Unitarian Christians- true or not true?

[Sy_Noe]

The Christ/messiah was prophesied to be a divine figure in the Old Testament. People who deny this are not Christians, and in calling themselves Christians they blaspheme. It would be like calling myself a “muslim” but then not submitting to Allah. I just negate the meaning of the word. (A pretty common thing to do these days, at least when it comes to marriage)

I had to go back and take another look at the OP to see if the question was are Unitarian Christians Christian or if it was are they orthodox Christians? There may be a difference. Trinitarians might argue belief in the trinity is the orthodox viewpoint. But it’s interesting you brought up marriage. Because it reminds me of how I’ve also seen people attempt to argue that even mainline Christian denominations today such as UCC, PCUSA, TEC hold unorthodox views. They might say this because the gender of their priests or pastors is not male-only or because of their views on something like SSM. UCC’s national synod is on record in support of SSM. PCUSA is in the process of seeing if a majority of its regions endorse their national body’s position in favor of SSM. TEC allows for blessings of SS unions. I’m not 100% sure of the ELCA position on gay and lesbian issues but I think it has evolved over time as well. Yet each one of these is considered Christian by.at least most people. It is only an extreme fringe who might not, And I’ve seen people also question the orthodoxy of SDAs, Yet they believe in a Trinity.

The OP showed a particular Unitarian faith community’s confession which states Jesus is Lord whose teachings and life form the standard of their faith and how they strive to live their lives in practice. And believes the Holy Spirit is God’s influence within us. You and others can if you want but I’m unwilling at this point to judge them not to be Christians. Whether they hold an orthodox POV on the number of persons of God may be another question. But as I see it that was not the question.

Btw just to be clear to my mainline brothers and sisters who may support SSM as understanding has evolved, I very much believe you are Christians.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sy,

Thank you for the reference. It clears up some confusion that I have been struggling with for a long time.

Frobert, I don’t think humans would be human if they didn’t struggle with matters of faith. We’re not God afterall, nor as some here believe do we strive to create One in our own image. I myself don’t always need everything black and white. I accept I have a finite human mind. So I’m fine with some gray. I really believe we just strive to follow God to the best of our human finite understanding of God at wherever we are along our faith journeys. Peace.

 

[PRmerger]

You asked for an example of where I conformed to my faith even when I did not “believe” (your term, in my faith we use the term “understand”) it, and I gave the example.

Really?

Well, you’ll have to forgive me for being very, very confused right now.

Because my understanding is that when I asked you for an example of that, you said, "I can’t answer that.

In fact, thanks to technology, I can reproduce that discussion right here, right now.

Here is where I asked the question, and then you responded with, “I can’t answer that.”

Try and look at it from this point: do you think that there could be a situation where a human creature says, “I believe that it’s not wrong to [fill in the blank]” but God actually believes that it is wrong?

Can you answer the above question? Yes? Or no?

No I can’t answer it. God doesn’t “agree” or “believe” anything. God is.

So, perhaps you can see how I would take you at your word, initially, and understand you to be saying that you can’t (and haven’t) answered my question.

And now here you are proclaiming that you did answer it!

That’s astonishing!

I will repeat, again, your own words:

No I can’t answer it. God doesn’t “agree” or “believe” anything. God is.

Are those not your words, in response to my question asking for an example of whether God could proclaim something that the human mind prefers he would not proclaim?

No I can’t answer it. God doesn’t “agree” or “believe” anything. God is.

 

[PRmerger]

If you were in discussion with someone who did not understand or respect the teaching of Real Presence, yet they wanted you to use the term “cracker” to refer to the consecrated host, I think you could use that as an example where you conform to your faith by not referring the the consecrated host as a cracker, no matter whether or not that was easier for the other person or more condusive to discussion.

That would be an example such as what you were seeking from me.

I gave an example of how I conform to my faith, even when I don’t fully understand a teaching. It was in no way off topic or not a response to your question.

As I said, it appears that no example I offer will be sufficient for you. Perhaps it is because I cannot fill in the blank with the terminology you use. So, if that is the challenge, no, I cannot meet it.

I expect that if someone posed the fill in the blank “We worship the cracker when_____” you would not fill in the blank, no matter how many times they kept asking you, because you would not concede to referring to the consecrated host as a cracker.

Perhaps you will think this too is a non sequitur or that I am splitting hairs. Perhaps someone disrespectful of your faith, or ignorant of transubstantiation would think not calling the consecrated host a cracker was splitting hairs as well.

I understand what you’re saying, schaeffer.

And, unfortunately, you analogy fails because in your example we are not starting from the same premise. The Catholic premise is that God is present in the Host. The Protestant premise is that it is merely a cracker.

There is no mutual starting position.

However, in the question I have posed, we both are starting from the same premise.
Namely: God, who is the Master of the Universe; He is Master. We are creature.

We start from that mutual agreement.

 

[schaeffer]

I understand what you’re saying, schaeffer.

And, unfortunately, you analogy fails because in your example we are not starting from the same premise. The Catholic premise is that God is present in the Host. The Protestant premise is that it is merely a cracker.

There is no mutual starting position.

However, in the question I have posed, we both are starting from the same premise.
Namely: God, who is the Master of the Universe; He is Master. We are creature.

We start from that mutual agreement.

No actually it is a parallel premise. I was coming from a place of God not having human traits. You were coming from a premise of God having human traits.

Similarly Catholics believe in the Holy Presence and Protestants do not.

If you and had started from mutual agreement then there would be no confusion.

You have in your above statement changed the premise. you have not said God is Master of the Universe and we creatures until now, and I had not agreed on that premise.

It seems you are more bent on finding fault with wording and semantics than understanding and having discussion.

I understand that your understanding of God has human traits. I am not confused on that. It appears you would rather search through old posts to twist meaning than read my meaning in a post where I am (pointlessly) trying to explain myself to you
and continue forward in actual discussion.

I bow down to your superior doggedness and interest in not discussing what I felt was an interesting point. You win!

Have fun picking this post apart and finding lots of things to prove me a fool! You win again, but perhaps at the cost of discussing an issue.

 

[schaeffer]

Really?

Well, you’ll have to forgive me for being very, very confused right now.

Because my understanding is that when I asked you for an example of that, you said, "I can’t answer that.

In fact, thanks to technology, I can reproduce that discussion right here, right now.

Here is where I asked the question, and then you responded with, “I can’t answer that.”

So, perhaps you can see how I would take you at your word, initially, and understand you to be saying that you can’t (and haven’t) answered my question.

And now here you are proclaiming that you did answer it!

That’s astonishing!

I will repeat, again, your own words:

Are those not your words, in response to my question asking for an example of whether God could proclaim something that the human mind prefers he would not proclaim?

Yes those were my words, then I moved forward hoping we could meet in the middle and continue the discussion, by explaining the situation from the stance of my faith.

I could not answer your fill in the blank as it was worded. I explained that and offered you a parallel using language that was fitting to my faith.

Instead of meeting in the middle and moving forward, you spent time and energy insisting I did not answer your question.

It serves your purpose, though I cannot tell what your purpose is, to repeat that no one has answered your question. March on!

 

[PRmerger]

No actually it is a parallel premise. I was coming from a place of God not having human traits. You were coming from a premise of God having human traits.

But take a step back.

We both start from the premise that God is Master, yes?

Are we agreed on that?

 

[PRmerger]

It seems you are more bent on finding fault with wording and semantics than understanding and having discussion.

That’s a very judgmental attitude to have, don’t you think?

And it’s a peculiar one to have, given the fact that I have over 25,000 posts to my name.

So it would appear that the facts show that I have been willing to have a discussion about 170 times more than you.

 

[schaeffer]

But take a step back.

We both start from the premise that God is Master, yes?

Are we agreed on that?

This was an interesting discussion, but at this point I don’t have the energy or patience to step back and start again. I expect it would once again turn into a case of having my posts picked apart in what seems like willful misunderstanding, and for what purpose I know not.

I am human, and I do tire, and I do have feelings and you are a superior debater and post with more logic than I am capable of. If that has been the point of the discussion, I feel it has served that purpose. I did come here to discuss religion not to be schooled in debating and you did, very early on in this discussion point out my weaknesses in that area. I have a good heart, but I am not so good at parry and thrust, as you have noticed.

I have said my piece on the issue, and if I have said it so poorly as to be continually misunderstood in spite of my best and repeated efforts to be clear, then there is no point in me further frustrating and confusing people.

 

[frobert]

This was an interesting discussion, but at this point I don’t have the energy or patience to step back and start again. I expect it would once again turn into a case of having my posts picked apart in what seems like willful misunderstanding, and for what purpose I know not.

I am human, and I do tire, and I do have feelings and you are a superior debater and post with more logic than I am capable of. If that has been the point of the discussion, I feel it has served that purpose. I did come here to discuss religion not to be schooled in debating and you did, very early on in this discussion point out my weaknesses in that area. I have a good heart, but I am not so good at parry and thrust, as you have noticed.

I have said my piece on the issue, and if I have said it so poorly as to be continually misunderstood in spite of my best and repeated efforts to be clear, then there is no point in me further frustrating and confusing people.

You held up exceptionally well. If there is a problem it is not with your debating skills but that you are too kind, which isn’t really a problem… Please do not let anyone discourage your contributions are valued.

 

[frobert]

“A liberal Protestant sect which holds as it distinctive tenet the belief in a uni-personal instead of a tri-personal God. In its general sense the name designates all disbelievers in the Trinity, whether Christian or non-Christian; in its present specific use it is applied to that organized form of Christianity which lays emphasis on the unity of the personality of God.”

Sy,

Did you post a link to “Can Genuine Christians Be Trinitarian or Non-Trinitarian?”

 

[PRmerger]

You have in your above statement changed the premise. you have not said God is Master of the Universe and we creatures until now, and I had not agreed on that premise.

Well, that was the presupposition. It was what we agreed upon, presumably, thus there was no need to state it.

So am I to understand that you do not agree that God is Master of the universe and we are His creatures?

 

[adrift]

Uh huh so while they are “hardly more” and “some of its members” exhibit a tendency, I guess the parts about them being Protestants and an organized form of Christianity like it says, were just put in there for window dressing or to take up space.

The way you posted was misleading. It didn’t say what you wanted it to say.
It initially gives a general definition calling it a liberal

(Since the end of the eighteenth century, however, the word has been applied more and more to certain tendencies in the intellectual, religious, political, and economical life, which implied a partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order.)

Protestantism

(In course of time the original connotation of “no toleration for Catholics” was lost sight of, and the term is now applied to, and accepted by, members of those Western Churches and sects which, in the sixteenth century, were set up by the Reformers in direct opposition to the Catholic Church)

The subheading indicated the intent which was to describe what the religion espouses. The article does not state if they feel the Unitarians are Christian but it does state that they are pagans. I would conclude the opposite of what you did and that is the article supports they are not Christians.

What is it to be a Christian? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia

Christianity is the name given to that definite system of religious belief and practice which was taught by Jesus Christ in the country of Palestine, during the reign of the Roman Emperor, Tiberius, and was promulgated, after its Founder’s death, for the acceptance of the whole world, by certain chosen men among His followers.

What was taught be Jesus? I am not going to address everything taught by Jesus but only one.

1. Jesus taught the Trinity: A few examples is as follows
   Elizabeth ask why the mother or her Lord comes to her
   Jesus says that He is I am.
   Jesus forgives sins. Only God can forgive sins
   When Jesus is baptized God speaks of being proud of His son and the Holy Spirit is seen descending upon Him.
   Most Trinitarians believe that you must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian.
   In answer to your question, it wasn’t window dressing but the terms used were not what you think they were. You assumed that Protestant meant they are Christian.

 

[adrift]

Yes those were my words, then I moved forward hoping we could meet in the middle and continue the discussion, by explaining the situation from the stance of my faith.

I could not answer your fill in the blank as it was worded. I explained that and offered you a parallel using language that was fitting to my faith.

Instead of meeting in the middle and moving forward, you spent time and energy insisting I did not answer your question.

It serves your purpose, though I cannot tell what your purpose is, to repeat that no one has answered your question. March on!

I understand what you are saying but it makes me wonder do you believe in the Bible? Or do you discount it because it describes God with human qualities?

 

[PRmerger]

I understand what you are saying but it makes me wonder do you believe in the Bible? Or do you discount it because it describes God with human qualities?

Oh, that’s a good question, indeed!

 

[PRmerger]

I am human, and I do tire, and I do have feelings and you are a superior debater and post with more logic than I am capable of. If that has been the point of the discussion, I feel it has served that purpose. I did come here to discuss religion not to be schooled in debating and you did, very early on in this discussion point out my weaknesses in that area. I have a good heart, but I am not so good at parry and thrust, as you have noticed.

That is too bad, schaeffer.

What you seem to be doing is understanding that your position is weak.

And rather than saying, “I need to re-evaluate my position because it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny”…

Instead you blame your inability on my superior “debating” skills.

Perhaps I am a better debater. Maybe I do have a better grasp of logic.

But that doesn’t mean that I have merely presented a good mirage.

What it ought to mean for you is: Hmmm…PRmerger has made a lot of good points. I do need to re-evaluate my position.

 

[frobert]

Ah. So you’re not okay with some beliefs.

This would appear to be NOT actually your position: “We don’t care what you believe, we care how you believe.”

I am curious: are you ok, then, with the CC being not okay with some beliefs?

Well Sy our hopes were dashed. Some posters are unable to learn from experience.

 

[adrift]

Well Sy our hopes were dashed. Some posters are unable to learn from experience.

What is the purpose of this post. It doesn’t address the subject but it does attack a person you know like in an ad hominem fallacy? You are trying to diminish her isn’t that the fallacy of poisoning the well?

I hate to see you do this for two reasons

1 it is beneath you
2 it could get you banned

The post you are quoting is from July 11th weren’t you the one that questioned addressing an old post?

 

[PRmerger]

What is the purpose of this post. It doesn’t address the subject but it does attack a person you know like in an ad hominem fallacy? You are trying to diminish her isn’t that the fallacy of poisoning the well?

I hate to see you do this for two reasons

1 it is beneath you
2 it could get you banned

Oh, I hope he is not banned.

For he certainly needs to be here so he can learn about the faith from knowledgeable Catholics.

It is clear that he has never had to question his beliefs before, nor has he ever been challenged to offer reasons for his beliefs…

He needs to do that so he can go…

It is good that he keeps reading and I am certain that all of our posts have rankled enough to cause a little bit of stirring in the mind. Enough, one would hope, to make him re-assess and re-group.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sy,

Did you post a link to “Can Genuine Christians Be Trinitarian or Non-Trinitarian?”

The only link I posted was this link from the Catholic Encyclopedia which starts out saying Unitarians are Protestants. Then it says the name designates all disbelievers in the Trinity whether the person is Christian or not. And then it says in its present specific use, the Unitarian name applies to an organized form of Christianity. But then adrift says it switches gears after saying all of that.

newadvent.org/cathen/15154b.htm