Good definition of Unitarianism

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

So, researching a little on Unitarianism, and in regards to FFs being
labeled Unitarianists, please tell me what things would the
Unitarianists at that time believe?
Because, it's important to understand that just because you don't
believe in the Trinity, doesn't make you a non-devout Christian.

1) doesn't believe not in the trinity
2) doesn't believe not in Jesus being the Son of God or God himself
???

If you think *only* being a trinitarian is being a Christian
exclusively, then please write your own definition of what it means to
be a Christian.

[Jon]

Big can of worms. This is one reason why Dr. Frazer coined the term
"theistic rationalism" which defines more specifically than
"unitarianism." First unitarians break down as "Socinians" and
"Arians." Socinians believed Jesus was just a man, not divine at all,
but on a divine moral mission. Arians believe Jesus as some kind of
divine being created by but subordinate to the Father.

Further, both Arians and Socinians could be "biblical" in that they
believed Jesus God's son a "savior" and the Bible as divine
revelation.

However, there were also "rationalist" unitarians who believed the
bible only partially inspired and that man's reason superseded
revelation. This is Dr. Frazer's "theistic rationalism." This is
what J. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and probably Madison & Washington
and others believed in.

Theological unitarianism is but one element of "theistic
rationalism." Other elements include universalism (that is universal
salvation with the good immediately receiving Heaven, the bad
temporarily punished eventually redeemed); syncretism (all religions
being valid ways to God); and "rationalism" (that is looking to
"nature" and "reason" before "revelation" to determine the ultimate
nature of reality). Again, the theistic rationalists were likely to
call themselves "rational Christians" or "unitarian Christians." If
you think this belief system merits the label "Christian" then I won't
argue with you that these Founders were "Christians."

[mydh12]

Are Unitarians Christians? From a Biblical viewpoint, obviously not.
Today, most of them don't even believe in God. I don't know exactly
what they believed back in the FF times, but Unitarians were not
considered Christians then. Harvard was started as a seminary, but it
got overrun with Unitarian profs, and so Christians started other
seminaries and colleges.

The whole definition of "Christian" often gets muddled because so many
people claim to be Christian when they aren't. They are simply some
vague form of "cultural Christians." Since these non-Christian
"Christians" don't even know what a real "Christian" is, they don't
realize that they are not really Biblical Christians, and so they end
up confusing themselves and other people.

This gets even tougher when ascertaining if a FF was a Biblical
Christian because we have extra complicating factors.

1. Politicians, like other people, may say something in public simply
in order to please their audience.

2. Some people are more hesitant to talk openly about their faith even
though they are a true Christian.

3. People can use different words to refer to the Biblical God, but
those same words can also be used by others to refer to a non-
Christian idea of God, ie. providence, ruler of creation, etc.

4. People in the FF's time maybe used different words and language
than we commonly use, and vice-versa. They seem to have been more
formal in their language than us.

Since these factors make it possible for their words to be mis-
interpreted, it becomes important to judge the intent of the FF by
their actions, as well as by their words. Their actions, to me, speak
very clearly about their intent to have Christianity influence the
morals, schools, laws, and politicians of the nation.

[Tigerlilly66]

Bravo mydh12 ! Glad to hear a new voice in the discussion and I
couldn't agree more with you. I've made many of the same observations
you have, in that one's on particular "spin" on what constitutes a
"Christian" only serves to confuse things. Sometimes I think we
forget that even though there are many misconceptions about
Christianity, for every counterfeit, there is the REAL DEAL! It is
incumbent upon each of us to ascertain what is "real" Christianity and
what is not. For me, the answers are clear and unequivocal if one
reads the New Testament without pre-suppositions and an a priori that
precludes belief.

To one degree or another, I don't think any of us deny that Unity/
Unitarianism is foreign to even a liberal Christian world view.
Although Jefferson is credited with positive statements about
Christianity, the fact that he wrote his own Unitarian "Bible version"
is ample evidence that he was an unbeliever in the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. Why do we have such a hard time in saying this? It's almost
like it's un-American to voice such sentiments. When I read quotes
like this from Benjamin Rush, I hear the words of an evangelical,
Bible-believing Christian:

"The Gospel of Jesus Christ prescribes the wisest rules for just
conduct in every situation of life. Happy they who are enabled to obey
them in all situations! My only hope of salvation is in the infinite
transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His
Son upon the Cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins [Acts
22:16]. I rely exclusively upon it. Come, Lord Jesus! Come quickly!
[Revelation 22:20]".

Why can't we take the FF's at their very own words, for better or
worse? Were they not able to speak clearly and distinctly about what
they believed?

TL66

> > > be a Christian.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jon]

I agree with everything you said until this passage:

"Their actions, to me, speak very clearly about their intent to have
Christianity influence the morals, schools, laws, and politicians of
the nation."

If Christianity defines as narrowly as you define it (orthodox
Trinitarian) then absolutely not, I don't see Washington, J. Adams,
Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, et al. asserting this specific
form of Christianity only should influence the "morals, schools, laws,
and politicians of the nation." If rather, Christianity, defines
rather broadly to include Unitarianism and all sorts of other
theologically liberal heresies, then yes, I see them in believing
"Christianity" should influence "morals, schools, laws, and
politicians of the nation."

[Tigerlilly66]

Here we go again...let's jump onto the "What Did the FF's Mean When
They Said 'Christian'?" merry-go-round and we'll all have a great
time. To those with no absolutes in their lives except their own
inflated notions of right and wrong, NOTHING is set in concrete.
Everything is open to interpretation as one may choose, no doubt with
our own pre-suppositions about what constitutes truth. Net result?
just a lot of pronouncements, expostulations, and high-sounding words
and phrases that ultimately, mean NOTHING. Life goes on, the sun
rises and sets, and everyone is as much in the dark as they were when
the whole process began. What a crock!

I for one am content to permit the FF's to speak clearly and quite
forcefully AS THEY HAVE DONE! It is laughably ridiculous to look at
the DIRECT and documented quotations of men like Ben Rush and dozens
of other FF's and wonder whether they were Unitarians, Deists, or the
like, even though they used language that no self-respecting Unitarian
or Deist would be caught DEAD using. Quote scripture? Not on your
life. Pray for the soon return of Jesus Christ to the earth? Get
real. Vote to spend taxpayer $$ to put BIBLES into the government
schools? Hell will freeze over first.

C'mon guys - let's knock off all the crap and call a spade a spade.
I'm sure Jon will have none of it, but he's got his own agenda and
world view to protect. I'm really disappointed, but I guess that is
my own fault for thinking that white is white and black is black.

The US Congress would be proud of what goes on here...we just talk,
talk, talk, ad nauseum, ad infinitem and nothing changes.

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

TL66 said: “To those with no absolutes in their lives except their
own
inflated notions of right and wrong, NOTHING is set in concrete….
“C'mon guys - let's knock off all the crap and call a spade a spade.”

< Let’s not be too quick to criticize the other party till it’s clear.
I’m sure Jon has some limits as to how far can something such as a
word be re-defined and re-interpreted. It’s true that many people are
loose with their definitions, but I think it’s a good idea to ask
sharp questions to get to the bottom line of their definitions and
positions. Is their position one on bias, or of legitimate dissent?
Well, at least that’s what I’m trying to find out with these
conversations, in addition to learning more about the FFs.

“Net result?

just a lot of pronouncements, expostulations, and high-sounding words

and phrases that ultimately, mean NOTHING. “
< Yes, sometimes I feel that way too.


Jon said: “then yes, I see them in believing "Christianity" should
influence "morals, schools, laws, and politicians of the nation."”
< Alright good, that’s one step closer. It’s just now the scope that
is the issue, correct?

“I for one am content to permit the FF's to speak clearly and quite

forcefully AS THEY HAVE DONE! It is laughably ridiculous to look at
the DIRECT and documented quotations of men like Ben Rush and dozens
of other FF's and wonder whether they were Unitarians, Deists, or the
like, even though they used language that no self-respecting
Unitarian
or Deist would be caught DEAD using. Quote scripture? Not on your
life. Pray for the soon return of Jesus Christ to the earth? Get
real. Vote to spend taxpayer $$ to put BIBLES into the government

schools? Hell will freeze over first. “

< I agree, and these are strong evidences that we should keep
presenting, regardless if the opposing party rejects it lightly.


“The US Congress would be proud of what goes on here...we just talk,
talk, talk, ad nauseum, ad infinitem and nothing changes. “
< well, I agree, I want to make sure that all this talk will get us
somewhere.

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

BTW, I've updated the Black Board to reflect this agreement.

[Tigerlilly66]

Victor, you sound more like someone determined to keep the discussion
going regardless rather than one seeking resolution. I know you see
this as your role, since you got the ball rolling in the first place,
but at what point does point-counterpoint finally sink into the Abyss
of Gobbledegook? I'm all for Jon having his say, just as the rest of
us, but at what cost? I'm not a patient person - a flaw in my makeup
when I sense we're going in circles. Review everything said up to now
and you'll find us all where I see us now...back at Square One with
everyone in the group most likely just as convinced of their position,
if not more, than when we began!

I'm ready for a breakout, one way or the other! Drop the Bomb that
you've been holding in reserve, Jon, if you have one...

TL

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Jon]

I think your problem is that you are using a modern definition of
"Unitarian" (or "Deist") and imposing on the Founding Era. It's true
that the Deists did not quote scripture authoritatively, because they
didn't believe scripture was revealed. Though Deists like everyone
else of that era and OURS spoke in biblical allusion (something non-
believers do all the time). Unitarians did quote scripture
authoritatively. Some unitarians believed the Bible the Word of God.
Some were more rationalistic and believed it a partially inspired
book.

Joseph Priestley was a Socinian Unitarian (believing Jesus not God but
a man of a divine mission) rejected original sin, the trinity,
incarnation, atonement, and infallibility of the Bible. Yet, he
believed in both the resurrection and the millenium. Re the
resurrection, he saw that as God doing for the most moral man what he
may one day do for all good men, perhaps all men.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Jon]

"It is laughably ridiculous to look at the DIRECT and documented
quotations of men like Ben Rush and dozens of other FF's"

Who were the other Founders? Not Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson,
Madison, or Franklin. They didn't believe in the second coming. They
may have quoted scripture because they thought the Bible partially
inspired (not inerrant). And I know Jefferson was against using the
Bible to teach school children. I'm unsure of the others. Though I
do know that Washington thought that non-Christians had a right to
exemption from tax dollars going to the Christian religion in which
they didn't believe. Jefferson and Madison thought it was sinful to
tax individuals to support a religion in which they didn't believe and
made that the law of the state of Virginia in 1786.

Regarding Rush, I've already shown you a quotation of his that shows
around 1780 he became a Universalist who believed in universal
salvation.

On Aug 4, 1:57 pm, NVSvic...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

"Victor, you sound more like someone determined to keep the discussion
going regardless rather than one seeking resolution."

< Well, I think the discussion ends when both sides agree, or if one
side is not cooperating well. And esp in this case, if one side goes
around in circles in their arguments, then we should let them know,
but we have to be sure of that. If they won't stop or disagree, then
it's good for us to step out of the conversation, WHILE letting them
know why we stepped out.

But I **feel** that I can get somewhere with this, esp by using the
Black Board. I don't know if you know why I started that, but it
certainly has helped me dissect the conversation and know where we are
agreeing at, and where we aren't.
One thing that gives me a good step is the fact that Jon at least
agrees that the FFs believes that broad Christianity should influence
politics, education, etc. I've recently updated the Black Board to
reflect this. (the Black Board is found in "Pages" and called "Summary
Of All Debates including agreements from both parties "). Please
familiarize yourself with this useful tool.

TL, we should pray about the discussion, that it can actually be
worthwhile, and that the opposing parties eyes can be opened up if
surely they are wrong. And also pray that we aren't turning a blind
eye to an important argument that Jon and his pals are presenting.

"I know you see this as your role, since you got the ball rolling in
the first place,"

< Actually, I only started the group, but I didn't start the debate,
(unless you consider posting up American Heritage videos as starting
it).

"but at what point does point-counterpoint finally sink into the Abyss
of Gobbledegook?"

< Till those conditions are met: "discussion ends when both sides
agree, or if one side is not cooperating well. "

"I'm all for Jon having his say, just as the rest of us, but at what
cost?"

< I'm not exactly sure what you mean? If all Jon is offering is mere
opinion and no argument, then I'm not in this debate for that, neither
did I start this group for that. You might think that Jon is really
just biased, but let's confirm that nothing else is stopping him from
believing in what we're believing. After all, he has been posting up
some interesting quotes and facts.

"I'm not a patient person - a flaw in my makeup when I sense we're
going in circles. Review everything said up to now and you'll find us
all where I see us now...back at Square One with everyone in the group
most likely just as convinced of their position, if not more, than
when we began!"

< You might be right, because :/ I'm not able to re-read
everything now. But with the Black Board and some prayer, I feel
otherwise.

BTW, one strategy I'm using here is asking clarification questions,
like asking Jon to define certain words, like Unitarian. Once I sense
him getting into a logic trap with twisted definitions, I'll accuse.
I'm sure Jon won't mind if he's an honest person.

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

"Who were the other Founders?"

< David Barton stated that there were many FFs that we can look into
but never heard about. That's buried somewhere in the series though.

"Regarding Rush, I've already shown you a quotation of his that shows
around 1780 he became a Universalist who believed in universal
salvation. "

< I've found the quote in "Founders on Religion". I'm not sure i want
to debate this much, esp since universalism doesn't seem to be so
threatening. Mydh might remind me why.

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

"I think your problem is that you are using a modern definition of
"Unitarian" (or "Deist") and imposing on the Founding Era."

< Great, that's a good thing to clarify. I'd like to get more into
detail with this, but not right now (out of time).

> ...
>
> read more »

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Ok. Jon. I attempted to graphically layout your eloquent definitions.
BTW, I think it's good that I don't necessarily research this stuff on
my own, but instead ASK YOU to define it these words, so that I can
understand how you are looking at these FFs.

Here's my work. It's at the bottom of the page. Let me know if I made
a mistake (you were a bit confusing in your words).

http://groups.google.com/group/american-heritage/web/summary-of-all-debates-including-agreements-from-both-parties

Then, we'll go on from there.

[Jon]

I made some changes.

On Aug 5, 12:44 pm, NVSvic...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ok. Jon. I attempted to graphically layout your eloquent definitions.
> BTW, I think it's good that I don't necessarily research this stuff on
> my own, but instead ASK YOU to define it these words, so that I can
> understand how you are looking at these FFs.
>
> Here's my work. It's at the bottom of the page. Let me know if I made
> a mistake (you were a bit confusing in your words).
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/american-heritage/web/summary-of-all-d...

[NVSv...@gmail.com]

Ok. I know you're being pulled into many discussion boards, so I'll go
slowly with this.

Regarding your changes:
Does a Theistic rationalist believe in ALL or SOME of these things?
universalism
syncretism
theism

Also, is there anything else to add to this list? Because after the
clean definition is complete, I'm going to "test" to see if certain
people are really Unitarians as you say by your definition.

[Jon]

It believes in all those things. I wouldn't add any more.