Maybe I am an "Old Christian", one who existed prior to the time the "organization" forced belief in the Trinity as a requirement for Christianity.
I understand. But the Trinity is still foundational to almost all Protestant and Catholic Christians. I'm just pointing out that your theology is at variance with the foundations of both.
Maybe that's why I am a Biblical Unitarian. I do not insist it is necessary for each person to interpret Scripture exactly the same as I do.
Then I don't get your beef.
You see, in my naivete I believe God has made room for all of us.
Then I really don't get your beef.
Either you're accepting of all interpretations and Christians or you're not. That's what I can't understand. Are you arguing against those who don't accept your view that there should be no set of beliefs? Is that the primary beef? Against any required theology?
Then I don't get your beef.
Then I really don't get your beef.
I have no beef with the various interpretations of Scripture.
Either you're accepting of all interpretations and Christians or you're not. That's what I can't understand. Are you arguing against those who don't accept your view that there should be no set of beliefs? Is that the primary beef? Against any required theology?
For a person who denies planting "gotchas" you certainly are good at doing it.
Don't waste your time trying to psychoanalyze me. I am tired with this line of questioning. Just accept that I am a mystery to you.