Talk:Unitarian Christianity

The following line seems a bit off:

"differ from Unitarian Universalists (UU) in that Unitarian Christians profess a common regard and supreme respect for Jesus Christ and his teachings."

I was raised UU and I believe the church has regard for J.C. In fact, one of the basic tenants of UU is to have regard for all beliefs (though, I admit many UUs have problems living up to that ideal). Perhaps the key distinction is the "supreme" in supreme respect... if that is the case, perhaps the line should be rewritten so it doesn't imply that UUs don't have regard and respect for the teachings of J.C.


 * As a Biblical Unitarian I see that the above well describes distinctions between the UUs and the Unitarians. Galenyoung 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a moot point since the text in question has been edited out--but just in case someone is tempted to revert to an earlier version, here are my thoughts. I disagree that it describes the distinction very well.  I assume there is a distinction, but the text seems overly coy and a bit prejudicial (implying a disrespect on the part of UU). Presumably the distinction is that Unitiarian Christians are more fully focused on Jesus Christ, or something... whatever the case, simply state it rather than use vague & unmeasurable terms such as "common regard" and "supreme respect."

=
==========

Could someone tell Misha to STOP deleting non-Christian Unitarian information on Wikipedia?

Call off the Thought Police NOW!

Tab Hunter 21:00, December 7th, 2006

Changes to article
This article duplicates much of the coverage of the much more balanced and complete Unitarianism article. I considered nominating it in AfD, but as this appears to be primarily about a modern splinter movement from the UUA that attempts to reclaim Unitarianism's historic connection to Jesus of Nazereth. So, perhaps this topic should be covered in its own article.

I made some changes in the article, including changing the "history" section to "historiograhy," as much of the section is about the Unitarians' interpretation of history, rather than history itself. (There is no direct, historical connection between the Unitarians and the early Christian Church, for example). I also rewrote much of the history/historiography section, as much of it existed only to argue that the Christian Unitarians are right and both the Trinitarians and the UUA are wrong. Another big problem with the article is that it does not cite its sources. I think there is room for expansion of the article in such a way that focusses on present-day Christian Unitarians. Unitarianism already contains a better explanation of the history of this movement. JChap2007 22:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is questionable for many reasons. First, as you point out, it is partially redundant with the preexisting article on Unitarianism. The text seems to imply that Unitarian Christianity is a splinter from today's Unitarianism or Unitarian Universalism, but there is no organized movement or church using the name "Unitarian Christianity", therefore the definition is confusing. Furthermore, it mixes churches that are in communion with the American Unitarian Universalists, such as the Transylvanian Unitarian Church, with splinter groups from the UUA such as the American Unitarian Conference, which has no institutional connection whatsoever with the Transylvanian Unitarians. Therefore it seems to be devoted more to advocacy of schism within Unitarianism rather than explain an existing movement as it really is. Something similar happens with the article named Unitarian Christian Groups and Publications. Probably the best way to follow would be to merge these articles with the main Unitarianism article. --Jdemarcos 16:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a pretty obvious POV fork. JChap2007 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unitarianism is already a long article that provides an excellant overview of a complex subject. This article needs work but should not be deleted. It is hard to dispute that Unitarianism covers a broad array of beliefs and churches. It is also hard to dispute that Christian Unitarianism is clearly distinct from Unitarian Universalism. This has been listed for deletion/merge for three months with no action. Unless someone objects in a reasonable time-frame, I will remove the tag. Vassyana 06:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd forgotten about this one until it came up in my watchlist again. Please read the discussion on Talk:Unitarianism. JChap2007 06:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I had. I made comments there at your direction. The discussion reached no consesus and has been "dead" for several weeks. I will attempt to discuss the issue there, but if a consensus cannot be reached, we should remove the tags from both articles. However, another tag might be appropriate at that point based on a lack of consensus. Vassyana 02:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unitarian Universalism is already a separate article from Unitarianism. Therefore this Unitarian Christianity article is redundant and the subject is already covered by the Unitarianism article, which includes all existing varieties, including Christian Unitarianism in its diverse forms such as those within the historical Unitarian churches, as well as those groups which are not in communion within the ICUU such as the AUC, the Christadelphians, and others. --jofframes 11:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read my comments on Talk:Unitarianism.Vassyana 13:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled as to how a non-trinitarian faith is part of the Christianity series at all. It seems like this would be better treated as the Latter Day Saints movement. Just a thought.

Crowdes 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See Trinity and Nontrinitarianism. Trinitarianism is not a prerequisite to be Christian. Vassyana 19:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a controversial point of view on which Wikipedia should not take a position. The overwhelming majority of what the UUs refer to as the Nicene-Chalcedonian churches (the overwhelming majority of Christians, however broadly defined) hold beleif in the Trinity to be a prerequisite to be Christian.  For example, the Catholic Church does not recognize LDS baptisms as valid because that church believes in Tritheism. (The issue comes up because converts from Mormonism are rebaptized whereas coverts from Protestantism, etc. are not.)  However, Unitarians are probably further removed from belief Christianity than the Mormons because they did not believe in the Incarnation or the Resurrection.  Notable idiot William Jennings Bryan said that William Howard Taft was unfit to be President of the United States because he did not believe in the Virgin Birth.  Indeed, there is little in the Nicene or Chalcedonian Creeds that Unitarians believed in.  Its popularity was very much the product of the Enlightenment. This is not to suggest, of course, that Unitarianism is in any way illegitimate.  Its cosmology and beliefs about God are simply radically different that that of Christianity. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article misrepresents Arianism
Arianism and the other fourth-century theologies mentioned in the Arianism section teach that Jesus was both divine and created, but certain modern ones discussed in the same section teach that Jesus was not divine. Jacob Haller 00:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Arianism includes any belief in a preexistent Christ, as long as the preexistent Christ is said not to be God himself. If by "divine" one means God, then Jesus is not divine. If by "divine" one means a supernatural being with similar attributes as God, then one could call him "divine." [David M, 7 July 2007]


 * If you go back to the primary sources (e.g. the known works of Arius for Arianism proper, those of Wulfila and Auxentius for another school, those of Eunomius and (through a later epitome) Philostorgius for a third school, you may find that they don't really fit that description. In the last-mentioned school, the attributes of the uncreated are completely incomparable to the attributes of any created being; it's hardly OR to state that divinity rests on other considerations (it is OR to point to the will as an explanation, or to suggest checking the person/presence references in Wulfila's translation and count how many presences God is/has in different passages...) Jacob Haller 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)