From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Unitarian Universalism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Unitarian Universalism work group (marked as High-importance).

Proposed Move (again)[edit]

I came on here to look for the modern day religion Unitarianism, and have found it is listed under the American-name for the religion (Unitarian Universalism). In other countries, like the UK, Canada, India, Germany, South Africa, Norway, Denmark etc, it is just called Unitarianism. To avoid being American-centric, I propose this page is moved to Unitarianism (theology) with the default "Unitarian" page being the disambiguation one. That would put both the Christian theology and the modern day religion on an equal footing. I see there was a previous move that was reverted even though the debate seemed to be in favour of moving. Deist12345 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Unitarianism is a theological position, contrasting with Trinitarianism. As the hat note on the article points out, Unitarian Universalism is a different article, oddly enough titled Unitarian Universalism. This has been brought up time and again, and the consensus is to keep this article titled as it is: please check the archives. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You did not seem to engage with my points at all. Yes, I understand it is a theological position. That's why I suggested moving it to Unitarianism (theology). Did you not bother to read my comment? Yes, I understand there is a separate article for Unitarian Universalism. That's why I mentioned I found the article under the American name. Again, did you not read my comment? My point was that Unitarian Universalism is known as Unitarianism outside the United States and that it is of equal importance. For that reason I suggest Unitarianism should be a disambiguation page, with equal status for both. You are arguing that the theology article should take precedence over the religion when it comes to the Unitarian term, which you have not justified at all. I have checked the archives and most of the debate seems to have leaned against you the last time this came up, but you moved it back anyway.Deist12345 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you believe that Trinitarianism should be moved to Trinitarianism (theology)? Why should the one theology be renamed and not the other? The religion promoted by the Unitarian Universalist Association is Unitarian Universalism: that it is known as "Universalism" for short is beside the point. As for why the theology should have precedence, the theology has been around from Christianity's beginning almost 2000 years ago, while Unitarian Universalism is less than a century old: I dare say that the theology has a significant prior claim to the name. I will again refer you to the archives, conveniently linked at the top right of this Talk page, where you can see past discussions about making the move you are suggesting and why that move was not made. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I do not believe that Trinitarianism should be moved, because the term trinitarianism does not clash with anything else. One theology article should be renamed and the other should not because one clashes and one does not. Disambiguation decisions on Wikipedia are not done on creating symmetry within a class - e.g. Pluto is just Pluto while Ceres is Ceres (dwarf planet). You are also completely ignorant about the modern religion of Unitarianism. It is not "short for" Unitarian Universalism outside the United States. It is the ACTUAL name of the religion in Europe and in South Africa. The UUA is merely an American organisation for what is an international religion. Unitarian churches in the UK belong the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, for example. I have read the archives and generally it seems to be you overriding everyone else. Deist12345 (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Biblical Unitarianism[edit]

This subject has as much place in this article as Unitarian Universalism. Someone recently added a whole new section on Biblical Unitarianism. There is no reason to discuss it in this article, other than to point out that it is not the same as Unitarianism. Biblical Unitarianism has a page of its own already. See WP:IRRELEVANT#Irrelevant_information. Don Bodo (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This I'm afraid reflects Don Bodo's personal view that the tiny churches today still holding on to the beliefs of Unitarians (in the historical sense 1600-1800) shouldn't be counted as Unitarianism because the modern Unitarian Church is not Christian. We've been round this many times before and consensus has always been that just because a modern Unitarian still holds on to the Bible does not bar them from falling under the historical heading Unitarian. Text in this article (and related articles) makes it clear enough already that most modern Unitarian Churches reject the beliefs of historical Unitarianism. It is also not true of the entire world there are still Unitarian Church members in Transylvania who hold, in some degree, to the attachment to the Bible of the founders of the Unitarian Church in Transylvania.
Having said that, there is a weight issue, comment on modern biblicist (?) Unitarian churches should be in proportion to the fact that they are very small compared to the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches and do not have historical continuity with General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches church buildings organizations etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I reverted Don Bodo's deletion per WP:BRD. Firstly because it was reasonably sourced, secondly because Don Bodo's deletion goes against previous discussion, thirdly because to me it smacks a little of the same sort of problem as with a anti-Mormon editor who recently deleted Mormons from the Godhead article because "Mormonism isn't Christianity" - experienced religion editors like User:Dougweller User:Editor2020 User:John Carter have all in the past reverted such kind of "isn't Christian" edits. This is a "Biblical Unitarism isn't Unitarianism" edit, which I think is tendentious. In the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches it is not unheard of to have some members who to some extent "believe in the Bible" probably as much as some Anglicans, without the liturgy. So I think a bit of tolerance towards Unitarians who define themselves as Christians is required here. It isn't Wikipedia's job to weed people out.
Again WP:WEIGHT is still an issue. s what the word "theology" means. But I'd feel more comfortable with User:TechBear User:LadyofShalott User:The Enlightened User:SteveStrummer or others weeding/trimming/adjusting the section, rather than a wholesale delete as User:Donbodo. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
What User:In ictu oculi isn't revealing is that we had a lengthy and in-depth discussion about this last year, which he knows very well, and it was decided that Biblical Unitarianism was to have its own page, because it is not the same as Unitarianism. It was also decided that a statement would be made at the beginning of the article that Biblical Unitarianism was a different use of the word Unitarianism and was to be sought elsewhere. He let some time pass and then tried to advance his agenda yet again by adding in promotional material for Biblical Unitarianism--a conservative theology of modern origin (the name is a neologism) with no historical connection to Unitarianism except for borrowings of Christological arguments from Unitarian writers. Robert Spears and Samuel Sharpe, the first to use the term "Biblical Unitarianism" had never been members of the Unitarian movement. Biblical Unitarians have always been separate. I will again point out that Unitarianism, as this article states near the beginning, is a proper noun, not a generic noun that encompasses all non-Trinitarian points of view. Unitarianism is a whole theological system, which includes much more than non-Trinitarianism. Therefore Biblical Unitarianism is irrelevant to this page, and the only reason for its inclusion is to attract people who browse this page to Biblical Unitarianism. It's nothing more than a recruitment tool. Don Bodo (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I should add that the section on Biblical Unitarianism, which In ictu oculi restored (and which was entered under "Italy"), does not make any connection to the main article. No reference to Unitarianism proper is provided whatsoever. It's simply a tangent. Relevance must be shown. If Biblical Unitarianism is included here, then for consistency's sake, all non-Trinitarian religious groups should be included. But that would be ridiculous, because this article is not about all non-Trinitarians in the world. WP:Relevance_of_content Don Bodo (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
@Donbodo, please no need to be nasty, we can disagree but there's no need for WP:PA, it isn't "isn't revealing." Yes there's a page Biblical Unitarianism. Sure per WP:FORK lots of various Unitarian churches and submovements have their own sub-pages under the umbrella. See WP:FORK for the distinction. There should be a { main | Biblical Unitarianism } link on top of the relevant paragraph here.
@LadyofShalott:, I note that the sections are disrupted. 5 Modern Christian Unitarian organizations 5.10 Italy 5.10.1 Biblical Unitarian Movement, etc. Seems a mess which a neutral editor could sort out. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
@LadyofShalott:, I was not trying to attack anyone. There is a history here, and that is all I was referring to. My apologies to In ictu oculi if I came off as nasty. Please note that Biblical Unitarianism is not a "submovement" or "subgroup" of Unitarianism. It is an unrelated group with a similar name.Don Bodo (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian Unitarian Church of Transylvania[edit]

It seems that the doctrines and organization of this church are contrary to the rest of the Unitarians in the world on several issues. For example predestination, apostolic succession, etc.. It seems there should be a sub-section dedicated to the distinct brand of Unitarianism held by the HUCT in contrast to other brands. References to the different brands should not be conflated together and mixed up with difference references throughout the text which ends up creating a non-existent "average Unitarianism" which does not reflect the reality of the various different Unitarian branches. F.Tromble (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Except that this article is about the theological position as distinct from Trinitarianism, and not about specific denominations. If it gives too much weight to the theology of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the answer is to reduce that weight and bring in more varied examples, not to go into irrelevant depths about other churches. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, good idea. A more general discussion of the theological position without going into specific beliefs of various organizations will be much better. So let's remove the references to predestination etc., which really has nothing to do with unitarianism as a theological concept.F.Tromble (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Modern Christian Unitarian organizations[edit]

In the first sub-section under Unitarianism#Modern Christian Unitarian organizations, "Hungarian and Transylvanian Unitarian Churches", in the first sentence is a parenthetical statement including the clause "which is union with the Unitarian Church in Hungary". My question is: what is "is union with"? I've never heard that phrase before. CorinneSD (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's just a typo for "is in union with" In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you. I've heard that before. However, I think even that is a bit obscure for the average reader. It would be nice if a verb (or past participle) could be found that would express what is meant. CorinneSD (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We need to clean up this article re. universalism[edit]

While some denominations such as the Unitarian Universalist Association adhere to both Unitarianism and Universalism, many denominations hold only to one or the other. This article is about the theology of unitarianism, and conflating it with universalism is incorrect. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 08:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that Unitarians do not believe that Jesus is God incarnated, but in order to have a clearer picture of Unitarianism, I think that there's something more that must mentioned in the lede of this article: First, What do Unitarians believe about salvation? Second, What do they therefore think about condemnation/ punishment/ hell? and third, what do they believe about the ministry, teachings and the death of Jesus Christ on the cross? In short, if they say that Jesus was the Son, or a son, what relevance his figure has for them? How do Unitarians perceive Jesus and what does His ministry and death means for them?
Inquire upon these questions in the light of history and you'll have to understand that Unitarianism is sometimes a very broad category. You'll see that thought Unitarianism began as a schism in Christianity, not all Unitarians have considered themselves Christians on their own account. You'll find many that there are Christian Unitarians, who believe that Jesus' death on the cross was a Sacrifice for the salvation of those who believe. But you'll also find many Universalist Unitarians, who believe that Jesus' death on the cross was a Sacrifice for all mankind, including those who do not believe. Yes, a considerable amount of Unitarians adhere to Universalism, so, is it relevant to mention it in a neutral article, or not? And Furthermore, you'll find non-Christian unitarians who believe that Jesus' death was not a sacrifice. These can't be called Christians in the definition of the word, so they overlap with deism and may be refered to as Deistic Unitarians.
What kind of "Unitarian" are we referring to? Who is Jesus for this Unitarian? How does this Unitarian perceive the topic of condemnation/hell? Is it merely a Christian unitarian? Is it a [Christian] Universalist Unitarian, or is it a non-Christian/Deistic Unitarian? These three exist, don't they? If so, let them be mentioned.--Goose friend (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)