Religious Tests & Testy Religions

My friend and regional blogosphere coconspirator, Cory Heidelberger, has a very interesting post on the Pastor Jeffress controversy. Pastor Rick Jeffress, a supporter of Governor Rick Perry who introduced the Governor to a recent conservative forum in Washington, said the following in an interview with CNN:

And I want to make it very clear that Governor Perry had no knowledge ahead of time of what I was going to say. However, this is not an unusual view, John, that Mormonism is not Christianity.

Historical Christianity has never embraced Mormonism as a part of its faith. In fact, for many years, the Southern Baptist Convention did label it on its official Web site as a cult. That's not saying that Mitt Romney's a bad person. I think he's a good person, a moral person, but he doesn't embrace the historical tenets of evangelical Christianity.

Cory of course wants to find Pastor Jeffress' position illegitimate, but he had to tread rather carefully here as he acknowledges:

I've elicited numerous comments in response to my post about the Iglesia ni Cristo's purchase of the town of Scenic, South Dakota. Reviewing the church's doctrines and practices, I found that the church is not Christian and behaves like a cult.

Well, that sounds a lot like Jeffress' statement on Mormonism, the chief difference being that Cory is a self-professed Atheist. I dissent in part and concur in part.

The question of who is a genuine Christian and who is not is a matter of faith and doctrine. It can only be made within the context of some faith tradition. Cory was proposing that the Iglesia ni Cristo sect was clearly not Christian from an independent, historical point of view. I rather doubt that one can distinguish genuine from non-genuine Christianity on historical grounds and I am sure that this is a dubious ground for an atheist to criticize a sect whose arrival displeases him.

By contrast, the term "cult" can be defined independently of any faith tradition. A cult is simply a sect that attempts to cut off contact between its members and outsiders. If the church tells you that you must sever ties with friends and family members who do not belong, your church is a cult. I don't know enough about the Iglesia ni Cristo to say, but by this standard Mormonism is surely not a cult.

Here is Cory's attempt to put some distance between himself and Jeffress:

But Jeffress isn't making a theological argument. He's making propaganda. He's trying to impose a religious test on political candidates. He's trying to give voters a lazy reason to vote for Perry and against Romney that won't involve their having to wrestle with actual policy questions or assessments of which man is practically qualified to serve as President. In doing so, Pastor Jeffress is violating the spirit of the Constitution and the Bible, both of which support a separation of church and state. He is not spreading the Gospel; he is pandering to ignorance and using his clerical authority to score political points for his favored earthly candidate.

  There are all kinds of things wrong in this paragraph, but I will focus on one. The term "religious test" has a very specific meaning in American history. It means that a religious profession is qualification for office or other privileges of citizenship. In this Republic, there can be no such religious tests. No religious belief or lack thereof can be grounds for barring someone otherwise qualified from voting or serving as President.

Jeffress is not proposing any kind of religious test. He does think, I gather, that Christians should insist on a genuine Christian as a candidate for office. Voters are free to pick their own sets of criteria when deciding how to vote. Martin Luther said that he would rather be governed by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian. That is certainly my view. I can easily imagine, however, that I might vote against a candidate because of his or her religious beliefs.

I would not vote for a candidate who believes that "Jesus hates queers." I would not vote for a candidate whose church is flamboyantly racist or misogynist. I wouldn't vote for a candidate who sat for twenty years before a pastor who was vehemently anti-American and anti-Semitic. I don't think that this is laziness on my part. I don't think I am violating the spirit of the Constitution by employing such criteria.

Comments

[Dave]

I admire your fair minded-ness on issues like this..we need more citizens like you who give the benefit of the doubt...Iglesia ni Cristo is not an exclusionary church..we mingle with other people as well...

[Ken Blanchard]

Thanks for the comment, Dave.

[Dave]

To air my disappointment with Cory, he uses his blog to attack the Iglesia ni Cristo, which is fine with me but the disappointment is when he deleted my comments which are not obscene nor disrepectful because it proves his blog is biased and unfair.

He just didn't like the idea that an unfamiliar church will soon be his neighbor.

[Dave]

Regarding the topic, I would vote for anyone due to competency rather than religious belief but the religious belief may affect the competency and public policy. If it does, then the two dance the Tango together...

[Bill Fleming]

Dave, when your group votes in California, how do they do it?
Do they all vote the same way? Does someone "suggest" who you should vote for?
Can you give us some example?

[Bill Fleming]

Nice turn of the screw, KB. I'm sure it doesn't matter to you in the least that Obama finally renounced Rev. Wright and severed all connections with him. Conversely, Jeffress is doing surrogate Mormon-bashing for Perry among the Evangelicals and so far no one in the GOP seems to want to call him on it.

Can you say "Mormons are Christians if they say they are, and so are the Iglesia ni Cristos?"

If not, have you really said anything different than Cory has here?

[Bill Fleming]

In addition, can you also say, "the word 'cult' has become a pejorative meme in contemporary culture and as such should perhaps not be used, especially in the context of religion as it pertains to politics."?

[Bill Fleming]

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/amish-attacks-a-religious-matter-leader-says/article_6af64a96-f3a6-11e0-acc2-001cc4c002e0.html

Well?

[Dave]

We don't do blockvoting in California nor any minister will hint who to vote for...this is a highly misinterpreted teaching of the church....I admit that the church in the philippines do blockvote but not here in the US...unity is not on the candidates but on to a unified action that serves the interest of the whole church...it is the best interest not to blockvote here in the US...

[Dave]

Sorry for multiple posts..please delete the clones...thanks.

[duggersd]

Bill, it took Obama 20 years to finally hears something from Wright to make him sever his ties to him. And I am sure it had nothing to do with wanting to be elected President. I believe the term used was "throw him under the bus".

[caheidelberger]

Oh good grief, not fake Dave again. I am uncomfortable with any church imposing its political will on its members. I don't think Pastor Jeffress's church imposes such an edict on its members the way INC has in the Philippines.

I will agree, Ken, that the distance I'm trying to establish between myself and Jeffress is tenuous. In regular conversation, I'm willing to grant Jeffress room to defend his suggestion that Mormonism is a cult, including a discussion of just what we mean when we say "cult" (other than triggering our fantasies about creepy folks in hoods sacrificing chickens and cheerleaders in the woods at midnight). But he is airing his critique in a very different context from mine, in a propagandistic effort to win votes for one candidate. If the INC repopulates Scenic and starts running candidates for Legislature, I'll have to consider my words carefully.

[George Mason]

Down through history we have had people preaching politics from the pulpit. In our country we are free not to listen to them. If it occurs in your church and you do not agree with the message or with the idea of politics in the pulpit you are free to leave that church (that is separation of church and state). Obama didn't leave his church until his "beloved uncle" pastor showed up on You Tube. Nobody is required to listen to Jeffress or Wright or any other crackpot with a divinity degree. We do not have a state church which frees us to worship (or in Cory's case not worship) as we please (provided we are not sacrificing virgins).

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I second dugger's note. For 20 years Obama attended Wright's church. Obama was not only a member of the congregation. He said Wright was his mentor, implying a deep, personal relationship. When the trouble started, Obama then claimed that he didn't know anything about Wright's radical views. The next story was that he did know, but Wright was like a crazy old uncle, gotta love him. Then Obama decided to stop loving him and throw him under the Bus. Do you honestly propose that anything Barack Obama said or did concerning Wright was done out of anything other than expediency?

Yes, the word 'cult' is not a complement. That is because the phenomenon it accurately references is problematic. I do not accept the common assumption that we can make the world a better place by refusing to call things what they are.

[Jimi]

"Cory is a self-professed Atheist."

I am assuming he is a "Humanist," who adheres to the Humanist Manifesto I,II, III? The problem with being an Atheist is, as Sean Hannity likes to put it, "you have to believe that something came from nothing." This requires just as much "Faith" as any religion I know of.

In my experience most are Agnostics, who are extremely sensistive of the topic about "judgement" of behavior. They seem to fear the percieved shackles of organized religon and therefore defuse any situation by holding the Atheist flag high.

The Humanist Manifesto II is a really a political manifesto focused on a One World Communist government. If we look at the early writting of Karl Marx below, the Humanist Manifesto II is advocating the same thing thing under a different name. The modern Humanist movement really isn't about science vs. religon, it's about destroying religon to control behavior and the resources of the masses.

"Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being – a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution. Humanism is the denial of God and the total affirmation of man. Humanism is really nothing else but Marxism." - Karl Marx 1844

[Bill Fleming]

Okay, have it your way, KB.

Here is a sociological overview of the activities of a mind-control cult (from Wikipedia):

Studies performed by those who believe that some religious groups do practice mind control have identified a number of key steps in coercive persuasion:[30][31]

1. People are put in physical or emotionally distressing situations;

2. Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized;

3. They receive what seems to be unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader or group;

4. They get a new identity based on the group;

5. They are subject to entrapment (isolation from friends, relatives and the mainstream culture) and their access to information is severely controlled.[32]

This view is disputed by scholars such as James Gene[33] and Bette Nove Evans.[34] Society for the Scientific Study of Religion[35] stated in 1990 that there was not sufficient research to permit a consensus on the matter and that "one should not automatically equate the techniques involved in the process of physical coercion and control with those of nonphysical coercion and control".

I agree with Gene and Evans, but if you don't, so be it. Personally, I think the above five actions describe the Republican party and Fox News to a tee, but I've never thought of it as a "cult."

Curious that you do.

Curious indeed.

[duggersd]

The same could be said for the Democrat party. Curious, curious indeed.

[Bill Fleming]

Maybe, duggerSD, but in my experience, the Dems are just not all that well organized. In any case, you missed my point. I'll repeat it for you as per my comment above: "the word 'cult' has become a pejorative meme in contemporary culture and as such should perhaps not be used, especially in the context of religion as it pertains to politics."

[Ken Blanchard]

Bill: I thought for a moment you were making a funny joke but it looks like you are serious. I said nothing about mind control or coercion, physical or otherwise. I referred only to the fact that some religious sects attempt to sever all ties between their members and their families and friends outside the sect. I think that such sects would be recognized as cults by pretty much anyone who uses the word and that that is the idea that the word is trying to get at. As I define it, cults are relatively rare and usually small. I employed it here to argue that the Mormons are certainly not a cult.

As for Fox News and Republicans, you are being silly. I hope that WAS a joke.

[Ken Blanchard]

Cory: weren't you trying to make the INC look creepy and undesirable? I'll grant that you don't identify any course of action, but someone who takes your critique seriously would certainly wonder if there was one.

[Donald Pay]

I look at spiritual beliefs from an evolutionary standpoint. I think human societies benefit from having considerable variability in beliefs from which to select the best ideas. That's one of the strengths of America. It has been a strength of Christianity, which incorporated a lot of pagan beliefs as well as evolving over time. Those beliefs that work and impart some value to the society will survive.

Who really gives a shit about the Trinity? Whether God is in one or three parts is really pretty ridiculous shit to argue about. But who can't be stirred by this thought from Amos: "I want to see a mighty flood of justice, a torrent of doing good."

[Dave]

Cory is a Trinitarian Atheist...he thinks that God doesn't exist in one person but three...isn't that funny?

[louie]

yes he is very funny.he contradict his very own statement and beliefs.he already lost his credibility. a person who contadicts himself is a person with a psychological disorder.this is america and he should respect everyones own beliefs.if someone says he is a christian respect him and not label him a cultist.after all the true christians are those who follow strictly the teachings of Jesus Christ written in the bible without adding or subtracting anything from it.

[marco]

i posted several comment on his page. He does not allow free speech. He deletes my post because he cannot answer my simple question. He does not want to hear the other side of the story.

[Bill Fleming]

Yes, it was a joke, KB.
And also a device to encourage you to refine your definition, which you did nicely.
Thank you.

[Bill Fleming]

Dave, Cory approaches the study objectively, like someone sorting out shapes. Put the round things over here, the square ones there, etc. It is his understanding that "Christians" believe in the Holy Trinity and further that Jesus is divine. That doesn't mean he believes that. It just means that's how he understands the criteria.

[Dave]

@bill, .. true atheists don't believe in God...so it doesn't matter to them whether its triune or not...to true atheists, God doesn't exist...how can he defend one form of God over another? Lolz....also, he cites cslewis...atheist don't cite cslewis...they are debating against him....

[Dave]

@bill, .. true atheists don't believe in God...so it doesn't matter to them whether its triune or not...to true atheists, God doesn't exist...how can he defend one form of God over another? Lolz....also, he cites cslewis...atheist don't cite cslewis...they are debating against him....

[Dave]

@bill, I understand what you're saying...he thinks a circle has three sides...lolz.

[Bill Fleming]

Well, Dave, now that you mention it, a circle is another way some think of the Trinity.

The necessary elements of a circle are:

1. Center,
2. Radius
3. Circumference.

Without all three there can be no circle.

[Azriel]

I think you can also use WATER as an example, it can be gas (water vapor), liquid as well as solid (ice) and also a man can be a Son, a Father & a Grandfather at the same time. These are typical samples of how Trinitarians illustrate their triune god.

[Azriel]

When Jesus died on the cross & since he's also God, it means that the God of Trinitarians DIES which contradicts biblical passages which states that God does not tire nor die.

[Dave]

No apostles or even Jesus taught about Trinity, or circles, or water-like God...its just pure imagination of mdern thinkers.

[Bill Fleming]

No, the circle and the triangle aren't "modern" ideas, Dave. They are very, very ancient ideas.

[anton]

God taking a human form is a pagan belief. You can read that in the bible as clear as the same set up of trinitarian concept. This blind trinitarian believers should read that verse. If they will agree that same concept then they should stop telling to theirselves that they are christian.

[anton]

I wish they come to visit our worship service to experience God's presence

[Dave]

Yes. Trinity is ancient idea....but..Jesus never taught it or preach about it...

Find one apostle of Christ who preached that God is in three persons? None

[Bill Fleming]

So where do you think the Hebrews (Essenes) got their ideas, guys?
That's what we're really talking about here, right? Wasn't Jesus Jewish?

[Bill Fleming]

p.s. Dave which of the writers of the New Testament do you consider to be an "apostle of Christ?"
And exactly how would you go about showing us his bonafides?

[Bill Fleming]

I can imagine Jesus and/or the apostles taking a forked stick, putting one fork into the dirt, twirling it around and drawing a circle with the other fork in order to show how the spirit moves from the godhead to all creation. Are you positive that never happened, Dave? If not, then where did the "fish" graphic symbol for Jesus come from? Do you know? i.e. do you know what the "vesica pisces" is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesica_piscis

[Dave]

@Bill, the holy scriptures are my sole basis...can't rely on the philosophy of this world. You could use all the Greek alphabet to define your God but my God is beyond that...my God can't be compared with anything He created...because his power is more than all creations combined.

Just mention a name of any writer of NT who taught God is in three persons. I'll show you where you are wrong ie johannine comma?

[Bill Fleming]

So, your reasoning is circular then, is that correct? You believe what the bible says because it says so in the bible? That's fine with me, as long as you get that it's a circle. A source, coming to you through your awareness/consciousness and then you, referencing back to the source via your consciousness. Same thing. Three things involved in the transaction. 1. The source, 2. you, and 3. your consciousness. A Trinity.

[Bill Fleming]

This doesn't have to be hard, Dave. Can we move on now? There are more important things to consider.

[Dave]

You can find trinity in nature, no doubt... The sun. The rays. The heat. Trinity. God is more than that. God said "to what will you compare me.. There is nothing like me"

[Bill Fleming]

Whatever you say, Dave... seems to me you're not arguing with anyone other than yourself and your own Holy Book. Good luck with that. I hope you work your way through it, brother.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'

Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

1 Corinthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

Ephesians 4:24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

Colossians 3:10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

Genesis 5:1 This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.

Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

Deuteronomy 4:32 Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of?

Ecclesiastes 7:29 This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes."

[Bill Fleming]

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon

[Dave]

Bill, you are talking about a man, not God. It doesn't prove the trinity.

[Bill Fleming]

Dave, it's your problem, not mine, my friend. I'm okay with whatever you want to believe. I'm certainly aware that there are now — and have always been — Christians who don't believe in the Trinity.

And I don't have any problem with that. I think Cory's point is that the majority of Christians do. But, bottom line, I don't think it really makes much difference to him either.

I have no interest in arguing theology with you since you have already disclosed that you're not allowed by your ministers to engage in such discussion. I respect that as well.

[Dave]

CoWhere did I say I am noft allowed to discuss? You are imagining things again. Cory should mention that majority believes in Trinity but he argues for it like a believer...

[Bill Fleming]

Well, that's Cory's issue, you'll have to take that up with him, "Dave."

[Bill Fleming]

Note, Dave, on Cory's blog multiple times members of your church noted that they were not allowed to discuss Church theology at depth, only their ministers were. I took them at their word. So as to how to deal with you, there are several options:

1. You are a minister of the church and won't disclose your identity, in which case, I'm not sure I want to discuss it with you.

2. As per above, you are a church member and will continue to evade a rational discussion because you are following church orders, in which case as per above, I respect that and decline further discussion.

But in either case, I didn't make anything up.

A quick review of the long posts on Cory's blog will confirm that.

So finally, if you're going to accuse me of being a liar, you're not really worth talking to "Dave."

[Dave]

I'm not saying you're a liar... Lets find a better forum for discussion... Any suggestion? You see, I'm using my cellphone to respond to you that's why they are usually short...just take my word, I am allowed to discuss with anyone.

[Bill Fleming]

No, I don't have any suggestions, Dave.

[Dave]

This forum is not designed for a religious discussion or debate I.e. online debate. I will suggest one when I'm able to sit infront of a desktop.

[JR Belmonte]

Please take time to read this post:

Most religious organizations are now shutting down their cathedrals and places of worship because they can't afford to support the maintenance of their buildings and their financial obligations needed to have their churches running and functioning. Paying taxes will add to their burdens and they would probably end up padlocking their edifices and halting the system of their organizations.

But if the government will tax all religious organizations, so be it. INC will definitely not go against it. It is in our doctrine to follow and obey secular laws and policies of the state as long as it will not contradict God's doctrines. For us, Iglesia Ni Cristo members, tax will not be a problem, because we consider helping the church in all religious aspects as our holy duty and obligation. We don't see giving tax to the government as a problem now and in the future.

Though, the voluntary offerings of INC members are not being used in any businesses to gain profits. It is exclusively being used wisely by our leaders for the welfare of the church members and to secure the growth of the church for the glory of God. If the politicians and lawmakers will faithfully believe and implement the SEPARATION OF STATE AND RELIGION, then, they would also understand that our voluntary offerings for God are different from the taxes we pay for the state. Therefore, the money for the church should and must not be taken and collected by the government, vice versa. And, please take note, this church never and does not receive help and support from any government, politicians and private sectors.

Despite the difficulties and troubles that this world is suffering now, and knowing the fact that INC is from a third world country - the Philippines, this church is shining brightly, indeed, it is growing rapidly. So, go and pass the bill to tax churches, let us see what church organization will be left standing.

With the numerous projects launched by our church (like PHILIPPINE ARENA, purchasing of closed chapels from other religion and the vast land in Scenic, South Dakota), it's clear to us that we have no corrupt leaders and we fully understand that our offerings are not being wasted. We are the living witnesses how God helps this church from it's humble beginning to it's glorious place now - knowing the fact that most of us are average or low income earners and citizens of each respected countries. This is a clear proof and manifestation that we have a living God.

We, members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ), TRUST OUR CHURCH ADMINISTRATION SPIRITUALLY AND FINANCIALLY 100% !!

If you want to learn more about our church, please don't rely on the internet or hearsay. Do find legitimate answers or first hand information - ask our ministers, they will neither eat you nor force you to join the church. You can visit our chapels near you anytime you want. You are always welcome.

To all the people out there saying something against INC.....

Don't make accusations and lies, seek the TRUTH FIRST BEFORE MAKING OPINIONS!

Happy Centennial Anniversary INC (2014). Praise be unto God!!

[louie]

advance Centennial anniversary to Iglesia ni Cristo Church of Christ around the world.more success and wonderful and unbelievable events will unfold as the 100 years of the church and the second coming of our lord Jesus Christ nears.to observers and persecutors of the Iglesia ni Cristo just keep what you are doing it will not affect nor stop the church to its victorious journey to salvation or you can join the church now its not too late to recieve the blessing of God and salvation He promised to the Church of Christ.

[Ken Blanchard]

Wow! Great thread. I will add only a couple of things. One is that no one hasto reveal their identity on this post. If you have something relevant to say, you are welcome here.

Another is that Donald's comment was very good. I don't say that Donald's perspective is the only reasonable view of religion, but it is an important one.

[Jhun]

@Cory

About trinity...

What do some people say regarding their understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity?

The following are some comments of people who have studied the doctrine of the Trinity:

The Trinity is a wonderful mystery. No one understands it. The most learned theologian, the holiest Pope, the greatest saint, all are mystified by it as a child of seven.
[Martin J. Scott, S.J., God and Myself, Nhil Obstat: Arthurus J. Scanlan, S.T.D., Imprimatur: Joannes Cardinalis Farley (P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1917), pp. 118-119.]
Trinitarians say that "the doctrine of the Trinity is [...] a deep mystery that cannot be fathomed by the finite mind."[7]
Source: Wikipedia, Nontrinitarianism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism (as of June 17, 2010, 15:11 GMT).
The doctrine of the Trinity — that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are each equally and eternally the one true God — is admittedly difficult to comprehend, and yet is the very foundation of Christian truth. Although skeptics may ridicule it as a mathematical impossibility, it is nevertheless a basic doctrine of Scripture as well as profoundly realistic in both universal experience and in the scientific understanding of the cosmos.
Authors: Henry Morris and Martin Clark (excerpted from The Bible Has the Answer by Morris and Clark, published by Master Books, 1987).
"The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who would try to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind. But he who would deny the Trinity would lose his soul"
(Harold Lindsey and Charles J. Woodbridge, A handbook of Christian truth, pp 51-52).

[Jhun]

why Cory is defining christians as believers of trinity when Trinitarians and other authors commented that . . . . . .

The Trinity is a wonderful mystery. No one understands it. The most learned theologian, the holiest Pope, the greatest saint, all are mystified by it as a child of seven.
It is a deep mystery that cannot be fathomed by the finite mind
It is admittedly difficult to comprehend.
Skeptics ridicule it as a mathematical impossibility.
The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who would try to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind.

[Jhun]

@Bill on Trinity

Jesuit priest C.F. Blount states in his book The Blessed Trinity:

"the dogma of the Blessed Trinity is a mystery in the fullest sense" . . . . "it cannot be proved by reason, . . . nay, it cannot be even be proved to be possible"
[Rev. C.F. Blount, S.J., The Blessed Trinity (London: Catholic Truth Society), p.2.]

John Walsh a Jesuit priest has this to say:

God, of course, can not perform an absurdity, a contradiction in terms. He cannot for instance, make two and two equal five.
[John Walsh, This is Catholicism (New York: Image Books, 1959) p. 25.]

[Jhun]

To All Trinitarians

Several reasons why the doctrine of Trinity is false ...

The Dictionary of the Bible - Edited by James Hastings (1963), PAGE 1015:
The Christian doctrine of God (q.v.) as existing in three Persons and one Substance is not demonstrable by logic or by scriptural proofs.
Dictionary of the Bible - by John L. McKenzie S.J., (1965), PAGE 899:
The Trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of persons and nature which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible.
The Trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and other such as essence and substance were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.
The Encyclopedia Americana - 1956, VOL. XXVII, PAGE 294L:
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was (and still is) strictly Unitarian (Oneness - believing that God is only one).
The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early (Originally Apostolic) Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was on the contrary, and deviation from this teaching."
The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 15, 1987:
Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity,
Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.
Some theologians have concluded that all post-biblical Trinitarian doctrine is therefore arbitrary (based on or subject to individual judgment or preference). While it is incontestable (obviously true) that the doctrine cannot be established on scriptural evidence alone."

[Bonu]

I agree with Seth, it is best for the cuhrch. The cuhrch shoudn't be forced to deal with this because one of its members decided to run for President.Beyond that, Obama seems fine with it. I think he's prepared himself to make whatever personal sacrifices he has to in order to become POTUS. He certainly can't have the position on his own terms. This is not our country. It ultimately is on their terms or it won't happen. Personally, I wouldn't do it but I'm glad there's someone who is willing and prepared to go out on a limb.

[Sedny]

Recently i came across your aictrle and also have already been reading through along. I wish to express my appreciation of your writing ability and ability to make visitors read from the beginning to the end. I must read more recent posts and also to reveal my personal ideas with you.

[Claudia]

Linda McCarthy05/04/2011 at 10:38First of all I would like to wish all the teams that had the chance to play in this tnnmuareot all the best ..and secondly I would like to add that as with other tnnmuareots by the time most of us in the club have been told the places have already been filled maybe with our new website up and running this can be rectified and all the club members can take advantage of these games by knowing well in advance