Unitarian Christians- true or not true?

[Sy_Noe]

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.

Yes indeed.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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?

Actually much of this thread has not addressed the topic. But rather has merely been a repetitious inquiry by a person of feel in the blank with what someone doesn’t understand about their faith but conforms their beliefs to. And whether or not one has answered.

 

[adrift]

The only link I posted was this link from the Catholic Encyclopedia which starts out saying Unitarians are Protestants.

It makes a general comment on Unitarians which calls them liberal protestants. Protestant is used in the sense that these were people in the 16th century who were in opposition to the Catholic Church.

Then it says the name designates all disbelievers in the Trinity whether the person is Christian or not.

Not quite. It says

In its general sense

That is how people commonly view it in a broad way.

designates all disbelievers in the Trinity, whether Christian or non-Christian

Notice it says it refers to all those who do not believe in the Trinity Christian or non-Christian.

And then it says in its present specific use, the Unitarian name applies to an organized form of Christianity…

Did you read the same article I did because the article I read states

In short, present-day Unitarianism is hardly more than natural religion, and exhibits in some of its members a pronounced tendency towards Pantheistic speculation.

That doesn’t seem related to what you state above.

But then adrift says it switches gears after saying all of that

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that you are misrepresenting the article. That it does not say that this is a Christian group in fact it calls it a natural religion and that some of it’s members tend to Pantheistic speculation.

 

[adrift]

Actually much of this thread has not addressed the topic. But rather has merely been a repetitious inquiry by a person of feel in the blank with what someone doesn’t understand about their faith but conforms their beliefs to. And whether or not one has answered.

It also has been a great deal attacking posters. There is no requirement that you answer any poster. Why do you do it? If you don’t like a question, ignore it. I wonder what really bothers you is that she has struck a nerve Your right the question has been asked numerous times for a belief that you don’t understand but submit to anyway. An answer was finally given by one person. Since the statement was made that there are questions not understood as an answer to the question that it is legitimate to ask what questions do you not understand. Why the animosity? Animosity that gives rise to the thought you protest to much?

 

[Sy_Noe]

It makes a general comment on Unitarians which calls them liberal protestants. Protestant is used in the sense that these were people in the 16th century who were in opposition to the Catholic Church.

Not quite. It says
That is how people commonly view it in a broad way.
Notice it says it refers to all those who do not believe in the Trinity Christian or non-Christian.

Did you read the same article I did because the article I read states
That doesn’t seem related to what you state above.

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that you are misrepresenting the article. That it does not say that this is a Christian group in fact it calls it a natural religion and that some of it’s members tend to Pantheistic speculation.

Yes I noted it said it refers to all those Unitarians whether Christian or not. Which suggested to me some could be Christian. It also does speak of it as referring to an organized form of Christianity and even further down refers to it as a denomination. It even says it retains Baptism and the Eucharist. We read the same article. You’re just emphasing words in it such as “hardly more” and the tendency of “some of its members”. This actually reminds me though of things about Catholicism I have difficulty with. For instance I’m reminded of how similarly CCC goes to great lengths to say our consciences are where we are alone with God, where God’s voice echos. And says we have the right to act in conscience so as personally to make moral decisions. And must not be forced to act contrary to our conscience especially in religious matters. But then after saying all of that, it’s not really so. Because actually one’s conscience is not informed unless you conform your conscience to what the CC says your conscience should be echoing.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It also has been a great deal attacking posters. There is no requirement that you answer any poster. Why do you do it? If you don’t like a question, ignore it. I wonder what really bothers you is that she has struck a nerve Your right the question has been asked numerous times for a belief that you don’t understand but submit to anyway. An answer was finally given by one person. Since the statement was made that there are questions not understood as an answer to the question that it is legitimate to ask what questions do you not understand. Why the animosity? Animosity that gives rise to the thought you protest to much?

We all answered. Everyone questioned in the inquisition that pursued, at the minimum answered there are things about their faith they don’t understand but still believe. Those things they don’t understand are what they conform to. That should have ended it. No long list is needed. I personally even answered I currently am homeless when it comes to a faith community. My faith is still evolving. I’m still seeking truth. So I can’t play the game “fill in the blank” of what I conform to. But it’s not our problem our answers are not accepted and respected as our answers. Sadly I simply just don’t think posters realize sometimes how their tactics can result in something less than positive. Just on this thread alone people have either been said bye to or they leave the discussion. We may simply have to agree to disagree though I suppose. Peace and God bless!

 

[frobert]

It also has been a great deal attacking posters. There is no requirement that you answer any poster. Why do you do it? If you don’t like a question, ignore it. I wonder what really bothers you is that she has struck a nerve Your right the question has been asked numerous times for a belief that you don’t understand but submit to anyway. An answer was finally given by one person. Since the statement was made that there are questions not understood as an answer to the question that it is legitimate to ask what questions do you not understand. Why the animosity? Animosity that gives rise to the thought you protest to much?

The poster repeatedly hijacks threads, repeatedly prods and goads, repeatedly makes unreasonable assumptions. tells people they can’t answer questions, her manner is inquisitional and prosecutorial. She pays no attention to just criticism. She displays animosity in her behavior…She is like a child who knows no boundaries. I alternate in feeling sad for her and thinking much worse of her. Go on any thread that she is on and you see the same behavior over and over. She does not learn from her behavior.

 

[frobert]

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.

There is not much anyone can learn about Catholicism from your distorted views. You appear to think you have a microscope that sees into the conscience of others, but you need to clean the lens because you constantly come up with self-serving conclusions.

Here is an on-topic example on how one can truly examines their conscience: Can Genuine Christians Be Trinitarian or Non-Trinitarian?*

I am have long thought that being banned from CAF would be a blessing for reasons that your assumptions would be way off the mark.

I am sure you heard the saying that to assume is to make an *** out of you and me. So keep it up.

• I can’t locate the person who originally supplied the reference but I want to thank them for it.

 

[PRmerger]

It also has been a great deal attacking posters. There is no requirement that you answer any poster. Why do you do it? If you don’t like a question, ignore it. I wonder what really bothers you is that she has struck a nerve Your right the question has been asked numerous times for a belief that you don’t understand but submit to anyway. An answer was finally given by one person. Since the statement was made that there are questions not understood as an answer to the question that it is legitimate to ask what questions do you not understand. Why the animosity? Animosity that gives rise to the thought you protest to much?

Indeed.

There is a great deal of revelation about these posters’ psyches that they have reacted so strongly to a very, very simple question.

A seed has been planted, however…

 

[schaeffer]

Indeed.

There is a great deal of revelation about these posters’ psyches that they have reacted so strongly to a very, very simple question.

A seed has been planted, however…

Yes, but was it a seed worth planting?

You did not teach or even defend any doctrine or dogma of Catholicism.

Rather you spent a lot of time pridefully attempting to support a pet quote you’ve latched onto, at the expense of an opportunity of discussion of actual points of faith that might have planted a seed worth planting.

And whether or not you feel that is (gasp) and assumption I am making as to your motives, think on this…that is repeatedly the face you have shown here, as has been noticed by several people. So, while your intentions may be noble, your method unfortunately does not reflect that. Your audience might me better able to “hear” your intended message (again assuming you mean well and truly want to represent your faith in a positive manner) if the method expressed a desire to discuss rather than a desire to disrupt.

I read many threads here, and join in occasional discussions that I find enlightening, thoughtful and actually make me think long and hard about important things. There is something for everyone and I am confident that there are people who come to CAF and benefit from your style of discussion. So for their benefit, March on!

 

[Sy_Noe]

Indeed.

There is a great deal of revelation about these posters’ psyches that they have reacted so strongly to a very, very simple question.

A seed has been planted, however…

When it comes to seeds, one can plant a seed, continually stomp on it, and watch it not sprout into all one wished it would be. Or they can plant a seed, nourish it with love, give it it’s own space to grow and to breathe, and watch it blossom. If I were a seed, I’d choose the latter as my caretaker.

 

[Sy_Noe]

There is not much anyone can learn about Catholicism from your distorted views. You appear to think you have a microscope that sees into the conscience of others, but you need to clean the lens because you constantly come up with self-serving conclusions.

Here is an on-topic example on how one can truly examines their conscience: Can Genuine Christians Be Trinitarian or Non-Trinitarian?*

Frobert, thanks for this. I personally haven’t been in a great rush to judge the Christianity of others who might not see things exactly as I do. But who nevertheless strive to follow Christ. And this stayed on topic and helps a great deal.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, but was it a seed worth planting?

Absolutely it is.

You did not teach or even defend any doctrine or dogma of Catholicism.

I defended a multitude of Church teachings.

To wit: the teaching that the CC has the fullness of truth.
The teaching that we must have faith and conform it to truth.
The teaching that we use faith and our rational mind to come to a knowledge of truth.
The teaching that if you seek, you will find.

Rather you spent a lot of time pridefully attempting to support a pet quote you’ve latched onto, at the expense of an opportunity of discussion of actual points of faith that might have planted a seed worth planting.

Again, you’re rather judgmental, aren’t you?

I won’t report you for being uncharitable, because it is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, schaeffer.

It’s obvious that you did not know the faith in which you left.

And whether or not you feel that is (gasp) and assumption I am making as to your motives, think on this…

And this is rather snarky.

that is repeatedly the face you have shown here, as has been noticed by several people.

I suggest you read all of the posts and you will see how often posters here support my responses.

The few who recoil are the ones who know the truth of what we are proposing, but like those who leave the Church, are rankled by the truth of what we proclaim.

It’s like the folks who are smokers who get really, really pissed off at folks who show them, “Hey, smoking is linked with cancer!”

So, while your intentions may be noble, your method unfortunately does not reflect that. Your audience might me better able to “hear” your intended message (again assuming you mean well and truly want to represent your faith in a positive manner) if the method expressed a desire to discuss rather than a desire to disrupt.

Judging…

I read many threads here, and join in occasional discussions that I find enlightening, thoughtful and actually make me think long and hard about important things.

Sure, when it agrees with your notions.

But when it makes you think, “Hey, I could be wrong” suddenly, the motives of the poster are called into question.

Would that you would be able to consider posts which point out that you may be wrong, rather than the ones that simply affirm you in your errors.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Yes, but was it a seed worth planting?

You did not teach or even defend any doctrine or dogma of Catholicism.

Rather you spent a lot of time pridefully attempting to support a pet quote you’ve latched onto, at the expense of an opportunity of discussion of actual points of faith that might have planted a seed worth planting.

And whether or not you feel that is (gasp) and assumption I am making as to your motives, think on this…that is repeatedly the face you have shown here, as has been noticed by several people. So, while your intentions may be noble, your method unfortunately does not reflect that. Your audience might me better able to “hear” your intended message (again assuming you mean well and truly want to represent your faith in a positive manner) if the method expressed a desire to discuss rather than a desire to disrupt.

I read many threads here, and join in occasional discussions that I find enlightening, thoughtful and actually make me think long and hard about important things. There is something for everyone and I am confident that there are people who come to CAF and benefit from your style of discussion. So for their benefit, March on!

Well Schaeffer, one wouldn’t think it’s worth planting a seed if they then either ignore it or watch it blow away. But I suppose if one simply just likes to plant the same seed over and over and over again, maybe it’s worth it to them.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Absolutely it is.

I defended a multitude of Church teachings.

To wit: the teaching that the CC has the fullness of truth.
The teaching that we must have faith and conform it to truth.
The teaching that we use faith and our rational mind to come to a knowledge of truth.
The teaching that if you seek, you will find.

Again, you’re rather judgmental, aren’t you?

I won’t report you for being uncharitable, because it is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, schaeffer.

It’s obvious that you did not know the faith in which you left.

And this is rather snarky.

I suggest you read all of the posts and you will see how often posters here support my responses.

The few who recoil are the ones who know the truth of what we are proposing, but like those who leave the Church, are rankled by the truth of what we proclaim.

It’s like the folks who are smokers who get really, really pissed off at folks who show them, “Hey, smoking is linked with cancer!”

Judging…

Sure, when it agrees with your notions.

But when it makes you think, “Hey, I could be wrong” suddenly, the motives of the poster are called into question.

Would that you would be able to consider posts which point out that you may be wrong, rather than the ones that simply affirm you in your errors.

I don’t even know which faith was left by any poster if they don’t say, or what faith they might hold to now. But talk about judgmental? There is nothing obvious about anyone not knowing the faith they left just because they don’t see everything the way you do. I fully understand some may have a need to believe they can, but when one gets right down to it, faith truly can’t be proven.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Yes, but was it a seed worth planting?

You did not teach or even defend any doctrine or dogma of Catholicism.

Rather you spent a lot of time pridefully attempting to support a pet quote you’ve latched onto, at the expense of an opportunity of discussion of actual points of faith that might have planted a seed worth planting.

And whether or not you feel that is (gasp) and assumption I am making as to your motives, think on this…that is repeatedly the face you have shown here, as has been noticed by several people. So, while your intentions may be noble, your method unfortunately does not reflect that. Your audience might me better able to “hear” your intended message (again assuming you mean well and truly want to represent your faith in a positive manner) if the method expressed a desire to discuss rather than a desire to disrupt.

I read many threads here, and join in occasional discussions that I find enlightening, thoughtful and actually make me think long and hard about important things. There is something for everyone and I am confident that there are people who come to CAF and benefit from your style of discussion. So for their benefit, March on!

I guess I’m not one of those people because I don’t benefit when a single pet post is so latched onto and merely replayed over and over. Because to me for one reason I’d then start to worry if the quote is an image I created that could turn into the focus of my worship. And I don’t want that.

 

[adrift]

Yes I noted it said it refers to all those Unitarians whether Christian or not. Which suggested to me some could be Christian. It also does speak of it as referring to an organized form of Christianity and even further down refers to it as a denomination. It even says it retains Baptism and the Eucharist. We read the same article. You’re just emphasing words in it such as “hardly more” and the tendency of “some of its members”. .

No I am not just emphasizing words. It was attempted to dispute this statement

Non-trinitarians are not Christians. Thread title is misleading.

by saying the Catholic Encyclopedia

Yet the Catholic Encyclopedia starts by saying they are:

It is interesting to note that I actually quoted the Encyclopedia. It is quite clear that the article does not believe that they are Christian when they state the conclusion which is in short means

In short, present-day Unitarianism is hardly more than natural religion, and exhibits in some of its members a pronounced tendency towards Pantheistic speculation.

As for Baptism and the Eucharist it says more than they are retained

Two of these (baptism and Eucharist) are indeed retained, but their grace-conferring power is denied and their reception declared unnecessary. Baptism is administered to children (rarely to adults) more for sentimental reasons and purposes for edification than from the persuasion of the spiritual results produced in the soul of the recipient. The Eucharist, far from being considered as sacrificial, is looked upon as a merely memorial service. The fond hope of universal salvation is entertained by the majority of the denomination.

 

[schaeffer]

I guess I’m not one of those people because I don’t benefit when a single pet post is so latched onto and merely replayed over and over. Because to me for one reason I’d then start to worry if the quote is an image I created that could turn into the focus of my worship. And I don’t want that.

Yes, after awhile it became clear to me that there was an attempt to manipulate other posters to support a pet quote.

One of the reasons my faith teaches that we not assign human traits to God is because humans have a tendency to fall in love with or get attached to metaphors rather than what the metaphor represents or points towards.

We so easily slip into a form of idolatry, unintentional and often even well meaning. I know I have that tendency and have to stay aware of it in my life and prune it when it becomes counterproductive. It can be especially problematic when it comes to spirituality and religion.

One of the things I most appreciated about the convenant of the UCC is where is speaks of God saving people from aimlessness and sin. Though it does assign human traits to God, I think that is what RELIGION is about, the task of faith is to save people from aimlessness and sin.

Also there is a reading in the UU service book that speaks of being called back to one’s best self. Again, I think that is one of the most important tasks of a religious faith. God is Truth, religion is a program of keeping us in line with truth, of not remaining or falling into aimlessness, of constantly being called back to our best selves.

I must stay vigilant so I don’t reduce my faith into a series of sound bites or forget what the rituals point to. I love the rituals, but there too, it is so easy to become enraptured with them and forget what they are about. I have to remember they are not an end unto themselves.

 

[adrift]

We all answered.

Everyone questioned in the inquisition that pursued, at the minimum answered there are things about their faith they don’t understand but still believe. Those things they don’t understand are what they conform to. That should have ended it.

Why because you say so. The question wasn’t answered. What were those things that you don’t understand but conform to was the question that was ignored.

We may simply have to agree to disagree though I suppose. Peace and God bless!

 

[adrift]

The poster repeatedly hijacks threads, repeatedly prods and goads, repeatedly makes unreasonable assumptions. tells people they can’t answer questions, her manner is inquisitional and prosecutorial. She pays no attention to just criticism. She displays animosity in her behavior…She is like a child who knows no boundaries. I alternate in feeling sad for her and thinking much worse of her. Go on any thread that she is on and you see the same behavior over and over. She does not learn from her behavior.

If this is the way you perceive things the simple solution is do not respond.