uua.orgは安全ですか？

Unitarian Universalist website, very attractively done. I "trust" this website as an accurate reference for, and portrayal of the beliefs and practices of this religion. This seems to be an essentially mystical religion, not stressing any specific dogma (neither Christianity, Judaism, Agnosticism, Atheism, or Paganism are seen as either inherent to their religion or contradictory.) Nonetheless, I don't see any snake-handling, miracle cures, or ascetic orders, so if "mysticism" applies to them, it is in a solely emotional sense of the word. (It should be noted that "Christianity" is of the vigorously liberal variety when referred to in the contest of UU) As an example I give this quote, "‘God’ is not God's name. Referring to the highest power we can imagine, ‘God’ is our name for that which is greater than all and yet present in each.” For some, “the highest power is love, goodness, justice, or the spirit of life itself.” Of course, for reasons stated above, this is not the Unitarian 'dogma' as to who God is, but it is presented as an acceptable explanation which they may choose to hold. According to wikipedia, they have 800,000 members. It seems that actual membership involves paying a due, so the number of adherents may be higher than this. Apparently they originated as a branch of Christianity which stressed the true unity of God, and that all people would be saved. According to K. M. Chworowsky, "Unitarian Universalists are Christian in the same way that Christians are Jews; that is, they cherish the tradition from which they Emerged (Christianity) without being completely limited by it." There is a certain subtle condescension in their attitude towards their parent 'tradition,' but it doesn't seem to cross over into vitriol. In spite of this, he also says that "Unitarian Universalists believe that no religion - including their own - has exclusive possession of the truth. All ought to be honored and respected for the truths in them." At this point I was wondering why on earth such a religion, which is, in my opinion, actually TOO open and non-confining, is so frequently labeled as a "cult." The answer seems to lay in their denying "orthodox" teachings. (The things which all the various denominations, who are constantly disputing anyway, have agreed not to question.) I've encountered an absurd number of evangelicals who seriously thing that the word "cult" is simply synonymous with "unorthodox," and that "orthodox" is whatever their particular denomination happens to believe. However, I am not a member of this group, they just seem way too free-wheeling for me. I also don't care for the backward ritualism that can be found in neo-paganism, (historically the "old" paganism was more violent, intolerant, and politically oriented than any religion we have today) , a religion they wholeheartedly accept within their ranks. And really, they're stuck with the same 'tolerance-dilemma' that similar minded institutions or groups have (or at least, what I would have if I held to such an ethical code). To say 'we'll tolerate everyone, and that will remove division from the world,' doesn't quite work, as you still have people who WON'T tolerate everyone, and (usually) these people aren't tolerated, which results in the absurdity of a intolerant 'tolerant' group. (Which, in turn, fosters even MORE division and discord in its soft-spoken way, or even not so soft-spoken) This is, of course, only why I am personally not involved with them, and ONLY represents my opinion. Nevertheless, I think that much of the stigma against them is a product of hostility from mainstream religious groups who are worried about losing membership, and not due to any real danger. We are not talking about Heavens Gate here. There are no viruses or explicit images.