Jump to content

Much Hostility Towards Unitarians


BeachOfEden
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a conversation I had on MySpace on one of my Progressive Christianities forums...I shows how MUCH hosility most far right Protestants hold against bibical unitarians, as well as all unitarians and non-trinitarian theists in general...

 

Doctrinally, Jehovah’s Witnesses bear no resemblance whatever to mainstream historic Christianity."

 

BeachOfEden: Hummm. but the far right fundamental Protestants often state the same thing about their liberal Protestant and mainstream peers. Being a Progressive Christian myself...I am not really impressed with the far right Protestants opnions of what they decree to be "historic Christianity."

 

"Russell acquired from the Adventists the idea that there is no .."

 

BeachOfEden: There 'different' TYPEs of Adventists. The most commom type that everyone thinks of and knows is Seventh-Day Adventists, whom DO believe in a literal and firely hell..it's just they think it will end at Christ's second coming. However, it is NOT this type of 'Aventists' that Russell studied with. The type of Adventist that Russell DID study with was The Second Advenist or as they are called to day The Advent Christian church or Abarham Faith Church of God. Indeed the Second Adventists do NOT believe that hell is a literal place of eternal hell fire..but then again, neither do such mainstream Protestants such as Progressive and moderate UNITED METHODISTS and or many of the PRESYTERIAN CHURCH USA.

"and no life after death until the Second Coming, when the righteous will be "re-created.".."

 

BeachOfEden: What does the word RESURRECTION mean? To be RAISED UP or awakened..However, if you believe that at death you never go unconscious or asleep then why would one NEED to be awakened or raised?

 

"In breaking away from the Adventists, Russell only widened his divergence from the Truth, ..."

 

Ahhh..THEE 'TRUTH'...? That is JW's favorite way of discribing their own interpretations of the Bible.

 

"Holy Trinity. According to the Witnesses, "the doctrine of the Trinity originated not with God but with Satan."6 They regard the First Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325 AD), which defined the doctrine of the Trinity, as a great victory for apostate Christianity."

 

BeachOfEden: As a Progressive Christian who believes in social justice I woul ask both JW's and their completeing foes, the far right fundamental Protestants what their doctrinal fight over the nature of God being trinatarian or unitarian in nature has to do with "treating others as one would like to be treated?" What does it have to do with the blanet sexism being practiced in the name of God in the bible in BOTH of these fundamental faith groups? BTW, "APOSTATE" is also another favorite word used by JW's for EVERYONE who dares not agree with 'their' interpretations of the Bible.

 

"Jesus Christ. The same Council condemned the Arian heresy, "

 

BeachOfEden: I don't care about this doctrinal fight. Many of my friends are Unitarians and Bahias who don't believe in the trinity either.

 

"which taught that Jesus Christ was created by God in time, and that He was unequal to God. Jehovah’s Witnesses is basically a revival of this heresy, "

 

Like I said, I don't have a b#tch against unitarians or arians.

post-179-1133715072_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beach:

 

Those who love " include". Those who fear "exclude".

 

The ones whose lives are lived in fear will always try to argue obscurities to try and pull you into the dark abyss with them. Do not let them.

 

flow.... :)

Edited by flowperson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know, Progressive Christians on here, how do YOU feel about Evangelical and fundamental Christians blasting and verbally attacking unitarians and biblical unitarians? How do YOU feel about such people going on witch hunts against Bahias and other unitarians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't particularly like it. I don't particularly like any person "blasting" any other person for their beliefs.

 

I might not agree with their beliefs and I might engage in discussion and debate regarding the validity of their (or my) beliefs, but I certainly don't believe they or I should be attacked because of it.

 

No one should have to suffer verbal abuse. Not them. Not me. Not you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beach:

 

I view it as a form of religious facism.

 

The underlying philosophy of fascism is one of coercion through repetitive acts of exclusion, abuse, repression, and torture of others. If none of these punishments work then it is death.

 

These behaviors grow out of a deep-seated sense of jealousy and fear. Those who behave and operate in these ways in the world are probably going to be excluded from G-d's grace and G-d's kingdom in the end and they likely sense it. Their fear-based behaviors become increasingly impossible for them to change or control. Paradoxically, in order to prevent their eventual spiritual demise, they unconsciously set out to guarantee it through their acts against those that they despise and scapegoat. Think of the persecution and putting to death of Jesus as the primal metaphor for this well known set of behaviors within societies. And yet, according to the Gospel narratives, their forgiveness was requested in His mortal end... "for they know not what they do".

 

Scott Peck's second book is very enlightening for identifying those in religious life, or in any life endeavor, who have these behavioral problems. I believe that the issues that you are addressing here would be covered by what Scott Peck has to say in his book, People Of The Lie.

 

flow.... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been in religious conversations and researching world faiths since I was 13 and this seems to be 'THEE' one single doctrine that Evangelicals and Fundamental Protestants spend all their time fighting over. Oddly, it is also thee one prime reason that they make other faith groups prime targets for tagging as "Cults'.

 

In reality, what does a reasoning person consider to be a unhealthy cult? A group that serves poision coolaid for dinner? In dangers it's memebers and society's lives? Yet, the far right seems to causually and rather loosely tag ANy and EVERY faith group that simply happens to not embrace the trinatarian view of God. There are two oddities to the far right Evangelical Protestant's cult tagging on all unitarians.

 

First, the far right Protestants tag all their non-trinitarian peers who are equally fundamental in nature as themselves, these being such rigid faith groups as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Now, the social justice issues of these 2 fundamental faith groups in question..such as both groups forbidding women from serving as pastors or church elders...or that the fact that these two faith groups deem a memebers-ONLY salvation does not seem to overly disturbed their far fundamental right Protestant foes..likely, because if they were to rang on JW's or Mormons for being sexist and exclusive in their own salvation views..then they would have to also add theirselves to their own cult list for being guilty as charged on the same things. So...rather..the far right Protestants focus all their tagging Mormons and JW's a 'cult' based mostly on ONE issue...simply NOT embracing the trinity.

 

Now, we have their other type of cult tagging victims....which are the liberal faith groups that happen to simply not embrace the trinity view of God and these would include UU Christians as well as Bahia. Now the fact that faith groups #1 and faith groups#2 are 'different' in that one group is ultra fundamentalist in nature, while the other group is completely progressive or liberal in nature does not seem to matter at all to the far right Protestants..rather..who you are or whether you promote social jsutice or not or whether you are rigid or ulta liberal...does not matter..the only thing that matters to THEM if if you dare not accept the trinity view of God..then basically you are on the "BLEEP" list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what to say, I've basically stopped caring what far right fundamentalists think of my views. If I let myself care that much, I'd drive myself crazy, and frankly I'm quite looney enough as it is, as most of my friends and family will attest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope you don't mind if I migrate this post here, since it seems more on topic, and plus, I wanted to respond to it.....

 

Here it is...

 

 

"UNITARIAN GROUP SPLITS, WANTS GOD IN ITS RELIGION"

<P>

Julia Lieblich, Tribune religion reporter. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Apr 21, 2001.  pg. 1

<P>

David Burton, attorney, Deist, and a co-founder of a group for  Unitarian Universalists who regard themselves as theists is quoted as saying: "The Unitarian tradition...draws inspiration and sustenance from the divine. But Unitarian Universalism as it's practiced today is almost devoid of religious content." He added that most attendees at the Virginia meeting were Unitarian Christians. He said: "Jesus is central to their religion. In most UU congregations, if you got up and started talking about Jesus, you'd be run out on a rail...The UUA is extremely intolerant."

<P>

 

I have found the Religious Tolerance Network  completely agreeable on almost every subject. However, I feel that the following comment made by a member of the RTN is not in harmony with my own findings and experinces:

<P>

"A small group of two dozen Unitarian Universalists met in Virginia on 2001-APR-22. Their goal was to create a renewal organization for those Unitarian Universalists who regard themselves as theists. They appear to have much less concern with social justice issues than does the general UUA membership."

<P>

 

After I left my own fundamental religious background and became dedicated to researching the subject or Progressive religion I spent a great deal of time in conversing with liberal Christians and Deiests within the UU network. I joined a conversation forum especially for UU Christians ran by the UU minister Scott Wells. Later, Scott Wells would also helped create a UU Christian network called The Magi, especially designed to help UU Christian church get created and suppported. I spent at least 6 years in conversation with these liberal UU Christians and would they expressed to me is that they felt the UUs, as a whole, had developed a strong and ovbious dislike of any deist themed belief system, this including their own minority of UU deists and UU Christians and that the majority favored Humanisists within the vast majority of UUs churches was snuffing out any traits of of their Deist and Judeo-Christian heritage. Moreover, that these Humanist UUs were progressivingly taking steps to omit any mention of even the term "God".

 

It would be very easy for me to many state all this with no backing to prove all these claims made on behalf of UU Deists and UU Christians....if I had not personally observed it with my own eyes. However, I visited 2 UU churches in Southern Califoria for 3 years and I will share with you what I saw.

<P>

The Positive

<P>

Over the 3 year period that I visted these 2 UU churches I DID see alot of POSITIVE things and hear alot of positive teachings.  This one UU church I attended had a Natural deist for a Minister and he was a very kind and non-biast man. He was great at mentioning all the faiths within the UU belief system, including Deists and Judeo-Christianity, as well as Humanist view points. After this minister retired a liberal Jew UU women replaced him and she too was good at this. However, within the congeration there was a number of very anti-Deist Humanists who I saw often made faces of disaprovel whenever the UU minister would invite a Deist or Liberal Jew to speak. But also they made very displeased facial expressions when even the UU minister once invited a Native American elder, who when he simply shared his view in a Great Spirit. Whenever the Native American elder simply mentioned the word, "Creator", or "Great Spirit," the Humanists made ovbious facial expressions of disaproval. More so, once the liberal Jew UU minister invited a liberal Rabbi to share his story of how he moved towards liberal Judism. This Rabbi was very down to earth and friendly and said nothing offensive to any group. However, when he merely started to explain the liberal Jewish style of prayerful mediation and song, at least 7 Humanists stood up from their seats and left the church.

 

And once when I visited the historic UU church in Santa Barbara 3 of the UUs there told me that the hostile feelings between Humanists towards Natural deusts and liberal Christians was so strong that more than once the UU minister had to call a special UU meditor to keep the peace. But what about this stated view made that Liberal Christians seem less dedicated to the causes of social justice than Humanist liberals?  I am a subscriber to both the Progressive christian Network news as well a subscriber of "Earth Ministry", a progressive Eco-Christian network and newsletter. I have been recieving both of these Progressive Christian resources for 5 years now. The following is taken directly from, "Earth Ministry."

<P>

"In summary, our mission statement calls us as people of faith - seeing something of the Divine in creation - to live reverently and respectfully. It asks us to examine our individual and societal impacts on both the human and non-human world, and to alter our life patterns to reflect God’s loving concern. It calls us to speak out against injustice, to stand with the powerless and voiceless, and to work actively in the causes of justice and peace."

<P>

And this from the Official Network Of Progressive Christianity

<P>

"By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who…

<P>

1. Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus;

<P>

2. Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us;

<P>

3. Understand the sharing of bread and wine in Jesus's name to be a representation of an ancient vision of God's feast for all peoples;

<P>

4. Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including but not limited to):

<P>

believers and agnostics,

<P>

conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,

<P>

women and men,

<P>

those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,

<P>

those of all races and cultures,

<P>

those of all classes and abilities,

<P>

those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope;

<P>

5. Know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe;

<P>

6. Find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes;

<P>

7. Form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping one another for the work we feel called to do: striving for peace and justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God's creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers; and

<P>

8. Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege."

<P>

We known well why the fundamental far religious right oppose the liberal left and Progressive Christians, because they oppose the social justice freedoms that liberal and progressive Christians stand for....

 

But...what could cause Humanists and the like to dislike Progressive and Liberal Christians, and even all liberal God-based faith groups? Especially when these Liberal and Progressive Deisists and Christians ARE fighting for most of the very same social justice freedoms that all liberals and progressive fight for?  All of us individuals who have walked away from extremist fundamental faith group backgrounds and thus become progressive in our views of God and of other faiths knows all too well how coming out of such extreme far right backgrounds and upbringings can cause a person to become bitter and distrustful. Because of this, former fundamentalists who have since become progressive, such as ourselves, realize the dangers and biogtry that is cause by extremist black and white thinking. We came to realize how those on the fundamental extreme right see NO tolerant balanced middel way of life. To THEM your are either in agreement with THEM and THEIR interpretations of the Bible..or you must be anti-God/ Jesus hater. Unforuantly there is also a extreme liberal left version of this black and white thinking and with THEM ANYONE who embraces a belief in a Higher Power other than oneself..even 'if' they state they ARE liberal or progressive and even if they do support social justice issues.. to such extreme leftists..such claims are all lies and cannot be true. It is as if to them to state that one believes in some type of Higher Power or God AND is also a liberal or progressive is a contridiction. Ironically, as if a mirror flip-side to the extreme right, the extreme left views things in black and white too. To THEM if you do not embrace and agree with their interpreations of what it means to be a liberal..then your statements and claims to be a liberal or progressive are invalid. To such extreme leftists you are either Humanists and thus on their side..or..you are on the extreme right and a sexist,racist, homophobic, anti-earth and anti-animal welfare right-winger.  These types of extreme leftist fundamentalists usually were burned by an extremist Christian fundamental background, and when they leave such a far right background they become deeply angry and bittered and these negative feelings cause them to become dedicated to attacking all form and expresions of theist themed faith.

 

As former members of fundamentalists faith backgrounds, we have seen the extremist thinking in the far right and how sometimes the passion to defend what THEY believe to be the moral way of life has lead to etxreme acts of terror. For example, an extreme right fundamental Christian feels that it is morally wrong to kill unborn babies, so to teach people that it is wrong to kill babies..he blows up an abortion clinic and ends up killing not only his intended targets..but also by standers including a girl scout on her way to grade school, a 75-year old man sitting on a near by park bench feeding the birds, and a young children mother of a 5-year old and 2-year-old. So does this make sense? That this extrem right person kills people to try and prove a point that murder of babies is wrong?  Likewise, does it make sense to bomb and kill people of workplaces that they believe is harmful to other living things to prove that harming and killing other living this is wrong?  The point is don't become the flipside of the extreme right by becoming a left intolerant answer to fundamentalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for posting this. I can really empathize with this feeling of anti-theism and anti-Christianity in UU, because I also experienced it myself for a few years. For an organization that is ostensibly so tolerant of all religious and spiritual views, this visceral hostility towards theism in just about any form is embarassing. I probably enjoy bursting people's bubbles way too much with this, but the highest pinnacle of classical pagan philosophy (Platonism) was staunchly rational, spiritual, and theistic -- not related in any way to the contemporary forms of "neo-paganism," which seem to me (for most people, anyway) to be little more than a romantic revival of pre-theistic forms of nature-worship. Anyway, I find it ironic and bizarre that a religion whose heritage is theological Unitarianism has such an uneasy relationship with any form of deity.

 

On the other hand, however, I do understand the distaste, not just in UU, but in culture at large, with conceptions of gods as beings of intelligence and power that manipulate the cosmos -- which is, in a nutshell, the conventional understanding of the Hebrew, Christian, and Muslim God. The Platonic and Gnostic conceptions of God were much more subtle and profound than this; and while a few Christian theologians seemed to have grasped the true profundity of the divine transcendence, it seems most Christians down to this day haven't been able to cogitate God beyond the level of Potentate of Potentates, and Jesus as his Prince and Heir. Part of me is secretly hopeful that there may be a place in UU for this more subtle and profound conception of divinity.

 

I've actually been contemplating UU again recently, knowing that I will probably feel strongly pulled in opposite directions about it, and wondering which pull will be stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, however, I do understand the distaste, not just in UU, but in culture at large, with conceptions of gods as beings of intelligence and power that manipulate the cosmos

 

I too understand this distate. Honestly, I find that I can't really participate in discussions on other forums I visit because this view is so prevalent. It can be fun to bandy about theology, but ultimately it becomes moot because my foundation is so completely different than theirs.

 

However, I think it's profoundly sad that individuals (like the humanists that walked out of the meeting in Beach's story) can't look past God-language to try and understand (and find common ground with) what a person (like the Native American speaker) might really have been saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, however, I do understand the distaste, not just in UU, but in culture at large, with conceptions of gods as beings of intelligence and power that manipulate the cosmos

 

I too understand this distate. Honestly, I find that I can't really participate in discussions on other forums I visit because this view is so prevalent. It can be fun to bandy about theology, but ultimately it becomes moot because my foundation is so completely different than theirs.

 

However, I think it's profoundly sad that individuals (like the humanists that walked out of the meeting in Beach's story) can't look past God-language to try and understand (and find common ground with) what a person (like the Native American speaker) might really have been saying.

 

I tend to look at this from the standpoint that the "beings of intelligence and power that manipulate the cosmos" are automatically eliminated from the running when it comes to determining and defining the "Great Spirit" that our native brothers and sisters are familiar with.

 

The former class of beings must be temporal in nature (ie, bound in and by time) whereas the spiritual presence that we are trying to grasp transcends all of this and is outside of temporal machinations and manipulations.

 

This is the great mystery. How can this great loving presence be outside of time and yet have such an intimate role in every one of our lives? This is the root conundrum out of which all creation myths have been composed since our beginnings.

 

flow.... :rolleyes:

Edited by flowperson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the great mystery. How can this great loving presence be outside of time and yet have such an intimate role in every one of our lives? This is the root conundrum out of which all creation myths have been composed since our beginnings.

 

I was reading some of the ideas of Kierkegaard today. Something that he said really struck a chord with me: "The absurd is that the eternal truth has come into existence in time."

 

Keith Ward remarked:

 

"In Kierkegaard's view, faith is not the acceptance of propositions on authority - theoretical acceptance that there is a God because someone, perhaps someone you have never heard of, has proved it, or even because someone will prove it one day. ...

 

Kierkegaard, who was a Christian, thought of Jesus as the one carrying the message of the absolute paradox, that the eternal has entered into time, being born, living and dying as a man. This paradox he called 'absurd.' But he does not mean that it is just ridiculous nonsense. The paradox is only absurd from the point of Reason, which seeks to get everything into a coherent system. ...

 

Kierkegaard was highly critical of all organised religion and churches, and did not really think we need to know much, if anything, about the historical Jesus.

 

He insisted that each individual faces the encounter with the eternal in time within his or her own experience. ...

 

All he requires is that at some point the individual in passionate need encounters that which is incomprehensible by reason (the paradox), but which enables life's questions to be, not answered, but dissolved by a response of total commitment."

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to look at this from the standpoint that the "beings of intelligence and power that manipulate the cosmos" are automatically eliminated from the running when it comes to determining and defining the "Great Spirit" that our native brothers and sisters are familiar with.

On the contrary, flow, I think this is exactly the type of gods our native brothers and sisters, by and large, were familiar with. That's not an insult, it's simply a developmental observation. Now, the Native American conception of gods and spirits certainly involved a whole lot more balance and harmony with nature than many other primitive spiritual systems that were built around domination and the brokerage of power. No argument there. But that doesn't change the fact that they still had an essentially magical, totemic type of spiritual understanding. To borrow from Wilber, it was an undifferentiated, or pre-theistic, conception, rather than an integrated, or trans-theistic one.

 

The former class of beings must be temporal in nature (ie, bound in and by time) whereas the spiritual presence that we are trying to grasp transcends all of this and is outside of temporal machinations and manipulations.

This is precisely the type distinction that can't be grasped by pre-theism or conventional theism, and requires the development, cognitively and spiritually, of a transtemporal perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This also proves that while indeed we always talk about there being an extreme fundamental RIGHT....there IS also a far fundamental LEFT..and to me this fundamental LEFT is the hostile bittered ANTI-Theist Humanists/Atheists such as these ones we have observed in UU's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too understand this distate. Honestly, I find that I can't really participate in discussions on other forums I visit because this view is so prevalent. It can be fun to bandy about theology, but ultimately it becomes moot because my foundation is so completely different than theirs.

Can we start a cell church? Utah is a helluva commute though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about some of this today ...

 

I wonder if, even though so many theists talk about God in such temporal, anthropomorphic terms, if they REALLY believe it, literally? Or is it just easier and more personal to discuss things this way?

 

Even JW's don't think God is a big guy in the sky. (Mormons, on the other hand ...)

 

As far as God being transcendent ... Yes "he" is, but also completely immanent. I think the problem is that often both of these truths are focused on to the exclusion of the other. (Ergo, my new sig line.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hooray for Kierkegaard !!!! I wish he were alive to post on this board. Now that "would" be interesting and original. Not that you guys aren't.

 

Also Fred, I agree with what you said regarding the beliefs of our native and indigenous brothers and sisters. They saw the Great Spirit everywhere. In the clouds, in the rain, in the fire, in the rocks, in the springs, in the plants and trees, in the animals which carried the life force as they also did; but, as with most native belief systems, their systematic harmonization of the attributes of nature, which was composed and synthesized through their powers of observation, brought a coherence and wholeness to their view of the world around them, albeit not on a conscious level. That set of abilities has almost totally escaped most people today.

 

Bringing harmony and wholeness to any picture makes it comprehensible and understandable. Their abilty to harmonize the concepts of spiritual matters in the natural world around them was a great accomplishment over the millenia, and it took so little time for the colonizers to almost totally destroy these unique views of the world. How sad.

 

At least some are now getting a level of satisfaction by taking back a share the colonizer's assets in their gaming ventures. But it's probably scant compensation for what they lost as a people.

 

flow.... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AR & Beach

 

I believe a qualified yes. As Fred pointed out they believed in totemic spirits and made images of them, mostly of animal spirits, esp. in the NW, Canada and Alaska.

 

Mask wearing and costumes were also prevalent in order to represent spirit forms. They also perceived the Spirit in all things of nature, so the pantheism, such as it was, was integrated into a whole because of their collective perceptions of nature.

 

As I stated elsewhere, many tribes, much like the pre-tabernacle Hebrews, believed that the male spirit came from the sky, the Sky Father, and the feminine spirit came from the earth, the Earth Mother, and life was not created and renewed except through their union in body and spirit.

 

But it's very difficult to generalize representations of Native American beliefs due to the numbers and diversity if the tribal groups. For instance, there was a great native civilization in the center of the country called the Mississippian. It centered in S. illinois across the Mississippi river from St. Louis in an area called the American Bottoms near what is now Cahokia. It is a place and city whose roots extend back into the 2nd milenium b.c. Large plazas and mounds still exist there, reminiscent of the stone works left behind by the Mayas and Aztecs in Central American locations. Evidence suggests that they were proficient in growing crops, gathering natural foods, and of course hunting.

 

Evidence of their trade goods has been found as far away as Minnesota, Louisiana, and Florida. Their supreme totemic spirit seemed to be represented by copper masks with long noses worn by dignitaries of the tribes. Evidence of communal living in long house structures has been found, along with remains of stonehenge-like circles constructed with wooden posts, and earthen works circular trenches and mounds like the great medicine wheels in the western plains. They were also adept at building very large scale earthen works serpent forms which are prevalent in Ohio and Louisiana.

 

This field of Anthropology is rich and varied, and anyone studying it marvels at the ingenuity and spiritual content of the lives of these people over the centuries.

 

flow.... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know, Progressive Christians on here, how do YOU feel about Evangelical and fundamental Christians blasting and verbally attacking unitarians and biblical unitarians? How do YOU feel about such people going on witch hunts against Bahias and other unitarians?

 

 

How do I feel? It pisses me off! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service