Fatherianity

[Ripheus27]

I'm perplexed. Despite all the trouble gone through by proponents of unitarianism against the equality of the Father and the Son, I don't know of any unitarians who don't call themselves "Christians," except sort of maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't know of any unitarians who focus on the Father more than Jesus; indeed, it's Trinitarians who seem to actually care about the Father as much as Jesus (so far as they emphasize the filial relationship between the two even as it exists eternally*). I don't know of, for lack of better words, Fatherians, adherents of Fatherianity, or what have you. And if Jesus appeared in front of a unitarian, would they or would they not bow down to Him? If the word "worship" just means to "bow down" to someone, and if no one should be worshiped except the Father, then when we bow down to Jesus are we betraying the Father? Yet by talking about Jesus more than the Father, aren't we mentally bowing down more to Jesus than the Father?

* If God doesn't change, then He is always the Father. If He is always the Father, He always has a Son. If the Son always exists, and exists because it is in the nature of God that He exist (so that God can be the Father), then the Son is in the nature of God, not outside it. Then God in His own nature is Father and Son, no?

 

[timewerx]

The first who came is a female.


At least from biology when one-celled organisms first appeared on Earth quite a long time ago. Their morphology is similar to the female egg cell. It wasn't until later that sperm-like cells appeared but their functions made them synonymous to parasites and viruses.

The vast majority of organisms on Earth in the beginning up to the early dinosaurs produced asexually through cell divisions. The first animals were all females. The egg cells that are in them divided without sperm in a fashion similar to one-celled organisms. Thus, in the beginning, everyone came to the world through virgin births and males did not exist yet.


This is a disturbing truth that is slowly unraveling through science. It will actually give us the answer to everything. Most of religion is actually to enemy's tool to keep us blind and ignorant from knowing this truth. The interesting part is a possibly biologically insidious origin, something that is programmed or even possibly stored in our DNA in some kind of digital data that was embedded in our DNA through a virus.

A digital data stored in our DNA that may have been responsible for visions seen by "prophets" which led to the creation of religions.



This is why I strongly doubt the maleness of god. Males are late additions in the progression of life on Earth and that the sperm cell possibly evolved from cells which are parasitic/invasive in nature and from viruses.

The collective behavior of the males reflects the invasive parasitic origin hypothesis. The virgin birth of Christ only serves to strengthen the hypothesis. Furthermore these latest scientific findings seem to support the notion that sexual reproduction even if done under marriage constitutes an evil act nevertheless.



With the exception of communist, militaristic, and dictatorial states, the most religious nations on the planet are also the most miserable with highest levels of corruption and human rights abuses. Often, the religions of these nations, discriminate women and raise the status of men above women. They also display invasive nature.

See the connection? the invasive parasitic origin of the sperm/males. When the Muslims claim that prophet Muhammad had a vision that turned out to be quite similar to Christianity with some differences, it maybe true they did not copy it from Judeo-Christianity but came directly from the embedded data in our DNA that originated from a virus.

 

[drstevej]

The first who came is a female.


At least from biology when one-celled organisms first appeared on Earth quite a long time ago. Their morphology is similar to the female egg cell. It wasn't until later that sperm-like cells appeared but their functions made them synonymous to parasites and viruses.

The vast majority of organisms on Earth in the beginning up to the early dinosaurs produced asexually through cell divisions. The first animals were all females. The egg cells that are in them divided without sperm in a fashion similar to one-celled organisms. Thus, in the beginning, everyone came to the world through virgin births and males did not exist yet.


This is a disturbing truth that is slowly unraveling through science. It will actually give us the answer to everything. Most of religion is actually to enemy's tool to keep us blind and ignorant from knowing this truth. The interesting part is a possibly biologically insidious origin, something that is programmed or even possibly stored in our DNA in some kind of digital data that was embedded in our DNA through a virus.

A digital data stored in our DNA that may have been responsible for visions seen by "prophets" which led to the creation of religions.



This is why I strongly doubt the maleness of god. Males are late additions in the progression of life on Earth and that the sperm cell possibly evolved from cells which are parasitic/invasive in nature and from viruses.

The collective behavior of the males reflects the invasive parasitic origin hypothesis. The virgin birth of Christ only serves to strengthen the hypothesis. Furthermore these latest scientific findings seem to support the notion that sexual reproduction even if done under marriage constitutes an evil act nevertheless.



With the exception of communist, militaristic, and dictatorial states, the most religious nations on the planet are also the most miserable with highest levels of corruption and human rights abuses. Often, the religions of these nations, discriminate women and raise the status of men above women. They also display invasive nature.

See the connection? the invasive parasitic origin of the sperm/males. When the Muslims claim that prophet Muhammad had a vision that turned out to be quite similar to Christianity with some differences, it maybe true they did not copy it from Judeo-Christianity but came directly from the embedded data in our DNA that originated from a virus.

If this is so, why do you use a Christian icon? I am perplexed.

 

[AlephBet]

An eternal and unchanging consciousness could only exist apart from himself in an image that changes. In physics, we know this as invariant symmetry and translational symmetry. Invariance is the same eternally. Translational symmetry changes, but leaves the anchor unchanged. This is the nature of a changing image governed by invariant symmetry. The Father is named Aleph Bet (Strong House). He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

In nature, we know the law as invariance from symmetry. Proton (+) is inside the Neutron (neutral). They are the Strong Force, following the laws of invariant symmetry. The Electron (-) is the weak force and is heeled by the strong. All things bend to the will of the strong force in nature.

Symbolically, this is pictured in several bible verses. Specifically, the early universe was in a high state of order with low entropy. Hydrogen does not have a neutron. Only one Proton (+) and one Electron (-) in balanced unity. With the addition of the Neutron, you have the Strong House for the Proton. All elements come from the strong force in nature.

Father can never not be his nature. The Son, by the very fact he is IN the image must be ever-changing. The whole is never changed, but the parts are translated by the whole. This is transcription of the Word. By default, the Son is the Cosmos. He is ALL things in the image (Colossians 1).

The Father is NOT the image. He is eternal and unchanging. The Son changed from Yahweh (Law governing the weak nature / eve) to Christ (unity with the Father). Christ is still changing as evidenced by the body of Christ below. We are still here being translated. In a moment and twinkling of an eye, we will be transposed from this mortal coil.

Evolution is from E (Latin - out of) and Volution (Spinning around a center). The image is anchored in the center.

Baptism is involution, or entering the waters to be changed (individuation). God seeks more of himself for fellowship. We must be raised to his nature.

I'm perplexed. Despite all the trouble gone through by proponents of unitarianism against the equality of the Father and the Son, I don't know of any unitarians who don't call themselves "Christians," except sort of maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't know of any unitarians who focus on the Father more than Jesus; indeed, it's Trinitarians who seem to actually care about the Father as much as Jesus (so far as they emphasize the filial relationship between the two even as it exists eternally*). I don't know of, for lack of better words, Fatherians, adherents of Fatherianity, or what have you. And if Jesus appeared in front of a unitarian, would they or would they not bow down to Him? If the word "worship" just means to "bow down" to someone, and if no one should be worshiped except the Father, then when we bow down to Jesus are we betraying the Father? Yet by talking about Jesus more than the Father, aren't we mentally bowing down more to Jesus than the Father?

* If God doesn't change, then He is always the Father. If He is always the Father, He always has a Son. If the Son always exists, and exists because it is in the nature of God that He exist (so that God can be the Father), then the Son is in the nature of God, not outside it. Then God in His own nature is Father and Son, no?

 

[Rescued One]

I'm perplexed. Despite all the trouble gone through by proponents of unitarianism against the equality of the Father and the Son, I don't know of any unitarians who don't call themselves "Christians," except sort of maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't know of any unitarians who focus on the Father more than Jesus; indeed, it's Trinitarians who seem to actually care about the Father as much as Jesus (so far as they emphasize the filial relationship between the two even as it exists eternally*). I don't know of, for lack of better words, Fatherians, adherents of Fatherianity, or what have you. And if Jesus appeared in front of a unitarian, would they or would they not bow down to Him? If the word "worship" just means to "bow down" to someone, and if no one should be worshiped except the Father, then when we bow down to Jesus are we betraying the Father? Yet by talking about Jesus more than the Father, aren't we mentally bowing down more to Jesus than the Father?

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Romans 8:32

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Matthew 7:11

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
James 1:17

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
John 6:39

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
John 17:12


I pray to the Father.

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

If a person reads the New Testament, he reads about the Father and the Father's will.

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
John 6:29

 

[4x4toy]

The first who came is a female.


At least from biology when one-celled organisms first appeared on Earth quite a long time ago. Their morphology is similar to the female egg cell. It wasn't until later that sperm-like cells appeared but their functions made them synonymous to parasites and viruses.

The vast majority of organisms on Earth in the beginning up to the early dinosaurs produced asexually through cell divisions. The first animals were all females. The egg cells that are in them divided without sperm in a fashion similar to one-celled organisms. Thus, in the beginning, everyone came to the world through virgin births and males did not exist yet.


This is a disturbing truth that is slowly unraveling through science. It will actually give us the answer to everything. Most of religion is actually to enemy's tool to keep us blind and ignorant from knowing this truth. The interesting part is a possibly biologically insidious origin, something that is programmed or even possibly stored in our DNA in some kind of digital data that was embedded in our DNA through a virus.

A digital data stored in our DNA that may have been responsible for visions seen by "prophets" which led to the creation of religions.



This is why I strongly doubt the maleness of god. Males are late additions in the progression of life on Earth and that the sperm cell possibly evolved from cells which are parasitic/invasive in nature and from viruses.

The collective behavior of the males reflects the invasive parasitic origin hypothesis. The virgin birth of Christ only serves to strengthen the hypothesis. Furthermore these latest scientific findings seem to support the notion that sexual reproduction even if done under marriage constitutes an evil act nevertheless.



With the exception of communist, militaristic, and dictatorial states, the most religious nations on the planet are also the most miserable with highest levels of corruption and human rights abuses. Often, the religions of these nations, discriminate women and raise the status of men above women. They also display invasive nature.

See the connection? the invasive parasitic origin of the sperm/males. When the Muslims claim that prophet Muhammad had a vision that turned out to be quite similar to Christianity with some differences, it maybe true they did not copy it from Judeo-Christianity but came directly from the embedded data in our DNA that originated from a virus.

TITSSIEH

 

[timewerx]

TITSSIEH

At least my hypothesis is working. What I've posted should stir the primal defense mechanism of what is inside of every man.

This is however, just the beginning. What science is about to unravel cannot be stopped.

The future will be unprecedented.

 

[4x4toy]

At least my hypothesis is working. What I've posted should stir the primal defense mechanism of what is inside of every man.

This is however, just the beginning. What science is about to unravel cannot be stopped.

The future will be unprecedented.

 

[David H]

The whole theology of the bible is that Jesus Christ died for our sins so that we could have one to one fellowship with the creator again. To me many people put to much emphasis on worshipping Jesus, many times he ducked and passed it on to His Father.

The Father is the one who created His Son, in His very first act of creation, see rev 3;14. I am the beginning of the creation of God. The KJV is the closest translation to the original greek.

Also when you know who you pray to , the prayers seem to have all the more authority.

David H

 

[Albion]

I'm perplexed. Despite all the trouble gone through by proponents of unitarianism against the equality of the Father and the Son, I don't know of any unitarians who don't call themselves "Christians," except sort of maybe the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Members of the Unitarian Universalist Association--the best known unitarian religious group--usually don't.

I don't know of, for lack of better words, Fatherians, adherents of Fatherianity, or what have you. And if Jesus appeared in front of a unitarian, would they or would they not bow down to Him? If the word "worship" just means to "bow down" to someone, and if no one should be worshiped except the Father, then when we bow down to Jesus are we betraying the Father? Yet by talking about Jesus more than the Father, aren't we mentally bowing down more to Jesus than the Father?

Wouldn't anyone who believes in some "higher power" or non-Christian God be, in effect, focusing on the Father figure? And Jesus would then, and often is, be relegated to something like a heavenly messenger created by that God or else an enlightened human.