Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

If you're going to start a discussion about what is written in the Bible, perhaps you should have read it:

quote:

---

Genesis 7 (KJV)
1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house
into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this
generation.
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens,
the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by
two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the
female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

---

A well-known form of anti-Trinitarianism is Unitarianism. By the mid-20th century, American Unitarianism had developed into more of a philosophical and social (as in social issues and activism) position than a theological one. Indeed, it has become the case that a Unitarian is more likely than not to be an atheist. Many Unitarians were leery of merging with the Universalists in 1961, since to them Universalism smacked of superstition, so just try to imagine how they felt a couple decades later when neo-Pagans also joined the fold. Among Unitarian-Universalists (AKA "UUs"), the general attitude and approach is to gain wisdom from many sources, to learn and appreciate the teachings of great religious teachers such as Jesus (indeed, reading through the New Testament a few times more than a decade after I had become an atheist and two decades before joining a UU church, I found an appreciation for the teachings of Jesus and a strong suspicion of Paul's teachings about the Christ), and a tendency to allow for the use of the term "God" to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean (from a Unitarian hymn: "Some call it evolution, some call it God"). To UUs, the Bible is the culmination of the religious tradition and wisdom of a couple peoples, but there's nothing magic about it.And yet, it appears, there are also anti-Trinitarians who do, like Trinitarians, believe in the Bible as being magic.There are different kinds of anti-Trinitarians (just as there is more than one stripe of Trinitarian). My advice to you is to not confuse the different types of anti-Trinitarians.If you were to try to convince of something by throwing the Bible at me all the time, you could try that until your arms fell off but it would never make any difference, since my opinion of the Bible is different from yours.At the same time, if an anti-Trinitarian, whether Bible-believing or not, were to argue to you that the Bible supports a non-Trinitarian view, then of course referencing the Bible, including what the original says, would be very apt. As would your own arguments that the Bible does indeed support Trinitarianism.Not that I'm criticizing your approach -- indeed, if I had the time, I would have been sitting here with popcorn enjoying the show -- , but rather I'm pointing out that there's a lot more to anti-Trinitarians than you may think.On the flip side, I think that anti-Trinitarians here should pony up and be up-front about their position here. I think that Alter2Ego has been particularly dodgy about his position.

My sons' exposure was to Unitarian-Universalist services. My brother-in-law was a fundamentalist and I had known his wife several years before as a (as described by others) "Jesus Freak chick" -- later, a very close mutual "friend" described her as a friend only so long as she thought she could convert you to fundamentalist Christianity, something that I have observed of several other "True Christians". When they decided they wanted to get their daughter into a Lutheran school, they of course compromised their own fundamentalist beliefs. But nonetheless, la familia supported them (es el poder de la familia!) so we attended the service. It was all the typical Christian Amida Buddhism* bit, "Yeh! Yeh! Shish! Kum! Bah! Jesus! Jesus! Rah! Rah! Rah!" Following a few years exposure to Unitarian-Universalist services, my son looked at me like "What the frikkin' frak is going on here?!?!?" UU services contain substance, whereas Christian services are mostly just empty cheer-leading. My sons could see substance in UU services, but were always befuddled by Christian shenannigans. What the frak are you talking about? I do not recall having made any use of any such term.

---

* FOOTNOTE:
Amida Buddhism.The basic idea of Buddhism is to gain Enlightenment. Many do not succeed, but a few do. In some cases, those few become Bodhisattva, those who had gained Enlightenment and thus escaped the Wheel of Life, but who then chose to remain behind to help others on their own path to gaining Enlightenment.From what I had been taught, those seeking the help of a Bodhisattva would blindly call upon him instead of actually trying to gain Enlightenment, all of which I viewed as so typically Christian.As I was taught, in Amida Buddhism, you continually chanted "Namu Amida Buddsu" ("I call in the name of the Amida Buddha"; I learned it as mainly being Japanese) and the more you chant that the more likely you are to be released from the Great Wheel of Life. The very thought of it, being so disgustingly Christian, was always disgusting to me.

Which therefore proves that your manderings have nothing to do with any "magic Unitarians" (a term purely of your own device having nothing whatsoever to do with actual Unitarians) and therefore are completely meaningless.

Yes, I did mean something else.While it can be said that all Unitarians are non-Trinitarian (and some even anti-Trinitarian), it cannot be said that all anti-Trinitarians are Unitarians.And it's a pretty safe bet that an anti-Trinitarian who bases his position on the Bible is not a Unitarian.Making broad statements about anti-Trinitarians as you have been doing is just plain wrong, both factually and otherwise. Rather you need to identify the small segment of the anti-Trinitarian population that applies.