Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Unitarian

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I believe the latest version of the Humanist manifesto is as follows:

    Humanist Manifesto 2000


    A Call for a New Planetary Humanism
    Drafted by Professor Paul Kurtz, International Academy of Humanism, USA

    Source: https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/1169



    I. Preamble

    Humanism is an ethical, scientific, and philosophical outlook that has changed the world. Its heritage traces back to the philosophers and poets of ancient Greece and Rome, Confucian China, and the Charvaka movement in classical India. Humanist artists, writers, scientists, and thinkers have been shaping the modern era for over half a millennium. Indeed, humanism and modernism have often seemed synonymous for humanist ideas and values express a renewed confidence in the power of human beings to solve their own problems and conquer uncharted frontiers.


    II. Prospects for a Better Future

    For the first time in human history we possess the means provided by science and technology to ameliorate the human condition, advance happiness and freedom, and enhance human life for all people on this planet.


    III. Scientific Naturalism

    The unique message of humanism on the current world scene is its commitment to scientific naturalism. Most world views accepted today are spiritual, mystical, or theological in character. They have their origins in ancient pre-urban, nomadic, and agricultural societies of the past, not in the modern industrial or postindustrial global information culture that is emerging. Scientific naturalism enables human beings to construct a coherent world view disentangled from metaphysics or theology and based on the sciences.


    IV. The Benefits of Technology

    Humanists have consistently defended the beneficent values of scientific technology for human welfare. Philosophers from Francis Bacon to John Dewey have emphasized the increased power over nature that scientific knowledge affords and how it can contribute immeasurably to human advancement and happiness.


    V. Ethics and Reason

    The realization of the highest ethical values is essential to the humanist outlook. We believe that growth of scientific knowledge will enable humans to make wiser choices. In this way there is no impenetrable wall between fact and value, is and ought. Using reason and cognition will better enable us to appraise our values in the light of evidence and by their consequences.


    VI. A Universal Commitment to Humanity as a Whole

    The overriding need of the world community today is to develop a new Planetary Humanism—one that seeks to preserve human rights and enhance human freedom and dignity, but also emphasizes our commitment to humanity as a whole. The underlying ethical principle of Planetary Humanism is the need to respect the dignity and worth of all persons in the world community.


    VII. A Planetary Bill of Rights and Responsibilities

    To fulfill our commitment to Planetary Humanism, we offer a Planetary Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, which embodies our planetary commitment to the well-being of humanity as a whole. It incorporates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but goes beyond it by offering some new provisions. Many independent countries have sought to implement these provisions within their own national borders. But there is a growing need for an explicit Planetary Bill of Rights and Responsibilities that applies to all members of the human species.


    VIII. A New Global Agenda

    Many of the high ideals that emerged following the Second World War, and that found expression in such instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, have waned through the world. If we are to influence the future of humankind, we will need to work increasingly with and through the new centers of power and influence to improve equity and stability, alleviate poverty, reduce conflict, and safeguard the environment.


    IX. The Need for New Planetary Institutions

    The urgent question in the twenty-first century is whether humankind can develop global institutions to address these problems. Many of the best remedies are those adopted on the local, national, and regional level by voluntary, private, and public efforts. One strategy is to seek solutions through free-market initiatives; another is to use international voluntary foundations and organizations for educational and social development. We believe, however, that there remains a need to develop new global institutions that will deal with the problems directly and will focus on the needs of humanity as a whole. These include the call for a bicameral legislature in the United Nations, with a World Parliament elected by the people, an income tax to help the underdeveloped countries, the end of the veto in the Security Council, an environmental agency, and a world court with powers of enforcement.


    X. Optimism about the Human Prospect

    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, as members of the human community on this planet we need to nurture a sense of optimism about the human prospect. Although many problems may seem intractable, we have good reasons to believe that we can marshal our talent to solve them, and that by goodwill and dedication a better life will be attainable by more and more members of the human community. Planetary humanism holds forth great promises for humankind. We wish to cultivate a sense of wonder and excitement about the potential opportunities for realizing enriched lives for ourselves and for generations yet to be born.

    © Copyright Original Source



    In contrast all traditional Christian churches believe that 'salvation' is dependent on some form of sincere, Trinitarian belief in God, as described in the 'Apostles Creed.' Some churches like the Roman Church narrow the view of salvation to sincere belief and allegiance to that particular church. The Roman Church does allow for salvation outside the One True Church if their is no knowledge of the Church, or the person died below the age of consent.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-13-2015, 02:23 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Scorching Wizard View Post
      ROFL. I'm probably the only educated Jew that you know. In any case, this is way off topic and I'm not going to respond to it. I just gave an example for that henotheistic concept.
      Hmmm. Would you consider the Chief Rabbi at the Greater Synagogue here in Sydney to be an educated Jew?

      It seems plausible that either you have not attended Yeshiva or your teachers were particularly inadequate. Educated Jews know their history and know why the diaspora continues...and why Hashem had the temple destroyed three times...and why it will never be reconstructed with Hashem's permit...
      Last edited by apostoli; 08-13-2015, 10:02 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I do not see a necessary conflict between different religious views of the nature of human existence, because to a certain extent all these world views represent a limited human cultural view of the nature of God and our physical existences. There are elements of the truth of our spiritual reality in all the religions as we evolve universally as spiritual beings. The first mistake individual religion, churches and beliefs make is their view is the only possible true view of the nature of our spiritual and physical reality.



        The present scientific view of the nature of the Quantum World is a very interesting topic, but I do not believe it can be concluded that the physical world is an 'illusion' as being absolutely nothing as the Vedic (Hindu) proposes based on this.

        What is described as the illusion of the nature of our physical world is being actually physical in nature as we perceive it. The underlying reality of the physical world is the more nebulous and still physical Quantum World.
        Of interest in Quantum physics all things are reduced to energy, which acquires mass where light is available. Makes me think on John 1:4-5.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Scorching Wizard View Post
          Originally posted by 37818
          So you do not believe the first century Jews who were apart of the founding of Christianity believed the Torah
          ?off-topic.
          Firstly, you have no authority or otherwise to determine what is or isn't off-topic in this thread. As owner of this thread that is exclusively my job...

          Secondly, as the Jews are Unitarian and would fit into the scenario of Post #1, 37818 is on-topic (for a change). Whether he means to or not, he is asking whether the 1st century Christians were Unitarian.

          It is an interesting question considering the advent of the Jamesean church, but note the last verses of the last chapter of Luke: "And [Jesus] opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures...repentance and remission of sins should be preached in [Jesus'] name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem...Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven. And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen".
          ________________

          The majority of NT translations have "and they worshiped him" at Luke 24:52, the RSV 1971 edition is an exception. Anyone got any info on why?
          Last edited by apostoli; 08-13-2015, 10:49 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            The Roman Church does allow for salvation outside the One True Church if their is no knowledge of the Church, or the person died below the age of consent.
            Imu, that idea changed in the late 20th century ie: the teaching on Limbo. Imu, the RCC now teach that who is saved is at God's discretion...albeit those who empty themselves and walk in the footsteps of Christ have a major advantage...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I did not say what the definition of salvation Christians use is what the Jews believe in, but it is actually variable among Jews as to what being saved means, but the following is consistent with many Jews:

              [cite=http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/12-37.html]
              IMO, this hits the target better:
              http://www.jewfaq.org/search.shtml?Keywords=salvation

              The concept of salvation from sin as it is understood in Christianity has no equivalent in Judaism.

              Salvation from sin is unnecessary in Judaism, because Judaism does not believe that mankind is inherently evil or sinful or in need of Divine Intervention in order to escape eternal damnation. In fact, Judaism does not even believe in eternal damnation.

              Judaism recognizes that people have sinful impulses, but Judaism also recognizes that people have an inclination to do good and be good, and that people are able to choose whether to follow the evil inclination or the good inclination.

              It is within our ability to be righteous. The Torah itself says, "The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." (Deut. 30:14). And if we miss the mark, when we fail to fulfill the good laws that G-d has provided for us, then we can obtain forgiveness through prayer, repentance and good deeds.

              When the Torah speaks of G-d as our Salvation or our Redeemer, it is not speaking of salvation or redemption from sin; rather, it speaks of salvation from the very concrete, day-to-day problems that we face, such as redemption from slavery in Egypt, or salvation from our enemies in war.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                Imu, that idea changed in the late 20th century ie: the teaching on Limbo. Imu, the RCC now teach that who is saved is at God's discretion...albeit those who empty themselves and walk in the footsteps of Christ have a major advantage...
                At God's discretion is a bit too vague, because of course everything in Creation is at God's discretion. The Doctrine and Dogma of the belief and teachings of the Roman Church are more specific as to what Salvation as to God's discretion would be, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus). Salvation beyond this is specifically defined by the Catechism and Vatican II.

                This would be an interesting discussion in a thread of its own. Even though the Vatican II made an appeal to Eccumenism. The bottom line remained "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                  Firstly, you have no authority or otherwise to determine what is or isn't off-topic in this thread. As owner of this thread that is exclusively my job...

                  Secondly, as the Jews are Unitarian and would fit into the scenario of Post #1, 37818 is on-topic (for a change). Whether he means to or not, he is asking whether the 1st century Christians were Unitarian.
                  I believe the best word here is 'Monotheistic.' Unitarian today refers more to the Humanist movement associated with the Unitarian Universalist Church.

                  It is an interesting question considering the advent of the Jamesean church, but note the last verses of the last chapter of Luke: "And [Jesus] opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures...repentance and remission of sins should be preached in [Jesus'] name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem...Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven. And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen".
                  I believe the predominant belief among the first Christians was Jewish Monotheism, evidence indicates there was some variation in the beliefs. It was not until 200 to 400 AD that the Trinitarian belief became to be more dominant.
                  ________________

                  The majority of NT translations have "and they worshiped him" at Luke 24:52, the RSV 1971 edition is an exception. Anyone got any info on why?
                  Some may comment further here, but the ancient text vary in this verse, some say 'they worshiped him and some do not.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-14-2015, 10:24 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    At God's discretion is a bit too vague, because of course everything in Creation is at God's discretion. The Doctrine and Dogma of the belief and teachings of the Roman Church are more specific as to what Salvation as to God's discretion would be, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus). Salvation beyond this is specifically defined by the Catechism and Vatican II.

                    This would be an interesting discussion in a thread of its own. Even though the Vatican II made an appeal to Eccumenism. The bottom line remained "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
                    I forget the exact details, the decree concerning the "abolition" of Limbo (as I know of it) occurred in the 1990s. I just checked google and they list a series of news articles from 2007...
                    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...800-years.html

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I believe the best word here is 'Monotheistic.' Unitarian today refers more to the Humanist movement associated with the Unitarian Universalist Church.
                      To me it is all about word equivalence ie: monotheistic as opposed to tritheistic; unitarian as opposed to trinitarian or binitarian.

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I believe the predominant belief among the first Christians was Jewish Monotheism, evidence indicates there was some variation in the beliefs. It was not until 200 to 400 AD that the Trinitarian belief became to be more dominant.
                      In terms of Binitarianism I trace the belief as far back as A.John and Ignatius. eg: John 1:1c is viewed by most authoritative grammarians as qualitative thus making the "o Logos" attributively equivalent to "o Theos". Such fits the theme of the Gospel. Especially, John 12:45 & 14:7 and makes sense of Thomas' declaration at John 20:28. We find additional support for the idea of the Son's theotēs (state of being God) at John 1:2-3; Col 1:16; 2:9; Heb 1:1-3 (especially vs3)...

                      Trinitarianism is a bit harder to tie down, but the anticipation of the Paraklete and the Holy Spirit's interaction can be traced back to A.John and A.Luke (Acts).
                      Last edited by apostoli; 08-17-2015, 02:01 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                        To me it is all about word equivalence ie: monotheistic as opposed to tritheistic; unitarian as opposed to trinitarian or binitarian.
                        OK

                        In terms of Binitarianism I trace the belief as far back as A.John and Ignatius. eg: John 1:1c is viewed by most authoritative grammarians as qualitative thus making the "o Logos" attributively equivalent to "o Theos". Such fits the theme of the Gospel. Especially, John 12:45 & 14:7 and makes sense of Thomas' declaration at John 20:28. We find additional support for the idea of the Son's theotēs (state of being God) at John 1:2-3; Col 1:16; 2:9; Heb 1:1-3 (especially vs3)...

                        Trinitarianism is a bit harder to tie down, but the anticipation of the Paraklete and the Holy Spirit's interaction can be traced back to A.John and A.Luke (Acts).
                        This why I put a late date on the Trinitarian belief in Christianity. Up until it became the dominant Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church there were a variety of views among the early believers between ~70 AD to ~400 AD.

                        I do believe that Jewish Monotheism was the dominant belief among early Christians before ~100-150 AD.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          I do believe that Jewish Monotheism was the dominant belief among early Christians before ~100-150 AD.
                          From the scriptural witness I gave in my previous post I don't think your proposition is viable. For instance: A.Paul's declaration at Col 2:9 would negate your proposition. But drawing on a Jewish contemporary of the apostles and a bit of Jewish history there is a middle ground. Philo describes an entity who in one book he calls God (in addition to YHWH) and in another book he says of this entity "God but not properly so called". Also, apparently, in the near BCE years there was a Jewish cult that directed worship towards "the angel of YHWH's presence" (aka, from the Jewish Aramaic Targums the "memra of YHWH" = "the Word of God"). So, it is often speculated by Rabbi I've encountered that there was ripe territory from which the "Jesus cult" could spring.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                            From the scriptural witness I gave in my previous post I don't think your proposition is viable. For instance: A.Paul's declaration at Col 2:9 would negate your proposition. But drawing on a Jewish contemporary of the apostles and a bit of Jewish history there is a middle ground. Philo describes an entity who in one book he calls God (in addition to YHWH) and in another book he says of this entity "God but not properly so called". Also, apparently, in the near BCE years there was a Jewish cult that directed worship towards "the angel of YHWH's presence" (aka, from the Jewish Aramaic Targums the "memra of YHWH" = "the Word of God"). So, it is often speculated by Rabbi I've encountered that there was ripe territory from which the "Jesus cult" could spring.
                            We may disagree, but yes what you cite may be the origins of the "Jesus cult" that resulted in the Trinitarian view. Some of what you cite I believe to be a minority view. I f what you say is correct Christianity began in a marginal minority Jewish worldview.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              We may disagree, but yes what you cite may be the origins of the "Jesus cult" that resulted in the Trinitarian view. Some of what you cite I believe to be a minority view. I f what you say is correct Christianity began in a marginal minority Jewish worldview.
                              From what I've read the accusation (usually by Jews) is that Christianities growth was amongst the Jews of the diaspora ie: the Hellenised Jews. Imu, these peoples (as today) were the majority of Jews... Imu, even as today, they were a fractious lot...

                              Anyway, I became curious and decided to rummage through my small library for some info...Apart from Josephus just a bunch of ancient histories I've read numerous times. So no luck...

                              I ended up dragging out my hardcopy of Yonge's translation of "The Works of Philo" and had a quick browse of my border notes (my impressions from 10 plus years ago). I thought you might be interested...

                              Seems the very Jewish Philo of Alexandria (20BCE - 50CE) not only conceived of a second God but also perceived, if not a Trinity, a Triad of the Father, the logos as a second God and Sophia as Lord...

                              On Abraham - the Triad (121) "...the one in the middle is the Father of the universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power. And the creative power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power is the Lord, for it is fitting that theCreator should lord it over and govern the creature. (122) Therefore, the middle person of the three, being attended by each of his powers as by body-guards, presents to the mind, which is endowed with the faculty of sight, a vision at one time of one being, and at another time of three;

                              Questions and answers of Genesis, II, (62) Why is it that he [Moses] speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (Genesis 9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself? Nevertheless he also wished to intimate this fact, that God does rightly and correctly require vengeance, in order to the defence of virtuous and consistent men, because such bear in themselves a familiar acquaintance with his Word, of which the human mind is the similitude and form.

                              On Dreams Book 1. XXXIX - Concerning Jacob (229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, “I am the God (ho theos)" but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place,” not of the God (tou theou) but simply “of God” (theou)/ (230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                                From what I've read the accusation (usually by Jews) is that Christianities growth was amongst the Jews of the diaspora ie: the Hellenised Jews. Imu, these peoples (as today) were the majority of Jews... Imu, even as today, they were a fractious lot...
                                Initially the converts to Christianity were dominantly Jews with a few Greeks and Romans. Over the next ~200 years conversion shifted to Asia Minor Greece and Rome conversion shifted due to Paul's travels and efforts outside Israel. This conversion after about 200 AD the dominant growth in Christianity was among Romans and Greeks. By ~600 AD the only Jewish Christians were isolated minority populations on the edge of Christianity. As this shift took place Hellenist and Roman influence began to dominate Christianity resulting in Trinitarian beliefs, and a pantheon of Divinities including angels, devils, and demons depicted in statues.

                                Anyway, I became curious and decided to rummage through my small library for some info...Apart from Josephus just a bunch of ancient histories I've read numerous times. So no luck...

                                I ended up dragging out my hardcopy of Yonge's translation of "The Works of Philo" and had a quick browse of my border notes (my impressions from 10 plus years ago). I thought you might be interested...

                                Seems the very Jewish Philo of Alexandria (20BCE - 50CE) not only conceived of a second God but also perceived, if not a Trinity, a Triad of the Father, the logos as a second God and Sophia as Lord...

                                On Abraham - the Triad (121) "...the one in the middle is the Father of the universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power. And the creative power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power is the Lord, for it is fitting that theCreator should lord it over and govern the creature. (122) Therefore, the middle person of the three, being attended by each of his powers as by body-guards, presents to the mind, which is endowed with the faculty of sight, a vision at one time of one being, and at another time of three;

                                Questions and answers of Genesis, II, (62) Why is it that he [Moses] speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (Genesis 9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being; since it is fitting that the rational soul of man should bear it the type of the divine Word; since in his first Word God is superior to the most rational possible nature. But he who is superior to the Word holds his rank in a better and most singular pre-eminence, and how could the creature possibly exhibit a likeness of him in himself? Nevertheless he also wished to intimate this fact, that God does rightly and correctly require vengeance, in order to the defence of virtuous and consistent men, because such bear in themselves a familiar acquaintance with his Word, of which the human mind is the similitude and form.

                                On Dreams Book 1. XXXIX - Concerning Jacob (229) What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, “I am the God (ho theos)" but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, “He who was seen by thee in the place,” not of the God (tou theou) but simply “of God” (theou)/ (230) and what he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.
                                The way I view the history of religion is the trend in Revelation from God is to Reveal and affirm simple Monotheism (Unitarian God). The tendency of human influence is to corrupt Monotheism with variations of polytheism, such as; Henotheism, Binatarianism, Trinitarianism. The reaffirmation of pure Monotheism reasserted itself in Revelation of Islam and the Baha'i Faith
                                Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-18-2015, 10:03 AM.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X