Random Thoughts, strictly Text

P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
What's your opinion on the Unitarian Universalist religion?
Click to expand...

It is from the :devil:

I am a (Biblical) Unitarian, not a Unitarian Universalist. Unitarians became increasingly liberal in the 19th century, to the point where they eventually merged with Universalists, they became even more liberal, now they aren't Christians anymore, you can actually technically be from any religion in that denomination. Only small sects like CoGGC and the Christadelphians hold the Unitarian view today. The witnesses are much more numerous and are very diligent as you may know, they are ''Arian'' in theology, not ''Socinian'', do not be misled, both views are easily traceable to the first century, unlike trinitarianism, which comes from the late fourth century.
 
Last edited:
P

petosiris

Banned
passiflora said:
At a basic level my take is that if God created the world, is all powerful beyond and in it, knows all of it, and is everywhere beyond and in it, then how does one say God is in God’s creation, but God’s creation is not in God?

What is socinian theology?
Click to expand...

The Polish Brethren (also known as Socinians) rejected the pre-existence of Christ and said that Jesus began his existence in the womb of his mother as a human being. - https://archive.org/details/racoviancatechis00rees/page/n4

Socinians usually worship and pray to Jesus as second in rank, but know he is not the God - the Lord in the Old Testament.

Witnesses on the other hand, although Arian and holding the pre-existence of Jesus (he is mediating creator of the world) do not pray to Jesus Christ, as didn't many early Christians like Origen and the people around him. I think they are more correct that prayers in the New Testament are always directed to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, not to the Son.
 
Last edited:
P

petosiris

Banned
Wikipedia reminded me, Unitarians religiously worshiping and praying to Jesus are called ''adorant'', those who hold this is incorrect or idolatrous - ''nonadorant''. Newton was worshiping Jesus like Socinus, but praying only to the Father like Ferenc David.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
passiflora said:
At a basic level my take is that if God created the world, is all powerful beyond and in it, knows all of it, and is everywhere beyond and in it, then how does one say God is in God’s creation, but God’s creation is not in God?
Click to expand...

You can say that all creation is in God - that is panentheism. But you can't say that a piece of wood is a God and that a stone is a different God, that would not even be :devil: polytheism :devil:, but rather some kind of tribal :devil::devil: animism :devil::devil: , in either case idolatrous and repulsive to an invisible and immortal God.
 
Last edited:
P

petosiris

Banned
passiflora said:
Archetypes approved?
Click to expand...

I don't know about archetypes, only saying that omnipresence may mean some kind of immanence, but that doesn't imply identical ontology, i.e. a stone might be part of God, but God isn't a stone, because the stone doesn't encompass God, who is either the whole universe as in pantheism, or encompassing it and transcending it at the same time as in panentheism.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
So, the Bible is male-dominated? Here on Earth (Gaea/Gaia in Greco-Roman belief), women are intrinsic to creating human life. Not many men giving birth these days. :whistling:
Click to expand...

There was one famous Theosophist in my country who used to say that the Bible proves that men begat children, because genealogies are transmitted through the father. Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob. He thinks that they literally gave birth to their sons. Not kidding. :biggrin:

He may have been inspired by the theosophical first and second root races that reproduced by dividing and budding respectively. Again, not kidding. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
There was one famous Theosophist in my country who used to say that the Bible proves that men begat children, because genealogies are transmitted through the father. Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob. He thinks that they literally gave birth to their sons. Not kidding. :biggrin:

He may have been inspired by the theosophical first and second root races that reproduced by dividing and budding respectively. Again, not kidding. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

Amoebaism!
 
Opal

Opal

Premium Member
petosiris said:
Have you read the Books of Ruth and Esther?
Click to expand...

Ruth is a fun book. It was the first book I read, when I was a child. The High Priestess in tarot comes to mind. Sitting between the 2 pillars B and J, Boaz is one, standing for strength. When reading the book of Ruth though, she is the strength. :smile:
 
Top