so much time to unravel and explain) when explaining that "unitarian" beliefs are not necessarily affiliated with any "Unitarian Church" or "Unitarian Religion". Since the meaning of the word is not clear to all, we should not use it.

Yes, Billy, some Unitarian Universalists will not agree to the usage of the word as described. Actually, your point would be made even if just ONE Unitarian Universalist would disagree with that usage (ie. it takes just one of them to say "Unitarian describes a Religion, not a philosophical view" to have the label be offensive to one person). Despite the fact that Unitarians base their faith on open-mindedness and tolerance, the truth is, the possibility of having just one Unitarian that would be offended is way to high to take a "risk" to call the services "Unitarian-based".

I agree to call it "non-denominationalist church" instead. At the event blurb I wrote:



This will be changed to something like:



I also would like to urge Ulrika to change the Projekt page to change the wording, or, at least, put some hyperlinks explaining why the original word was changed.

Note that I'm not "against" other religions and faiths using the Church space to hold meetings, and eventually services, if they are allowed by their particular religion/faith to do so. I only think it will cause problems later, but I certainly will not be blocking the usage of the Church for other purposes. The Neualtenburger Kirche is not "mine", it's something provided by the Neualtenburg City to be used, and, as such, any Neualtenburger citizen should be allowed to have his/her saying on the usage of the Church space. The "contradiction" you refer to is only my own interpretation about the "correct" usage of church space. It's my opinion only, and only counts as long as there are no dissenting opinions, that we should avoid having "RL religious services", and I have explained why. But since this is not an universal opinion shared by the Neualtenburgers, it only makes sense to change the rules to conform to majority ruling. Perhaps one of the great things about Neualtenburg is the ability to change "almost anything" by having people voice their opinions Your point is certainly unable to counter-argument, and this means to me that you have rooted out one major flaw in the design of a part of Neualtenburg, and it is our (common) job to correct it. Thanks

So here is my (revised) proposal:

"Allowance" should be based on facts and official declarations stated by the recognized authority in each case (usually, this is easy to do by browsing their web sites ). In case of doubt, I would prefer not to allow that service to be performed, but, since this could lead to more discussion and argument (based on the principle that we're not allowing some faith to hold services), I would at least recommend that a notice should be posted on the event blurb warning people that the service performed is not fully in accordance with that particular religion/faith and explain why (eg. minister is not ordained, physical impossibility of dealing Communion, space is not hallowed, whatever).

Would this be acceptable?

God exists, as long as someone believes in Him/Her

Disclaimer: I'm an "atheist", for lack of a better term, since I'm not baptized or otherwise affiliated with a particular church or faith, and was brought up according to the scientifical view of the world rather than any particular mythology.

Ulrika, what you are stating, is a fine example of proof by assertion
I usually say that everything that you can talk about exists. For a sufficiently wide definition of existence, you can say that everything exists if only as a concept.
Even if you are referring to something that is so original that no one had thought of it before, that thing is gaining existence as you speak of it, it is being created.
How can you talk about or even create something that does not exist?
Therefore, if "God" didn't exist, you have just created it. Shame on you, Ulrika!
Of course, merely uttering a word creates a very empty concept.
A concept has syntax and semantics associated with it. You can use "God" or "The Lord" or "The All-Mighty" or even just "Fred" as syntactical placeholders for a concept that is always the same, semantically.
Semantics are a more complex thing to define. They are assymptotically and consensually generated by millions of people all over the world. There are so many different variants of this concept, you could perhaps build a "genealogical" tree out of them, but there will always be a few key notions attached to every version of "God".
From the primitive notion of deity, through the numerous incarnations of judeo-christian mythology, to the more enlightened opinions of expert theologists, "God" is chock full of existence
"God" exists as much as "Love", "Hope" and "Faith" does

Wow, I'm impressed, Eggy!! That has been one of the best arguments I've heard so far (ok, strictly speaking, it's not original, but still well presented).

We'll still make a minister out of you

I made the changes from "Unitarian" to "nondenominational". I don't think it's necessary to explain the change in the web pages as all interested parties are currently in this forum. This is a good compromise.

~Ulrika~