Talk:Unitarianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Too long?

Just happened upon this article, but it immediately stuck me as a tad long. Should it be split off into section articles? --Impaciente 00:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too long to me. 69.17.65.50 18:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is too long, as is the discussion. But it keeps people happy to spend their time writing about and discussing unitarianism so what can you do? (Hey, it's keeping me happy too!)

Early issues

I'd like to focus on unitarian (small c) doctrine here, i.e., non-trinitarian Christian ideas. The UU church is only one example, albeit the best known.

Over the weekend, I hope to get the chance to compare Unitarianism and Universalism each with the Unification Church. Since I was a UU before joining the UC, I might actually be able to do this. Cheers. --Ed Poor

---

Shouldn't this page be deleted, and replaced with a redirect to the article on the Unitarian-universalists?

I agree. Republishing a bunch of stuff from 1911 about such a dynamic religious tradition is very misleading. This content could be saved in a separate article about the history of unitarianism or something, but the enduring characteristic of unitarianism which all modern unitarians I know talk about is its progressive or reformist or heretical nature. NealMcB 04:56, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

---

This page had in my view a fair degree of bias, which I attempted to rectify. Please feel free to comment.

The main changes I put in are following : The principal reason to deny the "Christian-ness" of Unitarians is dt lack of belief in the trinity + lack of belief in the God head of Christ. The rejection of the unitarian baptism is simply expression of this much deeper conflict.

Further at the bottom I altered two things: I do not believe it is fair to make semi-quantitative judgements about peace and harmony in other religious movements, at least not in an encyclopaedic text, nor do I believe that similar minded religious people are "progressive", though they might feel this way, but others might feel different - hence I have edited this reference too. Refdoc 19:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

These two subjects have been created in seperate articles, and should remain that way. They are not identicle and therfore should remain in a single page, people should be able to either read one or the other and determine the differences. The real facts are that they are different religious movements, so you cannot combine them and this comes from a concern for the readers, because while reading about one you would have information about the other only to confuse someone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.112.156 (talk)

neutrality concerns in 'impact and criticism'

In naming Unitarianism a heresy the author does neither cites sources, nor speaks to any diversity of Christian opinion. This gives the erronious impression that Unitarianism is universally considered heresy. The phrase "Orthodox Protestants" is not defined, which leaves it too vague. 'Orthodox' is often used as a self-labelling term by Protestans groups to validate their own theology and doctrine. 'Heterodox' is used in a derisive way for Protestant groups that do not agree with them. I would be very surprised to learn that there is any universally accepted definition of Protestant Orthodoxy because of the diversity of Protestantism.

The idea that "...toleration of Unitarianism, as well as other forms of theological Liberalism, signalled the religious decadence of the West" is a point of view limited to some Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and other theologically conservative groups, and should be identified as such. The critique of Unitarian churches as 'dead' is also from a particular point of view in a discrete group of Christians and should be identified as such. In seeking to critique Unitarians, the author must fairly reflect the diversity of Christian and other opinion. There is also nothing said about the impact of Unitarianism on religion and soceity, even though the section is titled "Impact and Criticism."
unsigned comment 16:43, 6 August 2005 207.69.136.199

I've changed the emphases of the section considerably, by adding new material. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that UU is so interested in being non-dogmatic, that they are dogmatic about their non-dogmatism. Of course, this is more a comment on the philosophy of relativism, but it is a true criticism.

---

I tried to delete the last sentence in the "impact and criticism" section, but it was put back by another editor. I think that this sentence is particularly offensive and non-neutral. Up to that point the section doesn't do too bad in explaining the issues between Unitarians and orthodox Christians. But the last sentence basically is saying, to paraphrase, "But everyone knows that the Unitarians are wrong". I think the neutrality of the section will be improved by removing this sentence. At least come up with a decent citation. KEVP (If you are wondering, I am a Unitarian). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.179.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with your assessment. Are you a unitarian Christrian, or a Unitarian Universalist? (I'm a UU.) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As a UU myself I can attest that i too have been accused of being in a cult by some ( so very funny ) but I believe the main misconception is that ALL UU's feel the same on the trinity etc. My experience has seen jews, christians and muslims all worshipping as UU's due to either the community aspect of the church or the need for a more "free" environment to worship in. Again, seems very hard to find people willing to be fair when writing these articles.D-cup 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

revised intro

Unitarianism is a system of Christian thought and religious observance which asserts that the singleness and simplicity of God are contradicted by the doctrine of the Trinity, and therefore rejects that doctrine. The term is also used in the United States to refer to Unitarian Universalism.

Some other Christians hold that denial of the trinity and the consequent lack of belief in the deity of Jesus Christ are positions untenable to Christianity, and that Unitarians are therefore followers of a non-Christian religion. They further point to what they regard as the invalidity of baptism administered without use of the trinitarian formula.

After a weekend of study, I've put in place a revised intro. I think it gives a broader and more up-to-date view of the essential and enduring characteristics of Unitarians. Also, currently perhaps 90% of Unitarians, in the US at least, would not consider their movement or themselves to be Christian. Details on what some Christians think of baptism (which isn't even practiced in any UU congregations I know of) don't seem very apropos. NealMcB 04:45, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

On the 90% figure, this has not been demonstrated. None of the primary sources from the cited article support this point. The FACT surveys give a different figure, and are forced-choice. The Casebolt survey was of a selection of UU congregations in the midwest only. The Religious Identification Survey in 2001 suggested that 75 percent of self-identified Unitarian Universalists don't belong to a congregation, so it is hard to see how a survey of a subset of midwest congregations, or a forced-choice survey methodology would support a conclusion that the majority of UU's consider themselves "not" Christian. A great deal depends on how the question might be asked, if anyone ever took the time to find this out. Why the need to assert that UU is not Christian? No such effort expended to show that it is "not" theist, "not" Buddhist, "not" pagan, "not" whatever. The whole direction of the thread seems to run counter to the pluralist stance of most congregations. Many UU's call themselves several categories at once. Had Casebolt done an international survey using a methodology that accounted for UU's who do not belong to congregations or attend services, then we might know whether a majority of UU's consider themselves "not" Christian. I fail to understand the purpose of the assertion, since the predominant mode of UUism seems to be to embrace a variety of religious belief systems, including Christianity. -- Bbbozzz 2007 February 15.

The hyphenated Unitarian-Universalism, an utterly creedless faith no longer necessarily promoting either Unitarianism or Universalism, is as different a philosophy from Unitarianism as the American variety of Unitarianism is from the Calvinism that spawned it. Despite the somewhat misleading moniker, ideological developments leading up to the merger of the AUA and UCA organizations in the United States make the philosophy of the Unitarian Universalist Association quite distinct from Unitarianism, which is a global phenomenon that continues to exist outside and independent of the UUA. Unitarian-Universalism deserves its own individual consideration, as does Unitarianism. Jnelsonleith (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

From above: "...90% of Unitarians...would not consider...themselves to be Christian..."

Perhaps the error of this is in the assumption that "Christian" equals "Orthodox", a mindset emanating from the latter far more than the former. In my somewhat diverse and lengthy experience, those of Unitarian persuasion are a diverse group who consider themselves true followers of Christ while regarding those who frivously reject true believers in Christ (such as themselves) counterfeits. Many, perhaps most, do not consider alternate views (trinitarianism, oneness or modalism, etc.) to affect others' standing with Christ. Further explanation can be found at http://www.scatteredsheep.com/nature_of_god.htm . Phil Maxwell phil@scatteredsheep.com

You did'nt go back far enough. The fact that there is only one God go as far back as the creation. The concept of the trinity did'nt materialize until the Roman Catholics decreed it in 325 AD. --Emico 15:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, sorry to be disrepectful but I do not believe in a creation and as such believe that man created god ironically as a means for explaining his own "creation". Perhaps it needs clarification that ANYONE of any belief is welcome in the UU church/ community. I really don't mean to offend but referring to somethinbg going as far back as "the creation" in my mind is a fallacy as such an event (IMHO) never happened. Again, I am so sorry if this offends but as a good UU I have been taught to speak up at times.D-cup 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps Christian in the Introductory paragraph,should be qualified in every instance,since Orthodox and Catholic "brands" of Christianity adhere to Trinitarian doctorine,but followers of Arius and some minority groups,that still claim Christianity,as their larger designation aren't Trinitarian.Sochwa 18:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The current intro starts by telling me about "historic Unitarianism" and is written in the past tense. I find this confusing and off-putting. The first sentence should be in the present tense and tell me what Unitarianism is today. Bobbyi 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Text added to article by anon

An anon user added the following to the beginning of the 'Origins' section:

PLEASE NOTE: THE WRITER OF THIS ARTICLE HAS THE POSITION ON GOD OF UNITARIANISM CONFUSED WITH THE POSITION OF APOSTOLIC ONENESS CHURCHES. THEIR VIEWS ARE EXTREMELY DIFFERENT FROM UNITARIANS WHO DO NOT ACCEPT THE LORDSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST. ONENESS APOSTOLICS WOULD RATHER LOOSE THEIR LIVES THAN DENY THE LORDSHIP OF THEIR GOD, JESUS THE CHRIST.

I cut it from the article but put it here for discussion if the point needs noting - David Gerard 10:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to focus on unitarian (small c) doctrine here, i.e., non-trinitarian Christian ideas. The UU church is only one example, albeit the best known.

Over the weekend, I hope to get the chance to compare Unitarianism and Universalism each with the Unification Church. Since I was a UU before joining the UC, I might actually be able to do this. Cheers. --Ed Poor

---

Shouldn't this page be deleted, and replaced with a redirect to the article on the Unitarian-universalists?

I agree. Republishing a bunch of stuff from 1911 about such a dynamic religious tradition is very misleading. This content could be saved in a separate article about the history of unitarianism or something, but the enduring characteristic of unitarianism which all modern unitarians I know talk about is its progressive or reformist or heretical nature. NealMcB 04:56, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

---

This page had in my view a fair degree of bias, which I attempted to rectify. Please feel free to comment.

The main changes I put in are following : The principal reason to deny the "Christian-ness" of Unitarians is dt lack of belief in the trinity + lack of belief in the God head of Christ. The rejection of the unitarian baptism is simply expression of this much deeper conflict.

Further at the bottom I altered two things: I do not believe it is fair to make semi-quantitative judgements about peace and harmony in other religious movements, at least not in an encyclopaedic text, nor do I believe that similar minded religious people are "progressive", though they might feel this way, but others might feel different - hence I have edited this reference too. Refdoc 19:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Conflating Unitarianism with Unitarian Universalism.

The article equates all Unitarians with UUism. This is terribly misleading, since there are three different schools of Unitarian thought:

• Unitarian Universalism
• Rationalist Unitarianism
• Biblical Unitarianism

The first group is adequately defined in the article; the second is conspicuous by absence; the third is mischaracterised as a branch of the first, with the theology of its pioneers (such as Servetus) left largely to the reader's imagination.

I shall correct this when I have more time. --Teutonic Knight 14:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The three aren't quite so separate and distinct. If I am correct, the Unitarian side of UUism grew from the Rational Unitarians, which itself grew from the Biblical Unitarians. Regardless of whether I'm correct or not, I believe you are correct that there are, at least historically, different kinds of Unitarianism. Would you be so kind as to modify the article as you see fit to clarify? - UtherSRG 17:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While they may share a common origin, this does not make them any less separate and distinct. After all, Protestantism sprang from Catholicism, but who would say that the two are not "separate and distinct" in every essential way?

Anyhoo, I'll chuck in a few definitions to clarify the point and see how we go from there. --Teutonic Knight 12:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorted. Let me know what you think. --Teutonic Knight 13:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice. I've modified it some to fit the wiki format better, giving the "Forms" section a heading and therby necessitating the historical sections be grouped under another heading. I'm sure there's lots more work that's needed before this article is "complete", though. It would be good to try to point to parts in the history when Rationalist though enters the picture, since where BU and RU overlap is probably the fuzziest area. Oh, and it's Unitarian Universalism, not the other way around. *grins* - UU UtherSRG 15:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) I'm new to wiki, so you'll have to be patient while I find my way around the various protocols. :P I'll do some more work on the historical specifics when I have more time, but the general picture is this: BU was born in the 1st Century AD; RU was born during the post-Enlightenment era (partly as a result of Christianity's encounter with the new rationalism) and UU was born when Universalism was finally taken to its logical conclusion (viz. that if God is going to save all of us at some point in the future, it obviously doesn't matter what we believe in the meantime.) --Teutonic Knight 15:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not a problem. We all have to work together. *grins* - UtherSRG 16:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like your latest edits. Great work!  :) --Teutonic Knight 10:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Teutonic Knight, your "logical conclusion" is quite biased and is no valid ground for the article or a discussion on contemporary UUism. If belief depends solely on God's judgement on a final day, then you deny personal responsibility, and all moral behavior is based upon blackmail: behave as I like, or you are doomed. OTOH it does not correspond to historical evolution of both religious movements. --Jdemarcos 18:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're referring to Unitarianism the religion then the classifications are inappropriate. The religion extracts its beliefs from many different faiths both religious and secular and particularly prides itself in not creating such divisions. If you're referring to the sterile definition of unitarian then these labels, although possibly accurate, are unnecessary. 64.193.21.100 18:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Germany

I experimented with a bullet format in the Germany section. How does this look?Tydaj 21:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unitarian vs. unitarian

This word has two distinct meanings whether it is capitalized or not. A Unitarian is or was a member of particular religion, Unitarianism, which is now mostly embodied in Unitarian Universalist Association. On the other hand, a unitarian is one who holds unitarian beliefs, primarily expressed as a rejection of the trinity. There are many religions which espouse unitarian beliefs, and not all Unitarians are indeed unitarian (very few Quakers quake either). To most Unitarian Universalists, I would venture to say, the question of whether there is or is not a trinity is not particularly important to their religion.

I would suggest that all "upper-case" Unitarian aspects of this page be merged with the article on Unitarian Universalism, and this one only deal with the "lower-case" unitarianism as a belief. Then links from other unitarian religions are not confused with Unitarian Universalism. shoaler 17:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While you are correct in your assessment of the distinction between Unitarianism and unitarianism, I disagree with your solution. This article deals with (to some degree) both "U" and "u", primarily the history of the christian heresy of "u" and how it has found its way through the years. If anything, this article is lacking other avenues that unitarianism has taken besides into modern Unitarianism. Further, Unitarian Universalism is primarily a United States phenomenon; the predominant Unitarianism outside of the US is often more Christian unitarianism than Unitarian Universalism. I intive you to be bold and add sections to the article to make it more complete, as well as to do the same with other articles. - UtherSRG 21:42, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Other examples of unitarians would be of interest. The Iglesia ni Cristo is notably vigorous in unitarian belief - but currently would be very difficult to slot into the article without a major overhaul, as it doesn't fit the generalisations of the introduction and elsewhere. For instance, it's highly vociferous in its 'one true church' stance. RayGirvan 02:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iglesia ni Cristo

I just knew any attempt to document this would cause problems. Beware all edits by Emico on the topic of Iglesia ni Cristo (INC). He is the subject of a current Request for Arbitration for obstructing edits on other related pages. The INC is described in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Ed. John Bowker. Oxford University Press, 2000) as "The largest Protestant church in the Philippines ... Based on a literal reading of the Bible, unitarian in christology..." therefore its inclusion alongside types of Bibilical Unitarianism is valid. RayGirvan 02:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• [Oxford] defines protestants as separated or disunited from the Roman Catholic church, which the INC did not do. It's obvious your source did not research carefully either. Please check your facts thoroughly before posting. Note that Raygirvan is one of people who started the arbitration because of exchanges similar to this. --Emico 14:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • It may be that the article, Nontrinitarian, is a better fit for the remark regarding the Iglesia ni Cristo, RayGirvan. This is not because "Protestant" and "unitarian" do not properly describe the group according to ordinary conventions. Rather, there are extraordinary conventions at work here - nontrinitarian groups sometimes strongly object to being called "Protestant". The reason given by Emico is a typical objection. Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • Hmm. OK. I suppose it's down to the slant of this article, which focuses on Unitarians (the specific area of religious thought) rather than unitarians (ie non-trinitarians). Still, Oxford is a thoroughly respectable reference, so I don't feel too bad about citing its classification. RayGirvan 01:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI: There's an active conversation about this issue at Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo#Unitarian.

Hungarian / Romanian

I am curious as to the reason that some place names in the section Transylvania and Hungary have been changed from their Romanian name to the Hungarian form. I'm not trying to put forth an opinion on this, I'd just like to know how one would determine which is the better choice. -Tydaj 18:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether you're Hungarian or Romanian? There have been hot disputes of similar issues of Eastern European names. I'd generally go with the name that was current at the time the article was discussing; I might go with just the current name if it's well-known and the article just mentioned well-known cities.--Prosfilaes 18:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

But Transilvania is a part of Romania so the name must be the romanian version.

Translvania is now part of Romania, but at the time most of things in this article happened, Romania didn't even exist. We write about Constantanople and Babylon where appropriate, not Istanbul and Baghdad. --Prosfilaes 22:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Another important point is that the Transylvanian Unitarian Church is mostly Hungarian-speaking, as the original (i.e. non-immigrant) population of Transylvania is, and names of individuals and places in Transylvanian Unitarian documents are always written it its Hungarian form. --Jdemarcos 17:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, Transylvania is a Hungrian-speaking area, even if current political boundaries place it within Romania. Aleta 08:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

not really, one part pure Hungarian (600.000) (there live all Unitarians), but the ethnic ratios 1,5 mio Hu out of 7.7mio (ca 20%) in Greater Transylvania -actual RO definition of historical Partium+Banat+Maramaros+Transylvania- But since Romanians are Pravoslavs/Orthodoxes all Catholics, Calvinists and Unitarians are Hungarians and some remaining Germans Lutherans. Strong correlation between religion and ethnicity, no HU are Pravoslav, no RO other than Pravoslav (apart some newly created fashion sects and Jehova witnesses, Baptists, and atheists and by the Hapsburgs 17 cent. created Greek Catholics). (Vargatamas 21:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Aleta, over half the population of Transylvania has been Romanian for a long time: over 200 years or more, according to the censuses carried out by the ruling Hungarians; the situation before then is not entirely clear. Jdemarcos, whether the Romanians were ever "immigrants" (as the Hungarians certainly were, arriving in about the 10th century) is a hotly debated subject. Two great articles on this are: History of Transylvania and Origin of the Romanians. But we all should celebrate whatever good or interesting things the Hungarians have done in Transylvania, and I believe that Prosfilaes is correct with his naming conventions. Frankieparley (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to agree on "Torda" vs. "Turda", since the Transylvania article uses "Turda" and this article uses "Torda". Then we can create an "Edict of Torda" (or Turda) page. Margyl 16:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Torda is generally preferred because the Transylvanian Unitarian Church is ethnically Hungarian. It was also the name of the city when the Edict was issued, because then Hungarian was the "official" language of the country. In Wikipedia, the Edict is already explained in the current Turda page. --jofframes 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

American Unitarian Conference reference corrected

Originally the article stated that the American Unitarian Conference has a creed. Fact is, it does not. So I corrected it. Peace.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.196.67.49 (talk • contribs) 31 August 2005

Reform Judaism Equivalent?

I understand that the Unitarians have arrived from a different tradition. Still, considering where they are today, wouldn't it be a fair assessment to make the comparison between them and Reformed Jews? --Philopedia 19:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

In what sense? --Tydaj 22:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Unitarians follow one God, not three and accept the metaphoric content of the Hebrew Bible. They share with reform jews an anti-dogmatic, intellectual and ethical approach which emphasises tolerance and compassion; champions liberal causes, are open to scientific enquiry and feature a broad diversity of outlooks within their own ranks. Turning the question around, how can you tell them apart? --Philopedia 11:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any good reason for doing that. Unitarianism is not a form of Judaism. For a comparison with Reformed Judaism, I would rather suggest a historical pro-Jewish split from Unitarianism called Sabbatarianism. --Jdemarcos 06:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Unitarians follow one [Christian] God, not three - this may be true of classical (read 19th century) Unitarianism, but as Unitarianism in America became less a Christian religion and more a universal religion, the emphasis on Christian dogma was gradually removed. The process of merging with the Universalists in the late 50s and early 60s also moved the movement away from Christianity (although it did more to move Universalists away from Christianity). [They] accept the metaphoric content of the Hebrew Bible - no more so than the New Testament or the Quran or the writings of Buddha or the teachings of science, etc. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:11, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

They are similar in that both are liberal religions, but as they pointed out, there are also a number of differences. Unitarians (that aren't Unitarian Universalists) are/were still Christian, in one sense of the word or another. Jewish opinion over Jesus varies greatly, but to Unitarians he is still an important figure, even if he's not "God incarnate". --Tydaj 16:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The German Unitarians in Deutsche Unitarier are certainly not Christian. --Palnatoke 06:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As a UU I can tell you that in my particular church there are no bibles, we sing occaisional hymns, light a manora, have a christmas eve service, talk about ramadan, are eductaed on native american religions etc. IMHO I have no problem being labeled a protestant, but realize that I share little with them besides history. In my experience with UU anything goes.D-cup 21:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Christians

Today, most Unitarian Universalists do not consider themselves Christians, even if they share some beliefs quite similar to those of mainstream Christians. Isn't it only the catholics that beleive that you have to believe in the trinity to be a christian. --Pomegranite | talk 03:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No, there's quite a bit of Protestants that believe that. --Tydaj 23:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Most in fact. The trinity is described in the Nicene Creed, of 325 AD, and was not abandoned in the Protestant reformation. Trishm 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What evidence, other than the misinterpretation of the FACT 2000 and FACT 2005 surveys by the Unitarian Universalist Association, is there that the majority of Unitarian Universalists do not consider themselves Chrisitian? Please see my reply in "Christian Unitarians" elsewhere on the discussion page. The footnoted article mischaracterizes the survey, its methodology, reports a number apparently not present in the reports, and concludes that we know that the majority of Unitarian Universalists do not consider themselves Christians, when it is impossible to conclude that from the survey. It certainly runs counter to my personal experience in visiting various Unitarian Universalist congregations over a period of 35 years. --Bbbozzz 15 February 2007

I can say for a fact that Unitarians are not Christian. There is no creed or statement saying we believe in Jesus. In fact, I'd think that the fact that there is a cross instead of a chalice on the page would be pretty offensive to many unitarians. We do not believe even in any particular god, and most churches preach this way, so this should be fixed as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.164.194 (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree; as the Unitarians do not believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was worth anything, the image should probably not appear so prominently on the page. As the above poster states, Unitarianism is not Christianity. --Neologism (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For Unitarism in Transylvania, they considered themselves always in the last 430 years Christians, there was no question not to be. that is 80.000 votes. --Vargatamas (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Currently all Unitarians in Romania, Hungary, Indonesia, France and many other countries call themselves Christians. In Britain a sizeable majority of members call themselves Christians. In the USA, only about 10% of Unitarian Universalists are Christian, at least openly, whereas in Germany they are all non-Christians. Therefore the Christian landscape in the Unitarian world is very diverse and it is impossible to state generally whether Unitarians are Christian or not. --jofframes (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Unitarians believe in the moral authority, but not necessarily the divinity, of Jesus. They do not pray to Jesus. Their theology is thus distinguishable from the theology of Catholic, Orthodox, mainline Protestant, and other Christian denominations, who hold the Trinity doctrine as a core belief.

So why the box that labels this article a topic under Christianity? Unitarians deny the divinity of Christ (this is not a criticism, mind you), so how can they be labeled "Christian"? That box should be removed. If I were paranoid, I would think this is an anti-Deist plot on the part of the Christians. . . . --Michael K. Smith (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The belief in the divinity of Christ does not identify Christians. If that were the case, there would have been no Christianity in the first 300 hundred years since Jesus's death. --jofframes (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Historically, from the epistles and the gospels, it's clear that the early church did in fact recognize Jesus Christ as God. The most obvious evidence of this from memory is when Thomas feels Jesus' resurrected body, and worships him, saying, "My Lord and my God." The theology is explained by Paul; see Philippians 2. If you're going to deny that Christ was historically portrayed as divine, it might be easier and preferable for you to deny the new testament and the associated historical evidence in their entirety. The divinity of Christ is absolutely essential to Christian doctrine. --Neologism (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think this article was exclusively about Universal Unitarians, but unitarians in general. I don't know if Universal Unitarians regard themselves as Christians, but other unitarians do regard themselves as Christians: e.g. Christadelphians, the people at Bibilcal Unitatian.com, both COGAFs, etc. --Woofboy (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, hyphenated Unitarian-Universalists (meaning members of the Unitarian Universalist Association, primarily in the United States) are only Unitarians in the way Unitarians are Calvinist: merely by origin. The Unitarian Congregationalist movement in the United States developed from Calvinist roots, but ceased referring to itself as Calvinist after it had abandoned Calvinist tenets. However, the movement continued referring to itself as Congregationalist, because this was an accurate descriptor. (Unitarians in Hungary, for example, are not Congregationalist, so it's a useful distinction.) Unfortunately, the American Unitarian Association did not change its self-reference when it abandoned Unitarian ideas for Free Religionism in the late 1800s, leading to a great deal of confusion today. Nobody would make the mistake of conflating a Free Religion Association with the Unitarianism from which it developed, and members of a Free Religion Association would not go around pretending to speak for Unitarians. In the interests of accuracy, we should avoid the error of conflating the organization titled the Unitarian-Universalist Association with the philosophy of Unitarianism, or indulging a pro-UUA prejudice by spelling Unitarianism with a lower-case U as if Unitarianism were of a lower order compared to the formerly Unitarian UUA. Unitarian-Universalism is an organizational title, not an ideological term; the confusion comes from a failure to understand the difference between reference and essence. Jnelsonleith (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

While it can be successfully argued that Unitarian Universalist are not "Christians", they should not be confused with traditional Christian Unitarians who ascribe to the teachings and philosophy of our Lord Jesus Christ and worship the God of Abraham and who profess the Apostles' Creed while rejecting the Nicene Creed.

--Simpotico (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream unitarian, Islam, Judaism

This questions are not directed to Universalists.(I would like to assume there is a mainstream unitarian church but if there is none, ok) Is Jesus still an important figure and the New Testament, the 'bible' or the most authorative document? Are Judaism and Islam unitarian or considered unitarian? Are sacraments practised or useless, eg baptism, eucharist, jewish passover, blessing,etc.--Jondel 01:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the answers probably vary by particular church. There is no international Unitarian church, but there is the International Council of Unitarians and Universalists which is an association of different Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist bodies. Many more Unitarians than Unitarian Universalists consider themselves Christian. I know that, for example, the Romanian Unitarian church still places a strong emphasis on Jesus' teachings. I believe they also have something akin to confirmation. For an example of a unique Unitarian ritual, see Flower Communion, which was created to be distinct from the Eucharist and other Judeo-Christian rituals.

Often the distinction is made between "Unitarians" and "unitarians", the latter being anti-Trinitarians that do not belong to a Unitarian organization. Islam teaches that Jesus was human and that the Trinitarianism is a form of polytheism. Judaism also generally rejects Jesus being part of God, let alone a "rabbi." --Tydaj 02:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

We know about Islam's view on Jesus and Judaism's view. Jesus was once at least a Rabbi. Is it is hard to categorize Judaism and Islam as unitarian, since the context or Unitarian is ussually associated with Christinanity isn't it? Most are former members of mainstream Christianity(?). I think I can say that the Bible is still significant as a reference to unitarians(?). There are some Christainity associated religions like the Jehovahs and Adventists, and Iglesia ni Cristo(which I 'm trying to categorize) etc and it would be good if we could distinguish them. --Jondel 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to distinguish again or against/exclude Universalists, which is too broad. Universalists might include Buddha, Shiva, etc. and direct this question to Unitarianism only.--Jondel 02:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

When speaking of Unitarian Universalism, it is quite difficult to seperate the two. Unless you mean traditional Unitarianism as seperated from UUism. --Tydaj 05:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In "Unitarian Universalism", the word Universalist refers historically to the Universalist Church, not to Buddha or Shiva. --Jdemarcos 21:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Some denominations want to be associated with Christianity (or Judaism) and feel that their religion is the only path. They will probably resist the idea of Universalism . In the INC talk page, an anonymous insists that INC is simply non-trinitarian and resists being associated with Unitarianism. There is a distinct section Nontrinitarianism#Other_groups_which_reject_the_Trinity_doctrine with only one member. They are as Tydaj says unitarian being anti-trinitarian. Universalism does not refer to Buddha or Shiva but the definition of Universal religion includes Buddhism and Hinduism which I'm sure the INCs will abhor being associated with. (I'm Catholic but the INC is a significant religion in the Philippines). --Jondel 00:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam is basically Unitarian, while Judaism's not if you go according to the definition of Unitarianism that Jesus is a Prophet of God and there's only one God. Jesus is considered a human, albeit a very special human because,

I don't know any other mainstream religion as far from the free spirit of unitarians (despite that there is only couple of us in the Czech Republic) as Islam. I can hardly imagine todays mohamedans studying Bhagavad-gita, Buddha's teaching, etc ... Any religion, that is full of hate and violence is seriously ill. --83.240.1.246 (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The "true" religion of Islam, as outlined in the Qur'an, is not "full of hate". You should educate yourself by conducting research, such as reading the Qur'an, before you make such blanket statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.231.186 (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1. He is one of the most powerful Prophets, the specially appointed by God.

2. He is the only human being to NOT have been killed, but instead was taken up alive by God. He's still alive.

3. He is the appointed Messiah, and the saviour of Mankind.

Jews dont believe in him, so Judaism's out of the question of being Unitarian.

And Unitarianism is different from Unitarian Christianity WHICH STILL EMPHASIZES THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD but who is NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED.

Wow..He is NOT to be worshipped? What are those angels thinking anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.127.163.203 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

      These Pages must not be merged. --Fullmasti

What is your authority to say that these points are the only valid definition? --jofframes 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Unitarianism was moved by User:Herostratus to Unitarianism (theology) to make way from a disambig page, but the number of links pointing to it made that inadvisable. Thus, Herostatus and I both feel it should be moved back to Unitarianism (as it was before), and the disambig page merged into the existing one at Unitarianism (disambiguation). I don't anticipate any objections, but by all means post them if you have them. Be aware, though, that leaving the page where it is would mean changing a great many links to avoid the disambig page. Chick Bowen 22:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. OTOH I disagree with some information in the current disambig page (the item on Spanish politics --using the word in English makes no sense here, as it would be sth like "Unitarism" in English rather than "Unitarianism"). But now there is no discussion page available in the disambig page. So I suggest to implement the changes in order to go on with the discussion on what needs to be in the disambig page. --Jdemarcos 07:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Jdemarcos, you'll notice that as of right now, Unitarianism and Unitarianism (disambiguation) are the same. Unitarianism (disambiguation), thus, is permanent and won't have to be moved. So you can start a discussion there or simply make the changes you feel need to be made. Chick Bowen 03:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please move it back. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

performed by User:MacGyverMagic Chick Bowen 16:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Dickens a UU?

Notable Unitarian Universalists are Tim Berners-Lee (founder of the world wide web), Pete Seeger, Kurt Vonnegut, Christopher Reeve, Charles Dickens, and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Uh, Dickens a Unitarian Universalist? I doubt it.

Not a UU, but Dickens a Unitarian for the most part of his life, yes. --Jdemarcos 22:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved Dickens and Emerson to the Rational Unitarians category. If anyone thinks they belong elsewhere, feel free to change it. –Shoaler (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget John Adams and John Quincy Adams, both burried at the UU church in Quincy Ma.D-cup 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unitarian-Universalist is a moniker that would be unrecognizable to Dickens, Emerson, or either of the Adamses, because it did not exist before 1961 when the American Unitarian Association merged with the Universalist Church of America. Before that date, members of the Unitarian and Universalist traditions should be assigned to their respective groups. It is mere speculation to assume that Unitarians and Universalists who died before the merger would choose to refer to themselves as UUs.Jnelsonleith (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

History Focus

It seems to me like the article focuses too much on the history of Unitarianism, but not enough on the actual substance of Unitarianism. Agree/Disagree? Secos5 02:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

About Servetism

I disagree with the way Servetism is represented. Yes, it should be considered Biblical Unitarianism, but not as it is defined on this page. Servetus clearly believed Jesus was God himself. I have been reading through his book, Restitution of Christianity, in which he explains his views on God. He believed in One God, who was born into the world as Jesus Christ. Therefore Jesus Christ is seen as being fully God and fully man. The difference with his beliefs with Trinitarianism was that He saw God as one person rather than three. He believed the One God came in person as Jesus Christ. This is why I don't think his views are being accurately represented. The logos is seen as God's form, which manifested itself on earth. The logos is not seen as a separate thing from God, or any kind of lower created being. It should not go under the heading of: "God is one being Who consists of one person—the Father. Jesus is Messiah and Son of God, but not God Himself". Let me know what ya'll think. Jasonschnarr 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Servetus's theology is close to Sabellianism, that affirmed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are Modes of God, not different Persons. He said that Jesus was the son of God, i.e. that God was literally his father by impregnating Mary with His divine semen. Therefore the man Jesus participates in the substance of God. This participation is the manifestation of the eternal Logos that always existed within God, now becoming manifest in the flesh through Jesus the son (with a small "s") of God. That is why he died refusing to say: "Jesus is the eternal Son of God" and he said instead: "Jesus is the son of the Eternal God". I hope this clarifies the issue a bit. --Jdemarcos 17:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting this info? I've never seen anything in his beliefs about Jesus being born of divine semen, born with the Divine Soul, yes, but never from divine semen. And the reason he refused to say "Eternal Son of God" is because he refused to believe that Jesus was a second person in a trinity of persons, and did not believe that Jesus was already in heaven with God the Father before He was born; this wouldn't make sense to him, since he believed God was One Person. With the 'small s' thing you are implying that he thought Jesus was somehow less than God, which is not the case. He very clearly thought Jesus was God Himself. Why is this so hard for people to conceptualize? He thought Jesus was Jehovah's human form on earth, born of Jehovah's Spirit, in the form of the man Jesus Christ. He literally thought God was born, not a second person in a trinity of persons. This goes along with his willingness to say son of God, since this did not necessitate the idea of a second person. He believed that being the son of God, or human manifestation of God, that the logical conclusion would be that He was God Himself, since there is only One God, or One Divine Person, in his view. He reasoned that God could not be split into separate beings or persons. Yes, Jesus is seen as being born of the Logos, which is God's form; this form had simply not been made flesh yet. He is not only seen as "participating in the substance of God", but fully receiving the Substance of God into His human form, which made His human form completely One with the Divine Substance from which it was born. And, no, you did not clear anything up, but only defended a false impression of what Servetus believed. He cannot justifiably be put in the category of believing that Jesus was not God Himself, since this is exactly opposite of what he did believe. Jasonschnarr 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry, rough translation from Spanish, which is the edition (1980) I work with)

"(The difference between earth and water) is also proved by the generation of Christ itself, that shows the infinite distance between those elements, as in Christ three superior elements converge, that he took from his father's substance: as our paternal semen is watery, full of aerial and fiery spirit, so it is as well, in the case of Christ, that cloud from God's oracle, watery, aerial and fiery, condensed as water and that, shadowing Mary, was the dew of his natural generation, with no part of it that was earthy. That is, in foetuses, there is nothing earthy coming from the father, but from the mother..." Michael Servetus, Christianismi Restitutio, page 159 in the original 1553 edition.

I agree that Servetus said that Jesus was God, as he was the son of God and the Logos become flesh, and thus becoming truly the Son (but not eternal, because the Son is only after Jesus being born). And therefore Jesus was God himself, as far as he participated in God's substance, "anointed by God's grace, exalted because he humiliated himself in preference over his companions" (De Trinitatis Erroribus, Book I). But at the same time Jesus was also truly a man, born of a woman: "If the Son was the logos, born without a mother, from a father, tell me how was he born? Through the womb, o maybe through the side?... So, as it has been said before, the oldest ones (i.e. the Church Fathers, my addition) admit that the Son is a creature from God and that, therefore, he was created. Therefore they do not speak about the metaphysical nature..." (DeTriErr, Book I).

Besides that, I think that this conversation should continue in the Servetus Talk page and not here, as it is only marginal to historical Unitarianism. --Jdemarcos 23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I guess I want him to believe what Swedenborg did, but apparently there are some significant differences. I still think it is misrepresenting him by saying he didn't believe Jesus was God. That is my one solid point. I don't have access to my quotes right now, but when I do I'll put them down. He definitely states that Jesus is God Himself.

Yes he does. But inasmuch as Jesus incorporated the divinity of his Father in his own nature. It has been God's grace, that by giving birth to a human son, this son can be called God because he is the embodiment of the preexisting Logos, which is God itself. And since the divine powers have been granted to the Son, then the Son can be called God. This is Servetus's Christology in a few lines (it is much more complicated). Swedenborg was not a Servetian, and both of them were very original thinkers who had been influenced by others but who had quite different views and lived in very different cultural and social environments. Lately there has been a resurgence of Servetian studies in Spanish that are giving new light to his theology, which had been much misunderstood and simplified until now.--Jdemarcos 07:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming scheme

I understand the names Biblical Unitarian, Rational Unitarian, Unitarian Universalist and Evangelical Unitarian (although, as a Christian, would dispute the 1, 2 and 4 as being oxymorons!) but I'd like to see sources for thatt scheme. Particularly, as I say, given that mainstream Christians would dispute Biblical Unitarianism as being unbiblical, and most evangelicals would view Trinitarianism as being an essential evangelical belief. So that's to explain why I put the "citation needed" where I did. Wooster (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What you think as a Christian is completely irrelevant for the Wikipedia. What we need to discern is whether these are descriptive categories for the different varieties of Unitarianism found in history and in today's world. I think they are pretty good, regardless of one's religious convictions. --Jdemarcos 10:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I phrased that badly. I shall give two reasons which are as independent of personal conviction as I can make them. Given my first reason is about POV, you may understand that personal conviction is not entirely irrelevant.

1. They put forward a point of view: specifically that it is possible to be, say, evangelical and Unitarian. The term has been loaded, even accidentally. Do points of view not normally come with names attached?
2. They are in danger of presenting original research: who's to say there are only four strands? Classification systems need sources.

It would be better if we could get to an article which says, "So-and-so divides Unitarianism into four schools of thought: Biblical Unitarians &c."

Wooster (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what are the sources for this classification. AFAIK there is no single, independent study of all possible strands of Unitarian thought. I added the "Evangelical Unitarians" item to the list because I thought unfair not to include modern Bible-based antitrinitarian groups, such as the Christadelphians or the Biblical Unitarians. If you have a better label for them, please go ahead. But please do not confuse them with the original Biblical Unitarians because there is no historical continuity between them. --Jdemarcos 18:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought, see if I can come up with a better appellation. On the Biblical/Evangelical Unitarian split, I can see that there's no direct historical link, but on the other hand, it looks like they have conceptual/intellectual links: the approach seems broadly similar. They even end up in the same place sometimes (Socinianism, for instance). Would it be worth noting that? Wooster (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Apart from reliance on the Bible, I can't see where they really meet. The Socinians were rather rationalistic in their approach to revelation, and they despised Anabaptists such as the Hutterites for their lack of scholarship and knowledge of classical languages. I don't see the same attitudes and approach to religion in modern Bible-based antitrinitarians. --Jdemarcos 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. So in effect BUs sit in between EUs and RUs? Wooster (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not sure that I can fully support the classifications which have been used. The term 'Unitarian Universalism' refers to primarily to the organisation in the United States and to some extent Canada, and perhaps a few other places elsewhere. It does not and has never referred to Unitarians from places such as Britain or Germany, even if they do generally share the beliefs which have been outlined under that term. In other words, my point is that the term is American-centric, and that an alternative term should be used instead. I'm not sure what this could be though. hartlandcat (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2006

Proposed Split

Since this article is getting rather large, perhaps we should make a History of Unitarianism article out of the specific history by country that we have here now and write up an abbreviated international history for this article? --Tydaj 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. –Shoaler (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than a History page, I suggest moving all country-related paragraphs (BTW, including the US) to their own articles, and create those that are missing. I will do that with the paragraph on Spain. --Jdemarcos 17:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge tags

I am tentatively recommending that two articles be merged here, Unitarian Christianity and Unitarian Christian Groups and Publications. Each seems to have originated as a POV fork of this article and parts are redundant with this (much better) article. I thought about nominating them for deletion, but it looks like they do have some information not contained here. I would like to hear your thoughts on whether content from these articles should be merged here. JChap2007 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the person proposing these changes states clear the reasons (perhaps in bullet points) for merging the two articles, or even considering them for deletion. Unitarian Christianity as a school of Christian thought, a significant historic movement and modern day faith community are in many ways distinct from the Unitarian-Universalist denominations - particularly in the United States.

Furthermore, in respect to the Unitarian Christian Groups and Publications page, there are good reasons for documenting this aspect of Unitarian Christianity in detail as the 'Unitarian Christian Church' is distinct in the way it is so loosely organised and to an extent, interdenominational.

I would suggest that anybody preparing to engage in this debate should conduct some research into the recent history of Unitarian-Universalism, and they will then be at least aware that there could be reasons for the proposed changes which go beyond simply wanting to maintain and develop useful Wikipedia pages. Steelson80 22:29, 12 November 2006 (GMT)

there could be reasons for the proposed changes which go beyond simply wanting to maintain and develop useful Wikipedia pages.

I just read that. If you're accusing me of improper motives for proposing the change, you had better produce some evidence. JChap2007 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply made a cautionary note regarding the proposed changes and subsequent discussion. Nothing more.Steelson80 21:00, 13 November 2006 (GMT)

I oppose a merger. Unitarian Christianity is a distinctive version of Unitarianism, from which the majority of modern Unitarians/UUs have greatly diverged (see the article cited in the intro, which indicates how few UUs today consider themselves Christians).

I do favor some restructuring. The bulk of the early history section of the Unitarianism article more properly belongs in the Unitarian Christianity article, since such history was made while Unitarianism was primarily a Christian movement or denomination. There ought to be a paragraph in the Unitarianism article about the religion's Christian roots, beginning with a link to the main history section in the Unitarian Christianity article, where a more thorough treatment is given.

Notice that the Unitarian Christianity article is part of a series of articles on Christianity. Notice also that the article on Unitarianism is not part of this same series. This difference is proper, because modern Unitarianism is not a primarily Christian religion (though there are Christians within the movement), while Unitarian Christianity (which includes historic Unitarianism roughly prior to the late 1800s) is a primarily Christian religion. This difference also helps illustrate why the two articles ought to remain separate. Nick Graves 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the Unitarianism article, which is primarily about the historical movement. You both are thinking of Unitarian Universalism, which is primarily about the present-day UUs. The major problem with a merger with the Unitarian Christianityarticle is that the term "Unitarian Christianity" was not used historically. Rather, the movement was simply called Unitarianism. "Unitarian Christianity" is a neologism.JChap2007 23:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about the distinction between Unitarianism and UUism. However, it's important to note that this distinction is not sharp. There are still UUs whose beliefs are consistent with those of historical Unitarians, and the label Unitarian is still chosen by churches and individuals within the UUA to describe their religious identity. The label is even used as a self-identifier by those who are not Christians, or even theists.

True, Unitarian Christianity is a neologism, but it does accurately describe Unitarianism's Christian roots, as well as modern heirs to historical, Christian Unitarianism. It's a retronymn born of modern Unitarianism's departure from its historical form.

I'll admit I'm not certain what ought to be done about this, so I withdraw my opposition to the merger. I do think it's important to retain the infobox concerning the series of articles on Christianity, as Unitarianism was historically a Christian faith, and retains Christians in its membership even today. Nick Graves 01:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea about adding the infobox here, although some would dispute the notion that Unitarianism is really Christianity, as it differs from Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox Christians on important doctrinal points. Articles should be titled with the term most commonly used for the subject; here, Unitarianism in preference to "Unitarian Christianity." My main reason for proposing the merge was that the Unitarianism article may not contain enough information about modern Unitarians who follow Christ's teachings. I had considered just proposing Unitarian Christianity for deletion outright, as in its original form it was a POV-laden personal essay whose main purpose was to argue that the Trinitarians and the UUA were wrong and to promote the idea that modern day "Christian Unitarians" are/should separate from the UUA. It has the further problem that it does not cite its sources for its claims. I tried to clean up some of this, but much of the article just repeats Unitarianism. I do think that some of its information about modern "Unitarian Christians" (or whatever you want to call them), if verifiable in reliable sources. JChap2007 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not oppose the merger and cleanup of Unitarianism, Unitarian Christianity and Unitarian Christian Groups and Publications but would certainly oppose it being detached from the Christianity infobox. I do not accept that we are not part of Christianity simply because we differ from Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox Christians on important doctrinal points. Indeed, the importance of these doctrinal points varies across Christianity - which is why some Unitarian Christians find themselves attending churches affiliated to the United Church of Christ, United Reformed Church, Anglican Church etc. Also, it is quite misleading to say the Unitarian Christian Groups and Publicationsarticle was written to advocate schism (as I have read on a related talk page). For what it's worth, I originally created this article to provide a basic overview for those seeking information on specifically 'Unitarian Christian' groups and publications. This is something I (as owner of a popular Unitarian blog and mailing list) am asked for on a regular basis (and not just links). I therefore assumed it was information that is of interest and use. However, I accept it could form part of an improved Unitarian Christianity / Unitarianism article. Steelson80 21:04, 13 November 2006 (GMT)

Well, if it's going to be merged, the information should be verified in reliable sources. It should also be related from a neutral point-of-view. WP:NPOV#Minority Viewpoints may be instructive. I'm sure you created the article with the best of intentions, but to be honest, it read like a defense or advocacy piece about the subject rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. (Incidentally, the comment was on Talk: Unitarian Christianity, and, for what it's worth I was not the one who said it.) JChap2007 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I said that, using my freedom of opinion and expression that is so dear to Unitarians, and of course the author or others may disagree with me. I keep thinking that the Unitarian Christianity article is biased, and I agree wholeheartedly with the assessment by JChap2007 above, As I wrote in Talk: Unitarian Christianity, IMO the article seems to advocate schism because it falsely represents Unitarian Christianity as a movement on its own that is different and separate from worldwide Unitarianism and Unitarian Universalism. This has been slightly reduced through edits by several contributors, including myself. As an example of the initial tone of the article, see the affirmation that "Unitarian Universalists are considered Revisionist Unitarians, as they are syncretic and open to new ideas and concepts to the point of replacing their original principles of the Unitarian faith". This was stated in the original version of the article and was only recently removed from the article (and not by its author).

By the way, Steelson80, I find strange that you use a nickname that does not actually exist as a user of Wikipedia. So my suggestion to you is that you either create this user a user page or do not include links to a user page that does not exist. --Jdemarcos 11:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jdemarcos: Steelson80 does exist as a user of Wikipedia. He/She has just chosen not to begin editing their user page. There is nothing inappropriate or underhanded about this.

I found that a page does exist that addresses Unitarianism's Christian roots and modern Unitarian Christians: Unitarian Christian Association. I believe the UUA also has an organization specifically for UUs (some of whom are no doubt Unitarians) who consider themselves Christian. Given the existence of these organizations for Unitarian Christians, it seems to me that Unitarian Christianity is not a mere neologism, and that it does deserve its own article within the series of articles about Christianity.

The main problem with the article right now is that it lacks references. Once those references are found and added so as to verify what has been written about Unitarian Christianity, I believe a merger would not be needed, or even appropriate. Nick Graves 14:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Steelson80 appears to be a registered user, but is just not logged in and so xer edits show up under xer IP number. Perhaps that is the reason for the confusion. And I agree it does not seem sneaky or underhanded.

By calling the term "Unitarian Christianity" a neologism, I seem to have introduced a red herring. Indeed, looking into this more I'm not even sure that calling it a neologism is completely accurate, as there was a sermon with that title given by a Unitarian minister named William Ellery Channing (it's in Wikisource and linked from the article). However, the term does not appear to have entered common use, just as Baptists don't generally call themselves "Baptist Christians," Methodists don't call themselves "Methodist Christians," etc.

The real issue is that Unitarian Christianity means the same thing as Unitarianism. There is no need to have two separate articles that cover the same exact topic. JChap2007 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction, Nick Graves. Apparently these Unitarian Christian pages were promoted by people from a Yahoo mailing list. This is perfectly correct and legitimate, as far as everybody is aware that Wikipedia articles are not the particular property of some individuals or groups, and that all users are entitled to make their own contributions to the published articles. We will probably hear more voices in the coming days on the merger issue. --Jdemarcos 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I found an article in which the term Unitarian Christianity is used and defined by an organization that uses this label for itself: American Unitarian Conference™: Unitarian Christianity. If there are groups which consider themselves to be Unitarian Christian, and if they distinguish themselves from other Unitarians (be they Humanists or syncretists, etc.) by using the term to describe themselves, then a separate article on Unitarian Christianity ought to remain. I do advocate improvement of the Unitarian Christianity article with references and removal of POV pushing. Nick Graves 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The group that you found distinguishes itself from "modern Unitarians" (Unitarian Universalists), This article is about historical Unitarianism, which that group claims to be a continuation of. Thus, it seems logical to merge discussion of it here, with a redirect at Unitarian Christianity. One way to look at solving this problem is what would we cover in Unitarian Christianity that is not already better covered in Unitarianism. JChap2007 19:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not find in the AUC Bylaws any reference to Christianity. Furthermore, in this page it is clearly stated that "The AUC has not laid down specifically Christian principles, leaving the members to choose their own path to God in true non-creedal fashion." Therefore your assertion that the AUC is using the "Unitarian Christian" label for itself, as you said above, is not confirmed by other texts found in the same website. --Jdemarcos 22:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That same section continues: "However, the majority of our members to date are Unitarian Christians, and we fully expect to found specifically Unitarian Christian fellowships." I was incorrect in saying that the organization identified itself as Unitarian Christian. However, the organization was clearly founded primarily to serve the interests of those who consider themselves Unitarian Christians. The US group and the UK group are evidence of a neo-traditionalist movement within Unitarianism which decries a loss of that faith's traditional Christian character.

I wouldn't care whether the articles were merged, as long as this neo-traditionalist movement of Unitarian Christians were adequately documented, and somehow remained part of the series of articles on Christianity. Nick Graves 04:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that the AUC is not specifically Christian, according to their Bylaws. The AUC can be defined as a God-centered Unitarian organization. Whether they plan to plant Unitarian Christian churches or not is irrelevant, as far as the organization does not include Christianity in its self-definition. Probably what they mean is that they would love to attract Unitarians from the UUA, the UCC, and elsewhere. That they are successful in this effort or not remains to be seen. But I have read statements from the AUC founders saying that they welcome Deists and other non-Christians. I think it is useless to provide the exact quotes confirming this when the Bylaws are written in a way that include Christians but also non-Christians.

As for this so-called "neo-traditionalist Unitarian movement", I wonder if it is a real movement or just a few individuals here and there who protest against the pluralistic evolution of Unitarian Universalism and the liberal policies of the UUA. I think it is reasonable to question whether the statements of a few individuals loosely connected through a mailing list and a couple of blogs is sufficient reason to have their own article in Wikipedia as if they were an organized denomination on its own, or whether this is stretching reality a bit too much. --Jdemarcos 11:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if the organization does exist to promote "Unitarian Christianity," that article is an invalid content fork of Unitarianism, as they discuss the same topic. Any article claiming that "Unitarian Christianity" is a new movement that should have its own article would have to be based on multiple, independent reliable sources that discussed such a movement. What that article should be called would be determined by how such reliable sources refer to it. The website is not an independent, reliable source for purposes of establishing notability (which we would need to establish in order to have a separate article). JChap2007 16:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I oppose the merger. The 'Unitarian' community and traditions are confusingly broad and complex and, unfortunately, several of the major, modern constituent movements which claim a place under the umbrella term 'Unitarian' - think UUA - are so far removed from historical Unitarianism - read Unitarian Christianity - and from those movements which retain historical unitarian Christian theologies - principally the Unitarian Churches of Transylvania and Hungary - that their inclusion is largely based only on their retention of the name. To judge the 'unitarianism' of older, more established traditions that are still in step with the unitarian Christian tradition from the perspective of nominally unitarian movements such as the UUA that has over the past century morphed into something that rightly belongs beyond the limits of unitarianism - read unitarian protestant Christianity is cruel, destructive and historically anachronistic.

The best solution might be to retain an article on 'Unitarianism' which attempts the difficult task of surveying all unitarianisms, both Christian and post-Christian, providing a view of their relationships through the history of the term and the varying theologies / philosophies embraced by the many disparate 'Unitarian' groups and to maintain a separate article on 'Unitarian Christianity' focusing solely on the original unitarian - a particular form of anti-trinitarianism - theological tradition and its inheritors through history and in the modern day. Mburp 22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mburp, since this is your first edit here, let me welcome you to Wikipedia! If you'll read the article on Unitarianism, you'll see it is about the historic theological tradition you describe and only very briefly mentions Unitarian Universalism, which already has its own, separate article. Thus, the Unitarian Christianity article is a content fork of this one. In other words, Unitarianism is already the article on Unitarian Christianity you are proposing. I don't think that creating a survey of the different traditions that have come from Unitarianism is neccessary, as such pages are already linked through a category.

The problem with "reading" Unitarianism as Unitarian Christianity is that, aside from one sermon, the later term was not used to describe it. Thus, the proper title for the article about what you call "Unitarian Christianity" is Unitarianism. That is why the articles should be merged. JChap2007 23:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I don't think anyone is trying to make the article "cruel" or "destructive" and use of the term "Unitarian Christianity" to describe Unitarianism would be "historically anachronistic." Also, the purpose of the article should be to provide information on the topic from a neutral point-of-view, not to trash the UUA (or any other organization) or try to present it as illegitimate. However, I appreciate the passion of your convictions. I would simply suggest that editing an encyclopedia should be done dispassionately. JChap2007 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem is that we are dealing with two different issues here. One is about Unitarianism understood as a Christian denomination and theology. I think that this approach is mostly covered by the current Unitarianism article. A different thing is this loose network of Christian Unitarians who disagree with pluralistic Unitarianism, who are mostly based in USA and Britain. Perhaps an article about these groups or networks could be written to cover this specific subject. However, the Unitarian Christianity concept should be independent from any analysis of these "traditionalist" networks, as it is a much wider phenomenon, and actually most Christian Unitarians in English-speaking countries remain as members of the historical denominations of the UUA and the British General Assembly. Furthermore, the Transylvanian and Hungarian Unitarian Churches are in communion with the UUA and the British GA through the ICUU, but not with these splinter networks or the AUC, so any claim from these people to put them all together with the Transylvanian Unitarians as a separate denominational current is, at best, misleading. --Jdemarcos 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think an article about this movement would be worthwhile if discussed in multiple, independent reliable sources that establish notability of such a movement. Maybe our new friends know of such sources... JChap2007 20:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposed article on Unitarianism should follow the same lines as the articles on Deism, Pantheism, and Panentheism. It should focus on the history of Unitarian thought instead of the institutions and internal politics of the denominations and organisations which use the Unitarian name. In addition, just as Sufism cannot be detached from Islam, neither can Unitarianism be detached from Christianity. Those who wish to detach Unitarianism (as a theological position) from Christianity should question how they can do this when it emerged within Christianity as a reaction specifically to the Trinity. Any attempt to associate the history of Unitarianism only with the UUA and sister organisations who also following Unitarian-Universalism would leave the article open to charges of inaccuracy, appropriation of history and bias. Finally, in light of this discussion, one should also question whether the List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists should be revised as Unitarians and Universalists from the past had little in common with modern-day Unitarian-Universalists. Again, the comparison with Islam can be made. We do not see notable Bahais listed with notable Muslims because the Bahai faith has become sufficiently detached to be recognised as distinct from Islam. --SaulGlennie 18:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Another new Wikipedian making his first edits outside of user space on this talk page! Welcome! Fortunately, no one here is trying to do any of the things you are worried about. If you read the Unitarianism article attached to this talk page, you will see it lays out the history of Unitarian thought. Unitarian Universalism has its own article. All this has been pointed out above several times. Similarly, no one is trying to "detach" it from Christianity. What we should be doing (and what the Unitarianism article seems to represent a good faith attempt to do, although I haven't contributed to it) is representing the views of third party reliable sources on this topic. For example theologian A considered Unitarianism a form of Christianity for reason X, but theologian B disagrees for reason Y. If you are concerned about the list, I would discuss in on the appropriate talk page. JChap2007 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Attention: Please read Wikipedia:Civility. It is not civil to engage in “ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another.” This includes implying that there is a misuse of usernames and second guessing motives for writing wikipedia pages. If you feel the need to continue, please refer to Don't be a dick (From: JH 2007)

Please don't attack me just because I'm new and don't necessarily want to read this whole apparently heated discussion. I'd like to see the articles merged. "Unitarian Christianity" is redundant. We're not talking about Muslim "unitarianism." The Unitarianism we're talking about is Christian Unitarianism (or descended one generation away from Christian Unitarianism). Jonathan Tweet 06:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC) --jofframes 11:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The articles should not be merged. Unitarianism as it stands is a historical overview and does little to discuss the theology or the modern place of Unitarianism. Various other Unitarian sects, or sub-theologies, have their own articles which do discuss these issues without little to no dispute. I do not see what Christian Unitarianism (or "classical" Unitarianism if you prefer) should be any differant. If anything this article should be moved to Unitarianism (history) and Unitarian Christianity moved to here. Regardless, both articles require some serious effort at cleanup and citations. Vassyana 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that material from the Unitarian Christianity article that is not a repetition of this article should be merged here, and leave Unitarian Christianity only for a description and analysis of Channing's historical 1819 address. --jofframes 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit ridiculous to boil down an entire topic to a specific sermon. It would be like making the article on Lutheranism boil down to a discussion of one of Luther's works. I will reiterate that this article is a good view of the history of Unitarianism but does little to discuss its theology or place in modern religious circles. Vassyana 06:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to create a "Lutheran Christianity" topic when there is already an article on Lutheranism. Likewise, the topic of Unitarian Christianity is already covered by the Unitarianism article. The plain fact is that the Unitarian Christianity article is redundant and it serves no other purpose than to please a few disgruntled individuals who disagree with current UUA policies (as if Unitarianism was the UUA or vice versa!). So either merge the relevant parts of the current UC article into this one, and use the UC article for some relevant content such as Channing's sermon, or delete the UC article altogether. A different subject is whether the current Unitarianism is too long and it should spin off other articles devoted to history and to specific articles for each country. --jofframes 11:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments under Move or Merge below. Vassyana 13:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I support merging the articles, because you really can't understand one without understanding the other. We say a great deal about "Christian Unitarianism" in this article, it would be largely incomprehensible if we took that out. The International Conference of Unitarians and Universalists welcomes all Unitarians and Universalists, it doesn't divide them up. If you go to a Unitarian church, you will find the Unitarian Christians worshipping together in the same room with Unitarian Buddhists, Unitarian Humanists, Unitarian Pagans, and all other Unitarians. The Encyclopedia Brittanica in its article on "Protestantism" just has a section called "Unitarianism and Universalism" (together with sections like "Lutheranism", "Baptists", "Methodism" and so on). Basically, what you are doing is trying to split up Unitarians and Universalists into categories that we UUs simply do not recognize. ---KEVP 2/2/07

Unitarianism Predates Christianity

Simple point: unitarianism is a doctrine not limited to any particular religion, but endorsed by a number of religions. Historically, Muslims were known as Unitarians. Contemporarily, Unitarian Universalists are not Christian, except individually, if they espouse Christianity. There are many independent lines of inquiry into the subject, but it seems proper to keep the overall discussion and disambiguation together, insofar as other alternatives become confusing. Just organize the presentation appropriately.

````The Omnist

I think that you are confusing Unitarianism and monotheism. --Jdemarcos 21:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the Omnist is correct. "Unitarian" used to be a term for Muslims, because, just like Unitarians, they do not believe that God would divide himself into three people and they do not believe Jesus is God. When some Christian groups started espousing the same ideas, they were called "Unitarians" which basically was an accusation that they were really Muslims. KEVP 2/2/07.

First, Islam does not predate Christianity, therefore the section title would be incorrect if the discussion is about Islam. Second, can you quote documents where it is said that Muslims were called "Unitarians" before 1600 (first documented use of the word)? In Medieval times sometimes they were called "Arians" by Christians, although this would be more out of ignorance than as a result of actual theological studies. --jofframes 11:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources for these assertions? The sentence that states "Unitarian Universalists are not Christian, except individually, if they espouse Christianity" is not supported by Unitarian Universalist theology, at least to my knowledge. That critique assumes that Unitarians who hold Christian beliefs adopt an individualistic orientation toward their relationship with God and with others -- if they conceive of a relationship with God. Moreover, it adopts a model for how one would determine whether someone "is" or "is not" a particular X, where X is a particular religious label, that is inconsistent with how most UU congregations operate. Are you expecting UU congregations to take a vote on this? The UUA has no particular procedure by which it establishes whether Unitarian Universalists are or are not any particular religious label. I have no idea whether the article should be moved, but I am somewhat disturbed by the shoddy evidence presented thus far by those who profess to know that Unitarian Universalists are not Christian. Some are, some aren't. If someone can produce evidence on how many, then please do so. Until such evidence exists, it would seem that those kinds of claims run counter to the strong tradition of pluralism within Unitarianism. Could we also have a source on the "Muslim" claim above? --Bbbozzz 15 February 2007

Unitarian-Universalism is an organizational title. Unitarianism is a descriptive term for a philosophy no longer necessary for membership in the Unitarian-Universalist Association. There is already an entry for the UUA; this is the Unitarianism article. Unitarianism as a philosophy (rather than a title) is certainly translatable/relatable to similar concepts in Judaism, Islam, etc. Jnelsonleith (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: non-Christian Unitarian information

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

Call off your Thought Police NOW!

Tab Hunter (Mxsptlk) December 7, 2006

Please stop vandalizing this page. While it is true that U-Us are often not Christian, Unitarianism (not unitarian-Universalism), as described on this page, is a heretical version of Christian theology. The non-Christian version would simply be known as Monotheism. Unitarianism is usually a position opposed the concept of the Trinity, a concept in Christian theology. Islam is an interesting addition as it could be interpreted as an off shoot of Christianity that rejected the trinity. Pagan traditions, however, are not rejecting the Trinity (that is they aren't derived from Christian theology in other ways) and while they could be classified as Monotheism, would not be classified as Unitarian. Pagan members of Unitarian-Universalist congregations would be called pagan U-Us, but not pagan unitarians in this usage. Many U-Us are not unitarian in this usage. Edwin Stearns | Talk 21:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unitarian is more than merely rejecting the Trinity of God. It is also an assertion of the Unity of God. Atheism and agnosticism (which also, in different senses, reject Trinitarianism) existed side-by-side with Unitarianism for centuries as distinct philosophies before the creation of the UUA in 1961, which has since confused the issue by embracing atheism and agnosticism without relinquishing the title Unitarian. Unitarianism could probably best be described as an assertion of monotheism in context or protest of Binitarian, Trinitarian, or other multi-personal conceptions of God.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.218.69 (talk)

Also, who is Misha? User:Misha hasn't make any contributions to unitarian related pages. Edwin Stearns | Talk 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are mostly correct, Edwin. In the US, it is UUism, but in many other countries, Universalism as an organization did not exist, and so Unitarianism and Universalism didn't merge as organizations. The pagans in Britain, for example, that are associated with the British equivalent of the UUA (The Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, I believe) are not UUs but Unitarians. (And it's not a hyphenate.) However, User:Mxsptlk is wrong to be replacing the content of this page, and should instead create a Unitarian Earth Spirit Network article. Oh wait... I just did. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was close... it's General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches.

UtherSRG, Would you agree that many members of the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches are also not unitarian in the sense of this article? Edwin Stearns | Talk 14:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the distinction Edwinstearns is making here: General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches is an organizational title, which should not be confused with a descriptive term for a worldview that the members of the Assembly may or may not espouse.Jnelsonleith (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Christian Unitarian

The whole idea of a "Christian Unitarian" is akin the the Christian Jew, it is a skewing of the underlying beliefs and tenants of the religion. If you want to be a Chrstian, be one, don't try to make a non-christain religion into Christianity.Jtallen24 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article itself, not debating the theology. Aleta 08:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The notion that a "Christian Unitarian" is akin to the Christian Jew is false. I don't know how you could believe that. The survey data from the 2000 UU Association itself suggests that 27% of members of UU congregations consider their primary theological orientation to be Christian. This is from the FACT 2000 survey. Additionally, 54% consider themselves "theist." The form of the question, with its emphasis on a "primary" label, is a forced-choice that in no way demonstrates the claim that the majority of Unitarian Universalists, much less Unitarians generally, consider themselves to be something other than Christian. I know this personally. I took the FACT 2000 survey as well as the 2005 version. The citation in the aricle, footnote 1, is an inaccurate, secondary source that mischaracterizes what the questions were in the survey, and reports a number, 9%, that apparently is not the number from the actual report. While there are many who belong to Unitarian Universalist congregations who do not consider themselves Christian, the assertion that 90 percent, or even a majority of Unitarians consider themselves not Christians is not supported by the evidence proffered. The subject has been controversial to some in the UU community, which may explain why assertions like these are made. Bbbozzz 08:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

UUA is no longer philosophically Unitarian

Not only should Unitarianism not be conflated with the UUA, it should not be related to that organization whatsoever except as a historical and nominal footnote. UU in general and the UUA in particular, while they certainly include some people with Unitarian beliefs about God, have long since ceased being truly Unitarian in ideology, having abandoned any assertion about God in their defining principles and having embraced agnostics and atheists. This isn't a moral judgement about non-theists, but rather a question about the honesty and accuracy of the Wiki article on Unitarianism identifying a "not necessarily Unitarian" group as representative of Unitarianism.

The article should merely note near the bottom that the UUA is organizationally descended from Unitarian groups (the AUA, to be precise) but no longer asserts Unitarian principles. Wikipedia should not compound the confusion caused by the UUA's continued use of the title "Unitarian" in a way that is certainly inaccurate and could even be considered offensive and disrespectful to people who actually assert a Unitarian theology.

It is analagous to a Baptist church abandoning a belief in the importance of Baptism, but continuing to present itself as "Baptist" despite conflicts with truly Baptists churches that continue to believe in Baptism. The accuracy of Wikipedia is not served by draining the meaning from a word until it becomes senseless. There is a fine line between the questionable right of one group to self-representation in clear contradiction to the established meaning of a word, and the rights of others not to have their own religious beliefs misappropriated by those who do not share them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.218.69 (talk)

I would argue that this is an incorrect statement. Unitarian, in fact, may no longer mean the exact same thing as it used to. However, it is what it is. Whether you agree with how Unitarians practice their faith today is irrelevant. The article would be incomplete to leave out the concepts the term Unitarian used to incorporate. The article is inaccurate to leave out what it means to day or to suggest that UUA is not really Unitarian. If the Baptists were in fact to decide to no longer Baptisms it would not make them non-Baptists. It would mean that the religion itself had fundamentally changed and the WIKI should address and highlight those changes - not draw judgments about which beliefs are the correct ones.

64.193.21.100 17:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we then assume that every country which calls itself a Democratic Republic is therefore representative of what democracy and republican government are? Perhaps Wikipedia should assume that North Korea and the Congo are baselines for determining what democratic and republic mean, rather than discussing the ideas of democracy and republican government themselves. There is a difference between organizational titles and descriptive terms, and ignoring that distinction serves partisan proselytizing, not accuracy. Jnelsonleith (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rational or Rationalist Unitarianism?

I've changed most occurences of "Rational Unitarianism" to "Rationalist Unitarianism", as this seems to be the most common usage. I also remeber seeing the word mentioned in Theopedia. However, I am not 100% sure. We will certainly need further sources.

Does anyone here know actual organizations or churches subscribing to Rational(ist) Unitarianism that could be contacted for further clarification? Thanks. 200.213.42.15 07:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No churches subscribe to "Rationalist Unitarianism". Unitarian churches do not classify themselves according to these categories you have. Unitarians all worship together in the same churches, this classification system is completely alien to most of us. KEVP 2/2/07

Move or Merge

Why not move the bulk of this article with some cleanup to Unitarianism (history), and merge Unitarian Christianity with this article, fleshing out the theological and social relevence aspects of the article? Thoughts? Vassyana 09:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with creating a page called, e.g. History of Unitarianism, but I think that first a decision should be made about what to do with the merger of Unitarian Christianity. After that is settled and solved, we may consider other issues such as how to distribute the relevant information for readers. --jofframes 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then, I propose: Merge Unitarian Christianity with Unitarianism. Split most of the current Unitarianism material to Unitarianism (history) or History of Unitarianism. Revise Unitarianism to provide info on the Christian theology and current relevence of Unitarianism. Cleanup the history article so it is more coherent. In more or less that order. Thoughts? Vassyana 02:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any merge for the following, very simple reason: The article clearly states that there are several forms of Unitarianism. Now, each of these branches should have their own article. There is already a separate article for Unitarian Universalism, why should only the UU have their separate article when there are other branches of Unitarianism (arguably much closer to their original Unitarian roots than the UU, i.e., reffirming monotheism and the unity of God and the moral authority of Jesus instead of his divinity in both Rationalist Unitarianism and most strands of Biblical Unitarianism, but still within the context of Christianity, as opposed to the sloppy "all-religion-is-true-I-don't-care approach of most UU's). These are clearly wildly diverging theologies, which should be specified in separate articles, all linking to a concise central article on the general history of the concept.Giorgioz 11:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I started off feeling similarly to you on the matter. Upon review of other Wikipedia religion articles and reading the comments of other, I reached the conclusion above. Mormonism and its associated history article roughly demonstrate the kind of thing I'm suggesting. If we want to address specific branches of Unitarianism in seperate articles, such as the UU is, I see no problem with this. However, several of these branches and schools of thought already have their own seperate articles. (Arianism and Socinianism as already noted in the article for examples.) Vassyana 12:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The list of forms of Unitarianism in the article has a problem, because it has been accused of being original material. Although this is arguable (we need to explain somehow why and how Unitarianism is diverse), there is some truth in that statement since no known source displays the same categorization. The reason that there is an article on Unitarian Universalism is pretty obvious: because there is a religious organization that uses the name "Unitarian Universalist" and therefore its members define themselves Unitarian Universalists. However, historical Unitarian churches which are strictly Christian in their theology do not use the name "Unitarian Christian" (the name of the Transylvanian Unitarian Church is exactly that one, with no additional adjectives). Likewise, Rationalist Unitarians are not members of an imaginary "Rational Unitarian Church", but they coexist with other Unitarians inside Unitarian churches.

In sum, there are organizations that are called "Unitarian Universalist" and others that are called "Unitarian", but there are no organizations called "Unitarian Christian" at the denominational level, but only as subgroups within a Unitarian or UU church (the only exception to this rule that I can think of now is the very small Assemblée Fraternelle des Chrétiens Unitariens in France). This is the reason that it is more than arguable that we need separate articles for all different branches of Unitarianism, beginning with "Unitarian Christians". However it is fine to include separate pages for the American Unitarian Conference (which, by the way, is not exclusively Christian either, but monotheistic), the Christadelphians, the Church of God GC, the Oneness Pentecostals, etc., because they are independent, specific organizations with different varieties of a Christian Unitarian theology. This is, I think, the most practical way to approach the subject of Unitarian theological diversity. If the issue is how to explain the version of Christian theology that rejects the Trinity, there are articles already on Nontrinitarianism, Arianism, etc. --jofframes 14:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting close to agreement here. Does the merge/split/revise/cleanup plan sound about right to you? I also wanted to say that opon thought that idea of using the Unitarian Christianity space for Channing's sermon is a pretty good one. Such an article could also include other sermons and essays spurred by that (there are a fair number that use the same or similar phrasing). Though, we probably should deal with the mess we have already first and then undertake that project. ;o) Vassyana 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You might like to take a look at [1] and [2]. Giorgioz 15:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why oppose the merge? [[American Unitarian Conference already has its own wiki page, as do a number of other branches of Unitarian faith. Again, I would point out that Mormonism and its associated history article decently show what I'd like to see in terms of the merge/split. What are your thoughts on this? Vassyana 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we should leave Channing's sermon in a separate area. All of American Unitarianism, including the modern Unitarian Universalism, derives from that sermon. (Okay, sometimes the path is long and complicated, but there is a path) It also affected Unitarianism in other countries, particularly England. It isn't somehow "seperate" from the rest of Unitarianism. Channing was not talking about "Unitarian Christianity" as being somehow separate from other Unitarians (at that time all Unitarians identified themselves as Christians) he was talking about it being different from mainstream Christianity. KEVP 2/2/07

Precisely, it would be a way of giving more relevance to the sermon, with fuller analysis and detail than the general article on Unitarianism can provide. A link would connect both articles so that people can navigate back and forth. --jofframes 22:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

One point that needs to be emphasized is that the article "Unitarianism" is about a theological view only. It is not about the church movement, for which people can go to "Unitarian Universalism." Therefore it is no different from "Unitarian Christianity." The two articles could and should be merged. [David M, 7 July 2007]

I disagree with Giorgioz's objection above: Unitarian-Universalism certainly deserves its own article because it is a large organization with global influence, regardless of whether it is arguably Unitarian in philosophy. To break off different Unitarian threads (rational and biblical, for example) would serve only to disperse information that should be compared side-by-side. However, significant Unitarian groups should have their own articles, just as the UUA does. Now, what qualifies as significant is debateable. Jnelsonleith (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)