Unitarian Christians- true or not true?

[adrift]

can we get back to the subject and stop talking about other posters. :slapfight:

I have read the article Can Genuine Christians Be Trinitarian or Non-Trinitarian? He makes some valid points but it is what he leave out that is most telling. He doesn’t address the Apostles worshipping Jesus in fact he only address one scripture. Considering that he is trying to justify his belief or non belief it is not surprising that he says he is Christian. He does not espouse Christian belief which I have already stated why in a previous post.

 

[schaeffer]

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.

yes, I have been judging. From what I’ve read all the posters in this thread and others judge something or other. People have opinions and observations. Making judgements isn’t something to be ashamed of, you make several in your post above.

If you feel you should report me, by all means do so. It would do CAF no favor to have people here who were disrupting the purpose of the board or being uncharitable, so do what you feel is appropriate.

I have acknowledged that you manner of discourse is likely beneficial to many here, and have encouraged you to “march on”, as well as having acknowledged that it is not beneficial to others, myself included. I am certain there are many here who support your posts, just as you say. It’s great to receive positive feedback, but as you point out sometimes people are going to say things that cause us discomfort and perhaps cause us to have to say “hey, I might be wrong” . Maybe this thread has brought up such feelings yourself, as you say it has in others.

It’s good for all of us to have our ideas AND our motives challenged at times.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

Schaeffer, thanks for your contributions on this thread. Though I was baptized and confirmed in the Roman rite, in my ongoing search for truth I as well have found things in UCC and UU which I’ve appreciated. As I have in others. May God bless you always as you journey and bring you continued peace.

 

[PRmerger]

yes, I have been judging. From what I’ve read all the posters in this thread and others judge something or other. People have opinions and observations. Making judgements isn’t something to be ashamed of, you make several in your post above.

Excellent.

We are in agreement, then.

If you feel you should report me, by all means do so. It would do CAF no favor to have people here who were disrupting the purpose of the board or being uncharitable, so do what you feel is appropriate

I don’t think you actually read my posts, which may be one explanation for our disagreements, as well as your inability to address my challenges.

I said that I am NOT going to report you. At least, not for that. You need to be here. If you are banned, that would thwart any seeds that I and numerous other Catholics are planting.

It’s good for all of us to have our ideas AND our motives challenged at times.

As long as there is no assumption about what one’s motives are, I give you a

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The TOPIC please

 

[PRmerger]

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

Would you mind answer the question regarding whether you dismiss the parts of the Bible where it, repeatedly, assigns human traits to God?

 

[Sy_Noe]

can we get back to the subject and stop talking about other posters. :slapfight:

I have read the article Can Genuine Christians Be Trinitarian or Non-Trinitarian? He makes some valid points but it is what he leave out that is most telling. He doesn’t address the Apostles worshipping Jesus in fact he only address one scripture. Considering that he is trying to justify his belief or non belief it is not surprising that he says he is Christian. He does not espouse Christian belief which I have already stated why in a previous post.

adrift, we can try as long as the subject doesn’t revert back to answering off topic questions. First allow me to preface this by saying I’ve always considered myself Trinitarian while honestly expending very little energy thinking about whether Christians must be so. The trinity is just what I was taught. But to me if one strives to follow Christ, that’s always been good enough for me if they call themselves a Christian. I just always figure it’s not place to judge their hearts. But what do you think of the point made about Jesus not knowing the time of his return to earth but only the Father knows? I thought that is what stood out the most to me. If Jesus is God, how could he not know? It was like an ah ha moment for me. It was probably the most telling to me and helped me to understand how or why Unitarians can believe they are Christians too.

 

[schaeffer]

But what do you think of the point made about Jesus not knowing the time of his return to earth but only the Father knows? I thought that is what stood out the most to me. If Jesus is God, how could he not know? It was like an ah ha moment for me. It was probably the most telling to me and helped me to understand how or why Unitarians can believe they are Christians too.

When I was young this was explained to me, theologically, in this manner.

When God/Christ chose to come to earth as man, Christ in human form agreed to take on certain limitations and that this was one of them. It was similar to the agony in the garden, and the temptation after the 40 days fast.

I am not a theologian, and cannot judge the veracity of that explanation, but I pass it on for what it’s worth.

 

[Sy_Noe]

When I was young this was explained to me, theologically, in this manner.

When God/Christ chose to come to earth as man, Christ in human form agreed to take on certain limitations and that this was one of them. It was similar to the agony in the garden, and the temptation after the 40 days fast.

I am not a theologian, and cannot judge the veracity of that explanation, but I pass it on for what it’s worth.

Thanks Schaeffer. I think it was worth a lot. So IOW when Jesus was on earth as a human, he wouldn’t have known the time of his return. That would have been one of his limitations. But if he is God, the 2nd person in a trinity, he would presumably have known again once he ascended back into heaven? Would that be a fair statement?

 

[adrift]

adrift, we can try as long as the subject doesn’t revert back to answering off topic questions. First allow me to preface this by saying I’ve always considered myself Trinitarian while honestly expending very little energy thinking about whether Christians must be so. The trinity is just what I was taught. But to me if one strives to follow Christ, that’s always been good enough for me if they call themselves a Christian. I just always figure it’s not place to judge their hearts. But what do you think of the point made about Jesus not knowing the time of his return to earth but only the Father knows? I thought that is what stood out the most to me. If Jesus is God, how could he not know? It was like an ah ha moment for me. It was probably the most telling to me and helped me to understand how or why Unitarians can believe they are Christians too.

When I was young this was explained to me, theologically, in this manner.

When God/Christ chose to come to earth as man, Christ in human form agreed to take on certain limitations and that this was one of them. It was similar to the agony in the garden, and the temptation after the 40 days fast.

I am not a theologian, and cannot judge the veracity of that explanation, but I pass it on for what it’s worth.

I don’t like saying if a faith is or isn’t Christian. But the question was what do you “feel”. The above I feel is partially correct. I believe people “think” they are following Jesus. When you look at what He says it looks to me that is not always the case but I don’t doubt the good intention. I agree with the above explanation. Perhaps, also, they were asking a question they had no right to. Therefore this was a sidestep to not give them information they weren’t entitled to have. Just because you say I am following Jesus does not mean you are. We know groups, I don’t have to mention them again, that are anything but Christian. Yet they believe they are.
This question I believe is satisfactorily answered others would not feel that way but I think it has to be taken together with other evidence which I have already mentioned.

 

[PRmerger]

We know groups, I don’t have to mention them again, that are anything but Christian. Yet they believe they are.

'zactly.

Truth is of the greatest import when one follows Christ.

One can be sincere. One can be good and kind.

But if one is sincere and good and kind but following a lie, then it’s an inutile sincerity and goodness and kindness.

It’s like a adult who sincerely believes in Santa Claus. This belief makes him good and kind.

But it’s also wrong to let this adult persist in being a fool, even if it makes him good and kind to believe that Santa is watching over him.

 

[Sy_Noe]

When I was young this was explained to me, theologically, in this manner.

When God/Christ chose to come to earth as man, Christ in human form agreed to take on certain limitations and that this was one of them. It was similar to the agony in the garden, and the temptation after the 40 days fast.

I am not a theologian, and cannot judge the veracity of that explanation, but I pass it on for what it’s worth.

This thread has about tired me out but thanks Schaeffer for answering a question pertinent to the topic. I believe it was worth a lot. And Adrift for your elaboration on it.

 

[Sy_Noe]

'zactly.

Truth is of the greatest import when one follows Christ.

One can be sincere. One can be good and kind.

But if one is sincere and good and kind but following a lie, then it’s an inutile sincerity and goodness and kindness.

It’s like a adult who sincerely believes in Santa Claus. This belief makes him good and kind.

But it’s also wrong to let this adult persist in being a fool, even if it makes him good and kind to believe that Santa is watching over him.

Yeah. And I don’t personally know any. But I’m just going to guess Unitarians probably believe they hold the truth on the subject matter too. If I’m mistaken, I hope a Unitarian will correct my assumption.

 

[PRmerger]

When I was young this was explained to me, theologically, in this manner.

When God/Christ chose to come to earth as man, Christ in human form agreed to take on certain limitations and that this was one of them. It was similar to the agony in the garden, and the temptation after the 40 days fast.

I am not a theologian, and cannot judge the veracity of that explanation, but I pass it on for what it’s worth.

Your Catholic catechesis was not lacking in this regard.

 

[mkoopman]

'zactly.

Truth is of the greatest import when one follows Christ.

…

It’s like a adult who sincerely believes in Santa Claus. This belief makes him good and kind.

But it’s also wrong to let this adult persist in being a fool, even if it makes him good and kind to believe that Santa is watching over him.

Do we need to fully reject the myth and that beauty conferred by the fabulous in fable? If this belief is to make one good and kind can we not realize the spirit of life and the beauty found in such a tale?

We can recognize the truth of the origination in the real acts of St. Nicholas who was indeed a good and kind person. Good St. Nick was concerned with the pressures of the secular world bending a father towards selling his daughters into slavery.

Is it wrong to seek God’s providence through petitions to the communion of saints? And, what other are we to make of an adult who believes in Santa? Do you think they mistake the image of St. Nicholas for a retail delivery of Big Brother and the Holding Co.'s color TV?

 

[PRmerger]

Do we need to fully reject the myth and that beauty conferred by the fabulous in fable? If this belief is to make one good and kind can we not realize the spirit of life and the beauty found in such a tale?

We can recognize the truth of the origination in the real acts of St. Nicholas who was indeed a good and kind person. Good St. Nick was concerned with the pressures of the secular world bending a father towards selling his daughters into slavery.

Is it wrong to seek God’s providence through petitions to the communion of saints? And, what other are we to make of an adult who believes in Santa? Do you think they mistake the image of St. Nicholas for a retail delivery of Big Brother and the Holding Co.'s color TV?

I don’t have a problem with any of the above. Belief in a fable and all its glory is a fine thing.

But the question is: would you encourage your adult son to persist in his belief in Santa Claus? That Santa really exists, and that’s his reason for being kind and good?

 

[PRmerger]

Do we need to fully reject the myth and that beauty conferred by the fabulous in fable? If this belief is to make one good and kind can we not realize the spirit of life and the beauty found in such a tale?

We can recognize the truth of the origination in the real acts of St. Nicholas who was indeed a good and kind person. Good St. Nick was concerned with the pressures of the secular world bending a father towards selling his daughters into slavery.

Is it wrong to seek God’s providence through petitions to the communion of saints? And, what other are we to make of an adult who believes in Santa? Do you think they mistake the image of St. Nicholas for a retail delivery of Big Brother and the Holding Co.'s color TV?

Also, what would you say to the Emperor who is parading around buck nekkid, but thinks he is dressed in ornate finery?

Would you keep up the charade and tell him how absolutely fabulous his outfit is, even though he you can see his doughy, puffy, pasty body–every last inch of it?

Would you play the game and let the Emperor keep on keepin’ on, ever the Fool?

Just as long as he’s happy?

 

[mkoopman]

Also, what would you say to the Emperor who is parading around buck nekkid, but thinks he is dressed in ornate finery?

Would you keep up the charade and tell him how absolutely fabulous his outfit is, even though he you can see his doughy, puffy, pasty body–every last inch of it?

Would you play the game and let the Emperor keep on keepin’ on, ever the Fool?

Just as long as he’s happy?

Did I vote for the Emporer? No. Do I know that an adult understands the basis for Santa Claus is a real saint. I hope so. If they are not acquainted with this knowledge then they should be informed duly.

Can a child or an adult assume an epistomolgy that denies the facts of history as they do not accept the facts and evidence supported by human witness as facts? Then not only does Santa Claus not exist but the Holocaust deniers would be just as correct as those who lived through it and confess to the trials undergone.

Which emperor are you supporting at this juncture?

 

[PRmerger]

Did I vote for the Emporer? No.

I don’t understand your reference to “voting” for an Emperor.

Do I know that an adult understands the basis for Santa Claus is a real saint. I hope so. If they are not acquainted with this knowledge then they should be informed duly.

There is no saint called Santa Claus. Perhaps you are referencing St. Nicholas, a bishop who is indeed canonized and NOT a myth.

My reference was to Santa Claus.

Would you recommend that an adult persist in believing in the existence of Santa Claus, a merry little man, a right jolly old elf, with magical powers to know when every little boy and girl is eating, sleeping, being good or bad? After all, this belief in Santa Claus makes someone happy and good…so would you encourage a person to believe in Santa?

Yes? Or no?

Can a child or an adult assume an epistomolgy that denies the facts of history as they do not accept the facts and evidence supported by human witness as facts? Then not only does Santa Claus not exist but the Holocaust deniers would be just as correct as those who lived through it and confess to the trials undergone.

Egg-zactly.

So truth is of great import, is it not?

It seems now that you are contradicting yourself. And making my point for me.

Which emperor are you supporting at this juncture?

I have no idea what you mean by this. Could you please explain?

 

[mkoopman]

Also, what would you say to the Emperor who is parading around buck nekkid, but thinks he is dressed in ornate finery?

Would you keep up the charade and tell him how absolutely fabulous his outfit is, even though he you can see his doughy, puffy, pasty body–every last inch of it?

This is the emporer, the one who was introduced in the nil potent sense of your hybrid communication thread. I can’t fancy them word puzzles strewn like garlands about the mantel of my fireplace. Forgive my low IQ, as Saint Pope John Paul the Great once commented, stupidity is a gift from God, don’t abuse it. So, please don’t abuse me.

Did I mention St. Nicholas and how he was focused on “human trafficking” in his day?

I believe I did describe the events acceptable as historically truthful about a real cannonized saint. This was intended to emphasize the reality behind the pudgy elf legend and is directly related to the “wait for delivery until 3” color TV that you and Janis Joplin can soon be expecting. Do you have trouble in relating to the person and the legend? Is it not clear that the substance of the Epiphany is present in the legend? Has the commercialized cartoon magic of color TV made it impossible for you to relate the origin of the legend to the jolly fat man?

Perhaps the child is lost in the animated farce because the truth behind the legend is too close to your heart to hear clearly? There is still much human trafficking in this world, today.