Christianity, A History of Christianity

Since 1995 the primary UU organization has affirmed officially that it is not a subset of Christianity (although its roots are Christian), but encompasses spirituality from all the major world religions as well as primal-indigenous/tribal faiths.

To believe in it in light of what the Scriptures actually say is impossible.
Photo provided by Flickr

But the separation was, for Paul, more than a physical one. It was also doctrinal. Christians, he asserted, did not have to become Jews. They were not subject to all the rites, rituals, and laws of Israel's religion. This, perhaps more than any other factor, aroused the intense hostility of the Jews and led to a definitive separation of the two camps.


When referring to the "size" of a religion, what is usually meant is its number of adherents.
Photo provided by Flickr

One concern that might be raised with respect to the doctrine offunctional kenosis is that it is hard to see how a divine being couldpossibly simulate (to himself, without outright pretense) the loss ofattributes like omniscience or omnipotence. But perhaps the resourcesfor addressing this worry are to be found in what is now widely seenas the main rival to the traditional kenotic theory: ThomasV. Morris's “two minds view.”

1662 Reasons Christianity is not True - kyroot

Other new religious movements of this century have primarily remained within established world religions, such as new Buddhist (Western Buddhist Order), Hindu (Hare Krishna), Muslim (Nation of Islam), Jewish (Reconstructionism), and Christian (Pentecostalism, neo-Evangelicalism, Calvary Chapel) movements and denominations.

Christian Vandalism - Bad News About Christianity

Still, many regard the sort of unity just described as not strongenough to secure a respectable monotheism. Thus, some socialtrinitarians have attempted to give other accounts of what unifies thedivine persons. Perhaps the most popular such account is thepart–whole model. C.S. Lewis's version of this analogy (Lewis1958, Bk IV, Ch 2) has it that God is “three Persons whileremaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining onecube”. More recently, J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig(2003) have argued that the relation between the persons of theTrinity can be thought of as analogous to the relation we mightsuppose to obtain between the three dog-like beings that composeCerberus, the mythical guardian of the underworld. One might say thateach of the three heads—or each of the three souls associatedwith the heads—is a fully canine individual, and yet there isonly one being, Cerberus, with the full canine nature. Three“persons” of a sort, and yet just one dog.

Why Modern Christianity Makes People Vomit - Chris …

Likewise, then, we might say that all it means for one person andanother to be the same God is for them to do something analogous tosharing in common all of whatever is analogous to matter in divinebeings. On this view, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the sameGod but different persons in just the way a statue and itsconstitutive lump are the same material object but differentform-matter compounds. Of course, God is not material; so thiscan only be an analogy. But still, it helps to provide anilluminating account of inter-trinitarian relations, and it does so ina way that seems (at least initially) to avoid both modalism andpolytheism. Brower and Rea maintain that each person of thetrinity is a substance; thus, none is a mere aspect of asubstance, and so modalism is avoided. And yet they are the samesubstance; and so polytheism is avoided.