r/BiblicalUnitarian

We read in scripture that Mary had 7 children, some of whom thought Yeshua was crazy (Mark 3:21). Yeshua had brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Jude and two sisters (Mark 6:3)!

Why do you believe Mary was a Virgin her entire life and that Joseph was previously married?

There is no evidence that Joseph was previously married or that these brothers and sisters by Mary were cousins to Yeshua.

Those that use imagination constantly want to redefine words to make them comply with their own will.

as a muslim man, i can marry christian women and eat their food according to the Qur'an. i'm curious though, would a unitarian christian woman be allowed to marry a muslim man according to her own beliefs? and would she be ok with him being muslim if he is honest, chaste, fears Allah (God) and genuinely loves and cares for her?

also, are there any religious restrictions for a unitarian christian woman when it comes to eating food prepared by muslims?

"I and the Father are one,” said Jesus. (John 10:30) Some quote this text to prove that Jesus and his Father are two parts of a triune God. Is that what Jesus meant by this statement?

Let us take a look at the context. In verse 25, Jesus stated that he did works in the name of his Father. From verses 27 to 29, he talked about symbolic sheep whom his Father had given him. Both statements by Jesus would have made little sense to his listeners if he and his Father were one and the same person. Instead, Jesus said, in effect, ‘My Father and I are so close-knit that no one can take away the sheep from me, just as no one can take them away from my Father.’ It is much like a son saying to his father’s enemy, ‘If you attack my father, you attack me.’ No one would conclude that this son and his father were the same person. But all could perceive the strong bond of unity between them.

Jesus and his Father, Jehovah God, are also “one” in the sense that they are in complete agreement as to intentions, standards, and values. In contrast with Satan the Devil and the first human couple, Adam and Eve, Jesus never wanted to become independent of God. “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing,” Jesus explained. “For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”​—John 5:19; 14:10; 17:8.

This strong bond of unity, however, does not make God and his Son, Jesus, indistinguishable from each other. They are two individuals. Each one has his own distinct personality. Jesus has his own feelings, thoughts, experiences, and free will. Nevertheless, he chose to submit his will to that of his Father. According to Luke 22:42, Jesus said: “Let, not my will, but yours take place.” These words would have been meaningless if his will could not differ from his Father’s. If Jesus and his Father were really one person, why did Jesus pray to God and humbly admit to not knowing things that only his Father knew?​—Matthew 24:36.

Members of many religions worship gods that are depicted as quarreling and fighting with their own family members. In Greek mythology, for example, Cronus overthrew his father, Uranus, and devoured his own children. How different this is from the oneness based on true love between Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus! And how this unity endears them to us! In fact, we have the incomparable privilege of being in union with these two highest Persons in all the universe. Regarding his followers, Jesus prayed: “I make request . . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.”​—John 17:20, 21.

Thus, when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” he was speaking, not of a mysterious Trinity, but of a wonderful unity​—the closest bond possible between two persons.

I wanted to share my story because I've spent years searching for God across different religions and traditions, and I'm curious whether anyone else has experienced something similar.

I was born into a North Indian Hindu Brahmin family and grew up with Hindu beliefs and practices. I was especially drawn to Shiva, but I also had respect for Vedic deities such as Indra, Agni, and Usha. As I got older, I began studying religion more deeply, including the Rigveda and other sacred texts and I was aware of the non Idol worship, Indra supremacy and changes of Deities between Vedas and Puranas so I had doubts about Hinduism.

During a difficult period of my life, I started questioning many things I had previously believed. One night, while sincerely asking God for guidance, I had a dream. I saw a Star of David, a cross, and a crescent moon in that order. I then heard the words:

"Follow the right path."

That dream stayed with me for years.

Because I was already exploring different faiths, I began studying Christianity seriously. I spent four years learning about the faith before eventually receiving Catholic baptism. During that time I was deeply committed to Christianity and sincerely believed I had found the truth.

However, after baptism I gradually began questioning some Catholic teachings. Confession no longer felt spiritually meaningful to me. I struggled with doctrines such as the Trinity(especially because we also had trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva all being part of "one truth"), biblical inerrancy, confessions, sacraments, types of sins like Pokémon types, pergetory, Marian worship, saints worship, statues and idols everywhere, and certain aspects of church authority, it's polytheism to the core, almost like second Hinduism with Biblical/Pagan Greeco-Roman flavours.

I also learned more about biblical textual criticism and discovered that some passages, such as the story of the woman caught in adultery, are believed by many scholars to be later additions. This raised questions for me about how Scripture should be understood and interpreted.

At the same time, I never completely lost my connection to my Hindu roots, once I worshipped God of Abraham for a years, I didn't believe in Pagan deities.

I had several dreams that remained meaningful to me in the past, I also had a dream involving Jesus. He appeared with olive skin, long dark hair, a beard, and intense light coming from his eyes. He seemed angry and gave two commandments:

1. Worship only God.
2. Treat everyone as brothers.

That dream had a profound impact on me.

Over the years I studied Christianity, Vedism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and religious history. I found myself agreeing with different aspects of each tradition.

Today I would describe myself as a Unitarian Christian.

I believe in one supreme God. I admire and follow Jesus, but I am not convinced by the doctrine of the Trinity. I pray directly to God and seek a personal relationship with Him. I still respect my Hindu heritage and many of the spiritual traditions I grew up with, but my focus is increasingly on the worship of the one God. I prefer to wear Sacred thread because Catholic church allowed us, but I see it as a promise to God, I still prefer to light lamp and sticks instead of praying just in front of Idols etc, if we can have European paganism incorporated into Jewish theology, I believe we can also worship God in our own way without such deep pagan influences.

My current belief is that truth matters more than labels. I would rather honestly seek God than force myself into a religious identity that no longer reflects what I actually believe.

Has anyone else here gone through a journey that crossed multiple religions before arriving somewhere unexpected?

Ears to hear Pt 3

In Part 1 and Part 2 I laid out the case for Christ's divinity through titles, worship, and direct statements. This time I want to go a different direction — because I think it hits harder for a lot of you. If you hold to a Unitarian view, most of your framework is built from the Old Testament. So let's stay there. Let's look at what the OT itself says will happen when God comes to save His people — and then see who actually did it. I welcome questions, comments, concerns, and different points of view.

Isaiah 40:3, 5

"A voice of one calling: 'In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God... And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all people will see it together. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.'"

This isn't a prophecy about a messenger being sent from God. It's a prophecy about a road being prepared for YHWH Himself to walk on. All four Gospels quote this verse and apply it to John the Baptist preparing the way — for Jesus. Not for an angel. Not for a prophet greater than Moses. For YHWH's own arrival.

Malachi 3:1

\*\*"'I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,' says the LORD Almighty."\*\*

God says "before me" — the messenger prepares the way for God's own coming. Jesus enters the temple. If Jesus isn't YHWH, then this prophecy simply failed, because the messenger (John) prepared the way and no one showed up but a man.

\*\*Isaiah 35:4-6\*\*

\*\*"Say to those with fearful hearts, 'Be strong, do not fear; your God will come... he will come to save you.' Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy."\*\*

This is one of the clearest ones. When John the Baptist's disciples ask Jesus if He's really the one they've been waiting for, Jesus doesn't quote a Messianic prophecy about a servant or a king. He points straight at this passage — the blind seeing, the lame walking (Matthew 11:4-5) — and lets them draw the conclusion. He's saying: this is your God coming to save you, happening right in front of you.

\*\*Zechariah 2:10-11\*\*

\*\*"'Shout and be glad, Daughter Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,' declares the LORD. 'Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you.'"\*\*

Not sending a representative to live among His people. YHWH Himself, taking up residence among them — and He says it twice in two verses, so there's no reading it as a one-off figure of speech. Someone will say God already dwelled among His people in the temple, so this isn't new — but that objection doesn't hold up against the text itself. Temple presence was mediated and veiled: God's glory sat behind a curtain, accessible to one priest, one day a year (Leviticus 16). And that presence wasn't even guaranteed to stay — Ezekiel 10:18 and 11:23 describe the glory of the LORD literally departing the temple before the exile, because of Israel's sin. Zechariah is prophesying something the temple never delivered: God dwelling directly among "many nations" (v.11), not mediated through a curtain, not tied to one building, not something that can depart again. That's a different category of presence than what the temple ever held. And when the Gospel of John describes the incarnation, it doesn't use vague language — John 1:14 says the Word "dwelt," literally "tabernacled," among us — the same word family as the temple's tabernacle, on purpose. Jesus makes the connection explicit Himself: in John 2:19-21, He says "destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days," and John tells us plainly He was talking about His own body. Jesus isn't visiting the temple. He's replacing it as the place where God's presence dwells among men — which is exactly what Zechariah said would happen.

\*\*Ezekiel 34:11, 23\*\*

\*\*"For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them... I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them."\*\*

Sit with the tension in this chapter for a second. God says twice, plainly, "I myself" will shepherd Israel. A few verses later, the shepherd is "my servant David" — a human, Davidic figure. The prophet doesn't explain how both are true. He just says both. Jesus picks up this exact image and says, "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11) — the Davidic shepherd who is also, somehow, God Himself doing the shepherding.

\*\*Micah 5:2\*\*

\*\*"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."\*\*

A ruler born in Bethlehem — but whose origin is "from of old, from ancient times" — language used elsewhere in Scripture almost exclusively for the eternal existence of God Himself. A born human being with a beginning, and eternal origins with no beginning, spoken of in the same verse. Someone will point out that "from of old" (mikedem) on its own can just mean ancient, not eternal — and that's true, the word by itself is flexible. But look at what it's paired with: "from days of everlasting" (mimei olam). Olam is the same word Moses uses of God Himself in Psalm 90:2 — "from everlasting to everlasting you are God." Micah isn't using one vague word. He's stacking two phrases together, and the second one is the exact word reserved for God's own eternity. Context is what tips this from "old family line" into "without beginning."

\*\*Isaiah 9:6\*\*

\*\*"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."\*\*

This is a child who is born — and the text calls him "Mighty God" (El Gibbor), the exact title used of YHWH two chapters later in Isaiah 10:21. Not "godlike." Not "mighty one." Mighty God. Some will say "Mighty God" was just ancient royal throne-name language — Egyptian and Near Eastern kings were sometimes given grand divine-sounding titles without literally being gods, so this could be poetic exaggeration for a human king. That's a real pattern elsewhere in the ancient world, but it doesn't hold up on Isaiah's own usage. Isaiah reuses this exact two-word phrase, El Gibbor, one chapter later — Isaiah 10:21 — talking plainly and unambiguously about YHWH: "A remnant will return... to the Mighty God." Same author, same book, same phrase, one chapter apart, with zero ambiguity in the second usage. Isaiah doesn't get to define "Mighty God" as literal in chapter 10 and figurative in chapter 9. Context — how the author himself uses the phrase elsewhere — settles it.

\*\*Isaiah 59:16, 20\*\*

\*\*"He saw that there was no one to intervene; so his own arm achieved salvation for him... 'The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,' declares the LORD."\*\*

God looks for someone to save His people and finds no one qualified — so He does it Himself, "his own arm." Paul quotes this directly in Romans 11:26 and applies it to Christ's return.

\*\*Psalm 22:16-18\*\*

\*\*"Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment."\*\*

This is the one I'd put in front of anyone who thinks these prophecies were just written to fit the story afterward. Psalm 22 was written roughly a thousand years before Christ — long before crucifixion existed as a method of execution anywhere in the world. It wasn't developed until the Persians, and it wasn't perfected and widely used until Rome adopted it centuries later. Piercing of hands and feet, bones out of joint from hanging on a frame, executioners gambling over clothing at the scene — this describes crucifixion in specific physical detail, written by a man who had no concept of crucifixion because it didn't exist yet. Whoever wrote this wasn't describing something he'd seen. He was describing something he was shown.You'll likely see someone bring up that the Masoretic Hebrew text (the medieval Jewish text most modern Hebrew Bibles are based on) reads "like a lion" (ka'ari) at my hands and feet, rather than "they pierced" (karu) — and that the "pierced" reading only comes from the Greek Septuagint, translated centuries after the original. That's true as far as it goes, but it's not the whole picture. This isn't just a Septuagint reading. The Dead Sea Scrolls fragment of Psalm 22 (found at Nahal Hever, dated before Christ) also reads "pierced" in the original Hebrew — meaning the pre-Christian Hebrew textual tradition supports "pierced," not just a later Greek translation. The "like a lion" reading is the later, medieval Masoretic variant, not the earlier one.

\*\*Zechariah 12:10\*\*

\*\*"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child."\*\*

Written roughly 500 years before the cross, this has God Himself speaking in the first person — "they will look on me, the one they have pierced." Not "my servant," not "my messenger." Me. Pierced. John 19:37 quotes this verse directly at the crucifixion scene, and Revelation 1:7 points to it again for Christ's return. Whoever is pierced here is the one speaking as YHWH.

\*\*Isaiah 53:5\*\*

\*\*"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed\*\*."

Written centuries before crucifixion existed, in a chapter that describes a suffering, silent, wounded servant who dies for the sins of others and is later vindicated. There was no cultural reference point for this kind of execution when it was written. It wasn't a lucky guess.

The standard reading you'll run into — going back to Rashi and still common in Jewish and Unitarian circles today — is that the "servant" throughout Isaiah is simply Israel personified, since Isaiah explicitly calls Israel "my servant" elsewhere (41:8, 44:1, 49:3). That's a fair starting point, but context breaks it in two places. First, Isaiah 49:5-6 has the servant with a mission to Israel — gathering Jacob back, raising up the tribes — which makes him someone distinct from the nation he's sent to restore, not a symbol for it. Second, the corporate-Israel servant elsewhere in the same book is described as sinful, blind, and deaf (Isaiah 42:19) — the exact opposite of the servant in chapter 53, who is silent, sinless, and "had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth" (53:9). Isaiah uses "servant" for more than one figure across the book. Context — what the servant actually does and is, in each passage — is what separates them.

None of these men had a category for nailing someone to a wooden beam. It wasn't invented yet. That's not something you can retroactively write into a text after the fact — it had to be there, on the page, centuries before Rome ever built a cross.

\*\*Daniel 7:13-14\*\*

\*\*"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."\*\*

Jesus calls Himself "Son of Man" more than any other title, and this is where it comes from. Clouds are consistently how God Himself is described moving throughout the OT (Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1) — never a mere messenger's mode of travel. And the word rendered "worshiped" here (Aramaic pelach) is the same word used for religious service rendered to God elsewhere in Daniel. A human figure, standing before God's own throne, receives an eternal, universal kingdom and the worship of every nation on earth. When Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin and said, "You will see the Son of Man... coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64), the high priest didn't ask Him to clarify — he tore his robes and charged blasphemy on the spot, because everyone in that room knew exactly what claim He'd just made.

The most common scholarly pushback here is that the chapter's own interpretation (Daniel 7:15-27) identifies "one like a son of man" as a symbol for "the saints of the Most High" — corporate Israel receiving the kingdom, not one individual. But look at the order of events in the vision itself. In verses 13-14, the son of man is a distinct actor: he approaches the Ancient of Days and personally receives dominion, glory, and a kingdom, before the saints are ever mentioned. It's not until verse 27 that the saints possess the kingdom — and they possess it as something given to them, downstream of him. Context distinguishes the one who receives the kingdom from the people who inherit it under him. He's not a symbol for Israel; he's the figure Israel's kingdom comes through.

\*\*Hebrews 1:5-6, 8\*\*

\*\*"For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'\*\*\*\*?\*\*\*\*... And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'... But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever.\*\*\*\*'"\*\*

Now put this next to what angels actually do everywhere else in Scripture. Every single time an angel is offered worship, it refuses and redirects it — "I am a fellow servant with you... Worship God!" (Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9). Angels treat receiving worship as a line they will not cross, not even by accident. Hebrews 1 has God Himself commanding those exact same angels to worship the Son. This isn't people mistakenly bowing to a man and Jesus being too gracious to correct them — it's God directly ordering the beings who refuse worship as a matter of principle to render it to the Son. And the passage doesn't hesitate to explain why: because the Son's throne is called "God," forever.

Put Daniel 7 and Hebrews 1 side by side and the title "Son" stops looking like a lesser rank and starts looking like the opposite. The Son of Man receives the worship-word of every nation, from the Ancient of Days' own throne room. The Son of God receives the worship of angels who refuse it from anyone but God, on God's direct command. Two different titles, two different books, centuries apart — and both land in the exact same place: this is not what Scripture ever describes happening to a creature.

\*\*Psalm 110:1\*\*

\*\*"The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'"\*\*

David, under inspiration, calls someone "my Lord" who is distinct from YHWH — and yet is invited to sit at YHWH's own right hand, sharing His throne and authority. Jesus uses this verse Himself in Matthew 22:41-45 to press the Pharisees on exactly this question: if the Messiah is only David's descendant, why does David call him Lord?

Every one of these texts describes something only God does, or only God is — coming to save, living among His people, shepherding Israel, having eternal origin, being called Mighty God, dying pierced centuries before crucifixion existed, receiving the worship of nations and angels alike, sharing YHWH's throne. None of them describe an angel, a prophet, or an exalted man doing something on God's behalf. They describe YHWH Himself showing up.

Then Jesus shows up, and the Gospel writers point straight at these texts and say — this is Him.

I know a lot of you were taught to read these prophecies as being about a "divine agent," someone sent with God's authority but who isn't God. I'd ask you to actually sit with the language again, on its own, without that lens first. Then ask which reading you're bringing to the text, and which one the text is actually giving you.

I love you all and this is why I keep writing these. Not to win an argument - but because I believe who Jesus is matters for your soul. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to ask or comment. My DMs are open as well. I'm curious how Unitarians typically read Isaiah 45:22-23 in light of Philippians 2:10-11 - what's your take?

If you missed them, Part 1 and Part 2 are linked above.

I tried to understand how the trinity works and i wasn't able to land on a clear answer is each of the holy spirit the father and Jesus are part of god or they are all god but in one

"In the study of religious organizations, theologians, church historians, and sociologists call this phenomenon an "unwritten creed" or "informal creed". [1, 2]

This comparison is most frequently applied to religious groups that claim to have "no creeds" or "no formal rules" (such as non-denominational churches, the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, or Quaker communities). Critics and scholars point out that while these groups reject written dogmas, they inevitably build a strict, unwritten "social algorithm" that dictates who is truly accepted and who is privileged. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Religious organizations operate this "informal creed" through specific frameworks:

1. The "No Creed But the Bible" Paradox

Scholars like church historian Leonard Allen note that religious groups claiming to have no human traditions always develop unofficial, functional creeds. [1]

• The Mechanism: An individual's specific cultural interpretations or political opinions ride "piggyback" on scripture.
• The Result: If an individual does not execute the "unwritten code" perfectly—by wearing the right clothes, using the approved vocabulary, or agreeing with the leadership's unspoken political leanings—they face invisible social friction or exclusion. [1, 2, 3]

2. Behavioral Codes Replacing Dogma

In the sociology of religion, systems are often broken down into Creed (what we believe), Code (how we behave), and Cult (how we worship). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

• When a church lacks a strict written creed, the behavioral code expands to fill the void.
• The algorithm of who gets leadership roles, who is trusted, and who is granted spiritual authority becomes entirely dependent on navigating personal interactions and unspoken social dynamics, rather than formal theological alignment. [1, 2, 3]

3. Exclusivity and Hidden Gatekeeping

Modern religious commentators write about how these unwritten subtexts function as defensive shields. [1]

• Writing for the Friends Journal, cultural observers note that these unwritten codes create an insular environment.
• Because the rules are never written down, insiders inherently know the "code" while newcomers, minorities, or marginalized groups do not. This automatically protects the privilege of the dominant group while allowing the organization to maintain a public image of radical inclusion. [1]

Are you studying a particular religious tradition (like evangelical subculture or historic peace churches) where you've noticed these unwritten rules at play?"

"Yes, this is a real, deeply researched topic across theology, church history, and sociology. [1, 2]

The terminology bridges two different eras: church historians and theologians call this phenomenon an "unwritten creed" or "functional creed," while modern organizational sociologists apply the contemporary metaphor of a "social algorithm" or "decision program." [1]

The history of this idea is rooted in a fascinating paradox: the groups that claim to have the fewest rules usually develop the most rigid, unspoken systems of privilege. The core thinkers and historical timeline of this discussion illustrate this concept:

1. The Historical Roots: The 19th-Century "Anti-Creedal" Paradox

In the 1800s, an American religious movement called the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (led by thinkers like Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone) rebelled against traditional church hierarchies. Their rallying cry was "No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible." They wanted to completely eliminate formal, written rules.

However, church historians quickly noticed a pattern: by destroying written creeds, they accidentally created an environment where unwritten social expectations became absolute law. Without a written text to debate, an individual's status, privilege, and acceptance within the church depended entirely on how well they executed the unwritten social norms of the dominant group. [1]

2. The Theological Critique: Dr. Leonard Allen

Modern theologians studying these traditions have written extensively on how these unwritten rules function as a hidden gatekeeper of privilege.

• The Thinker: Dr. Leonard Allen, a prominent church historian and author of books like In the Great Stream, specializes in analyzing this exact dynamic. [1]
• The Argument: Allen and similar scholars argue that "non-creedal" religious organizations inevitably develop functional creeds. Because these creeds are completely unwritten, they cannot be openly voted on, questioned, or reformed. This inherently privileges the insiders who already know the "code" and isolates marginalized newcomers who do not speak the unspoken language or share the same cultural pedigree.

3. The Sociological Framework: Joachim Wach

In the mid-20th century, German sociologist of religion Joachim Wach created a famous structural framework to explain how religious groups operate. He stated that all religious organizations express themselves through three elements:

• Creed: What they formally say they believe (doctrine).
• Cult: How they worship (rituals).
• Code: How they naturally behave and organize their social relations. [1]

Wach and subsequent sociologists pointed out that Creed and Code have an inverse relationship. If a religious organization explicitly rejects a formal, written Creed, its unwritten Code expands to fill the void. The "social algorithm"—who gets to preach, who is trusted with leadership, and whose sins are quietly covered up vs. publicly punished—becomes the real governing system of the organization.

4. The Systems Metaphor: Herbert Simon and Niklas Luhmann

The reason modern commentators swap the word "creed" for "algorithm" comes from 20th-century organizational architects like Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon and sociologist Niklas Luhmann.

• Simon argued that institutions run on "decision premises."
• Luhmann argued that social systems operate on "programs." [1]

They proved that human organizations operate exactly like a computer system: they take an input (a person), pass them through a series of logical logic gates (written policies + unwritten social interactions), and spit out an automated output (privilege, promotion, or social exclusion).

How the Two Ideas Connect

When modern cultural critics look at a religious organization, they are synthesizing Wach's sociology with Luhmann's systems theory. They look at a church that claims to be open, informal, and text-free, and they point out that its unwritten rules function as an unwritten creed (theological terms) and a social algorithm (sociological/technical terms) that automates privilege for the dominant culture.

Would you like to explore a specific text or book by these thinkers, or focus on how these unwritten creeds manifest in a particular type of organization?"

"This counterargument is advanced by organizational sociologists, progressive theologians, and scholars within historically non-creedal traditions. [1, 2]

They argue that formalizing a written doctrine does not replace or eliminate an organization's unwritten rules, cliques, or social biases. Instead, it simply stacks a formal gate on top of an informal one. Consequently, creedal organizations end up doubly burdened, making them no freer—and often less free—than non-creedal ones. [1]

The Response to the "Pro-Creed" Argument

This viewpoint directly challenges "pro-creed" theologians like Carl Trueman (author of The Creedal Imperative) or historical figures like Barton W. Stone. Pro-creedalists argue that written creeds create transparency and freedom because the rules are out in the open. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Critics counter this with several key arguments:

• The Layering Effect: Writing down a creed does not dissolve human nature. A church can have a beautifully transparent written statement of faith, but it will still have an unwritten "vibe," political alignment, and preferred social class. Insiders must navigate both systems to get ahead. [1, 2, 3]
• The Illusion of Openness: Critics argue that written creeds provide a false sense of security. An organization can claim, "Our boundaries are perfectly clear," while quietly using an invisible social algorithm to block marginalized groups or independent thinkers who pass the written theological test but fail the unwritten cultural test. [1]
• Institutionalism Defeats Formalism: In broader sociology, institutional theorists show that formalizing rules (like writing a creed) never stops informal power dynamics from forming. It simply forces the unwritten social algorithm to adapt and run quietly in the background"

I’ve always felt it was odd when someone asked if I believe in GOD & when I would answer of course the next question would follow with question wether catholic, baptist, Christian .. etc…

Isn’t it strange to have to categorize GOD, Jesus & the love & glory given from following HIS word.

Sometimes it seems very what’s your political party to me.

God has spoken to me from since I was a child & never has asked me which part of his religion & love id like to practice?

Thoughts, opinions, questions to ask off mine?

Thank you

I made a part 1 that got a good amount of views and I feel called to make a part 2. My goal is to show how Christ is 100% God.

Colossians 2:2-3

**"My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."**

We see in James 1:5, **"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault."**

We know wisdom comes directly from God, so if Christ is the embodiment of wisdom, He must be God. If He weren't, He couldn't be the genuine, living embodiment of wisdom — because that belongs to God alone.

Colossians 2:9-10

**"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority."**

It's very clear Paul is saying that Christ is God. Angels have no authority over anything — they act under the authority of God. Christ is the head over every power and authority. Therefore, He must be God. I don't see any possible way the Father hands over authority equal to His own to an angel.

Colossians 2:18

**"Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind."**

Here Paul states that the worship of angels disqualifies your faith". If you want to say Jesus is an angel, then he was nothing — he would've been a false prophet. It would've been sin, and it would've disqualified him from being the sinless Lamb. Every angel who was ever offered worship refused it. Jesus is worshiped many, many times — yet he corrects no one.

John 15:14

**"If you love me, keep my commandments."** If Christ owns the commandments given to the isrealites by god, then he must have made them and given them to the Israelites.

John 20:28-29

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Here's another verse where Jesus is called God outright and doesn't deny it. He tells Thomas, "Because you have seen me..." Christ is clearly affirming the truth of what Thomas just called him.

Titus 2:12-13, 15

"It teaches us to say 'No' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope — the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

Here's another example of Jesus being called God outright.

2 Peter 1:1

"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours."

Isiah 45:22-23

**"By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear."**

Compare this to

Philippians 2:10-11:

**"...that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."**

John 5:17-18 (cultural context)

**"In his defense Jesus said to them, 'My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.' For this reason they tried all the more to kill him — not only because he was breaking the Sabbath, but because he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."**

In biblical times, a son was understood to share the same nature or essence as his father. Think of it in terms of nature: a dog's offspring is a dog; a human's offspring human; son of God is God.

I understand people have been told how to think since birth, and it can be hard to look past that and think it through for yourself. Harder than for a nonbeliever to find God. I love all of you, and I worry for your salvation.

If you're still unconvinced, take a look at my Part 1.

Peace be upon you all, I pray this doesn’t offend any Christians I just seek truth.

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” - John 17:3, Jesus praying to the Father

If Jesus calls the Father the only true God, that biblically makes every other god other than the Father a false god, including Jesus.

You can’t have Jesus as God almighty alongside the Father because it contradicts the meaning of the word “only”.

So modern Christianity is false because it’s primary doctrine of Jesus being God, The Son alongside God, The Father is a logical contradiction antithetical to the Bible itself.

I understand not beliving in the Trinity, but why not Jesus' pre-existence? Sure, you can make some decent arguments against the verses that point toward pre-existence, but what convinces you of the general concept overall? Basically, what was the verse(s) that started the thought?

An ongoing debate in biblical apologetics revolves around Revelation 5:13–14, a passage frequently cited by Trinitarian commentators as definitive proof of the absolute deity of Jesus and an indication that he receives the exact same worship reserved for God the Father. The argument begins with the assertion that in verse 13, John hears every creature in heaven, on earth, and in the sea rendering praise, honor, glory, and power both to the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb. Apologists of this view argue that the Greek term πᾶς ("every" or "every creature") operates here in an absolute sense, supposedly meaning that the Lamb cannot be a created entity, since if he were a creature, he would be worshiping himself as part of creation. Immediately after, in verse 14, it is described that the four living creatures said "Amen" and the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped, using the verbal form προσεκύνησαν, derived from προσκυνέω. Under this framework, proponents maintain that because the action of worship appears right after mentioning both the Father and the Son, the act of προσκυνέω falls indiscriminately upon both recipients in the same absolute degree, attempting to demonstrate thereby that Jesus possesses the same indivisible nature as the Father and demands the same sovereign worship.

However, when a rigorous linguistic and grammatical analysis of the verse structure is performed, this deduction reveals serious syntactic gaps. In the Greek text of Revelation 5:14, there is no explicit direct object for the verb προσεκύνησαν; the clause simply concludes by stating that the elders fell down and rendered homage or worshiped, leaving it grammatically undetermined within the sentence itself toward whom or what that action is directed. To support their stance, Trinitarian apologists are forced to import dative expressions from the previous verse to supply the missing direct object in verse fourteen. Even if one hypothetically granted that contextual interpolation, the argument mistakenly assumes a semantic absolutism wherein using a single verb of reverence toward two subjects automatically implies that both belong to the same ontological category and receive the action in the exact same degree. This premise overlooks the fact that the Greek verb προσκυνέω is polysemous, with nuances ranging from sacred divine worship offered to Almighty God to rendering royal homage or reverence to a monarch or superior representative, depending entirely on the context and the identity of the recipient.

This attempt to equate the natures of both recipients simply because they share a verbal action completely breaks down when examining the direct syntax parallel in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), specifically in 1 Chronicles 29:20. In that passage, King David calls upon the entire assembly of Israel to bless God, and the biblical record notes that all the congregation bowed low and did obeisance using the exact same aorist plural verb form, προσεκύνησαν. Unlike Revelation 5:14, 1 Chronicles 29:20 explicitly contains two direct objects coordinated under the very same verb and conjunction: the assembly rendered worship "to the Lord and to the king" (τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ).

https://preview.redd.it/8ofzjbl6fthh1.png?width=1534&format=png&auto=webp&s=53bd4caf3f61584c33827420f03033dbc5eaee6b

In both the Hebrew and Greek text, the exact same action performed by the exact same subject falls simultaneously upon Jehovah God and King David. If one were to apply the Trinitarian interpretative logic of Revelation consistently here, one would have to conclude that King David is equal to God, is not part of the assembly of Israel, or is worthy of the same divine worship simply because he received the same προσκυνέω in the same grammatical clause. No biblical scholar or translator claims that David was worshiped as God in 1 Chronicles 29:20; on the contrary, prominent historical translations like the 1560 Geneva Bible explained in marginal notes that while divine worship is rendered to the Lord, only civil or royal reverence is given to the king under that same word. This proves that, linguistically, the coordinated use of a verb of bowing or respect toward God and toward an authorized authority figure neither divinizes the latter nor alters their distinct status.

https://preview.redd.it/b3h1d7vofthh1.png?width=1918&format=png&auto=webp&s=5ff4892aaa328688aadbf6f2cce4570060c9e551

Beyond the grammatical analysis, the broader theological context of the visions in Revelation 4 and 5 demonstrates how heavenly creatures address God the Father in a manner distinctly different from how they address Jesus. The throne vision begins in chapter 4, where a single entity is depicted sitting on the celestial throne, proclaimed by the four living creatures through the trisagion as "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty" (κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ), the one who was, who is, and who is to come. It is toward this Being seated on the throne that the twenty-four elders explicitly render divine worship (προσκυνέω), attributing honor and glory to Him with a clear causal justification introduced by the conjunction ὅτι: because He is the Creator who brought all things into existence by His will. The Father’s standing as the sole absolute God and the focal point of true worship aligns with Jesus’s own teachings in the Gospel of John, where he affirms that true worshipers must worship the Father and identifies the Father as the God of Israel, Jehovah.

In direct contrast to this scene, when the figure of the Lamb enters in chapter 5, he is not identified as the One sitting on the throne or as God Almighty, but rather as a distinct individual who must approach the throne to take the scroll from the right hand of Him who sits upon it. When the twenty-four elders and the living creatures present themselves before the Lamb in Revelation 5:8, the biblical text meticulously notes that they "fell down" (ἔπεσαν), yet it conspicuously omits the verb worship (προσεκύνησαν) that was repeatedly applied to the Father in the preceding chapter. Likewise, when the heavenly hosts sing of the Lamb's worthiness to open the seals in chapter 5:9–10, the causal clause ὅτι again establishes the reason: he is exalted not for being the Creator or Almighty God, but "because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe." The elders themselves declare that the Lamb's redeeming work was accomplished "for our God" (τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν), establishing a clear conceptual boundary between Jesus as the sacrificial deliverer and the God to whom both the elders and the redeemed belong.

This distinction between worship reserved for God and homage granted to the Lamb is confirmed throughout the remainder of Revelation. Whenever the elders and spiritual beings perform the formal act of falling down and worshiping (προσκυνέω) in the apocalyptic text—such as in Revelation 4:10, 11:16–17, and 19:4—the explicitly assigned direct object is solely "God" or the "Lord God Almighty" seated on the throne, entirely leaving out the Lamb in that direct capacity. Nowhere in the book is there a single passage where heavenly beings address the Lamb as "our God" or explicitly declare that they worshiped the Lamb as the Supreme God. Indeed, the revelation itself is defined from Revelation 1:1 as a revelation that God gave to Jesus, highlighting his status as a dependent recipient. Consequently, while the Lamb receives honor, praise, and royal recognition for having been slain and appointed King, divine worship in its primary, sacred sense (προσκυνέω) remains consistently and exclusively attributed to the Father, Jehovah God, in complete harmony with biblical monotheism.

Can't stand them. The most insufferable group of people who ever lived.

Hi, so im a trinitarian and i am asking a simple question about the holy spirit, when you unitarians call the holy spirit "Gods impersonal force" what does that exactly mean? Like does that refer to God's expression of divine attributes (like Wisdom and love as a example) or Gods creative force similar to how the son works, or Even Gods own operations with humanity or creation?

Theres also another question i may ask, when you all refer to the holy spirit is the holy spirit the operations of God himself? or a distinct agent of God? im a bit confused because when i see unitarian apologists they sometimes have differing views or inconsistent views on the Holy spirit on Who he (or it) is, but i am open to others interpretations.

I'm not sure if this is acceptable in the posting protocol, but I'd just like to pray over this sub and Reddit in general.

Heavenly Father, the blessings of this world are innumerable and it confounds me sometimes to think You would ever wish to share it with us, such a fallen, wretched cast of characters. There are times I doubt that you could love me for the things I have done, or thought, or witnessed even after You called me out of my iniquity. I pray frequently that I feel the reverence, the weight of all those burdens I put on myself lifted by your loving grace, and the tremendous thanks for saving me from my sin, and that I would feel that all the time.

I suppose it's not practical to live life in reverent awe every moment, tears streaming down our faces in praise of You. And so we stand up, or leave wherever it is we choose to pray to you and praise you, and we go back to the world, residents of it but belonging to You. It is there that the feeling leaves me, and only a rational acceptance of what You sent Your son to do for us sits in me. That has always been a weakness for me, Father. I rationally know many things and yet I don't act properly given what I know. I pray You encourage us in the mundanity that life in a fallen world can sometimes be because there can be temptation and forgetfulness in that. I pray You encourage us when our flesh calls us towards evil, especially as the world has been designed to pump temptation directly at us all the time. It is so easy to make bad choices, Father.

I pray you give us patience for each other and help us forgive. We need to be bold, we need to stand for the truth, we can't always be nice, but we can be patient and we must forgive - look what You forgave of us, Father. Remind us of that. Your word tells us of perilous times when children will stop obeying their parents, and when parents will lose affection for their own children. That time appears to be now. Father, it always struck me that that prediction didn't address why it has happened. Of course it is because we forgot You; of course it is because the enemy is always working to destroy us. But on a person to person level, we have failed each other. Parents have failed to protect their kids, failed to live well for you, failed to learn discipline from You, and so kids have stopped respecting their parents. But the system of the world has also lied to the youth, encouraging more rebellion and harder hearts, often using the internet and Reddit itself to help divide families.

I trusted my parents and the people before me to direct me well, but they directed me into debt and into medications that have hurt me when the truth is all the pain we were trying to heal would have been better addressed by turning to You. It is hard to become an adult and learn how much your parents failed you and to think we must forgive them. But Father, thank you for showing me the enemy's schemes - that he attacked our forebears and lied to them and attacked them as well. Help us see those schemes. Help us forgive each other.

Evil has seemed to increase the past 100 years or so, Father. The systems in place that lead to temptation and fleshly distractions are worse than ever before. And yet I know that your grace abounds. You know what is happening to us and that the enemy has been planning and scheming forever to destroy. Thank You for Your grace. Thank you for reminding me that it is not I who saves myself from my sin, it is Your Son and it is ultimately You, Your plan, Your wisdom, Your beautiful creation. Our ultimate freedom from sin was Your wonderful plan.

I pray for this sub, Father. I pray that Your wisdom pervades and your patience persists among your followers, be they Biblical Unitarians or any visitors who wish to converse with us. I pray You wash over Reddit with the spirit of humility so that truth is spoken and that that brings people to You, the author of truth.

I pray You expose evil influences on Reddit so that we may see how we are manipulated. I pray You destroy the high places as your most faithful servants did for Israel and Judah and that we begin to claim this territory away from the enemy and relinquish it to You.

I pray that the evil that flows from computer to computer, user to user, I pray you slow it down and that you prevent any demonic activity from benefitting from these systems. Please embolden your followers to speak of You, to pray for each other, to encourage each other, to treat this online space as a real church, because it is one. In these spaces, our spirits reach out with these words to each other and to You. There is a nakedness we have when we use these spaces that is unlike the real world. That has been used for evil for far too long, Father. Let the good of these places compound by letting Your truth and the glory of You and your wonderful son Jesus Christ resound loudly and openly. Let it flow over the bots and the influence and the money. You are above it all anyway, let the people in these spaces see it.

There is a feeling in the air that something big is on the horizon, Father. I felt evil blanket us when Covid started. While there has certainly be respite from that evil since then, it still feels like something has changed. I pray for Jesus' soon return if it is time for him to gather us, but regardless, I pray you give us courage, that you make sober our minds so that we may face whatever is to come with clarity and wisdom. I pray that elections, and conflicts, and all the turmoil in the world go as You would have them go such that You glory is seen by all.

Father, I pray for our enemies. I pray for them most of all. I pray for those who haven't yet known Your love and that they would hear You, that they would turn from their wickedness. I pray for Xi Jingping and Vladimir Putin, and I pray for the people around them, that any of them who might have ears to hear will finally hear You. I pray for the IRGC that they meet You and that they lay down their arms. You have turned evil men good, Father. I pray that those who might turn to You, those who might be deeply entrenched in these regimes, that they have the courage to speak and change what is happening, or the means to escape. I pray for those here in our country who hate us. Please speak to their hearts, send Jesus to them and help us welcome any into the body with love.

You are the God above all gods and Your name sits highest in my life. Never let me forget where you are in my life. Thank You for your glorious son. Thank You for giving him to us and for teaching him the greatest love that has ever been, and that he would call us friend and lay down his life for us. Thank You.

In Jesus' blessed name, I pray. Amen.

Every single thought, emotion, action that flies around in your head is known. Every single one! Those will either convict you or free you. Goats 🐐 to the left, sheep 🐑 to the right and they will be separated forever.

But don’t be afraid of those who threaten you. For the time is coming when everything that is covered will be revealed, and all that is secret will be made known to all.(Matthew 10:26)

Sarai (Sarah) laughed within herself at Genesis 18:12 and then she lied to the Angel (she really lied to God) and denied she laughed within herself to the Angel and YHWH reminded her (through the messenger) that she did laugh even though she laughed within herself.

For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light. (Luke 8:17)

Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.” But he said, “Yes, you did laugh.” (Genesis 18:15)

Every thought in your head is known, every single one, it makes no difference if you hear a voice and are talking to yourself, it is all known!

That is why proper prayer stops all that and why you must love YHWH will all your strength, with all your body, heart and the mind (of God), since you only have a brain and mind is of God!