The council of Nicaea 325

Full_Phil

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Posts
223
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
62
Location
Northeastern Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
---It is Judaism, Christianity, Islam that have as their aims the conversion of others and the idea that anyone not following their religion is inferior.

As they also seem to have the most formal hierarchy, it leads me to suppose that their structures are actually framed to enhance Religious Marketing, not in lieu of, but in concert with keeping the faithful in line. Too many road blocks and breathalizer tests to get to God for me.

By the way, thanks to Madame Zora for starting this confab!
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I'd like to write a thesis on Dualism in Monotheism and the intolerance of alternatives. But we digress and I don't want MZ spanking me - well Ok I do, but hey I'm only human.


Something important had to come of all this, now bend over!

You know I'd love to read your thesis anyway, I can still read with a sore hand.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Okay, then how does this make sense in light of other religions? When one only considers Christianity, it is easier to accept jesus as THE Christ, but when one considers the many religions, each with their fervent believers, it becomes necessary to choose which is "right".

If you have found a way around this, I would like to know it.

Before I answer this, I need to mention that I thought your post #65 was truly lovely. I didn't realize you could be so profound and poetic when not shooting at fucktards. Up until now, I thought it was only the idiocy of others that inspired you to eloquence.

Anyway, to your question. I think most Christian denominations and Christians in general have somewhat distorted the notion of the need to "believe" in Jesus. It seems people have turned it into some kind of loyalty oath or a condition on attaining salvation or something. Why would the creator of the universe who gave up his life in suffering in solidarity with the suffering of humanity be so simpleminded as to demand some kind of wacky allegiance oath above all other concerns?

Modern mainstream Christianity holds that its more important to trust God's faith in humanity than one's own faith in God. In fact, Paul says, even our faith is a gift from God. The world "belief" should really be replaced by the word "trust". And what we need to trust is that the God revealed to us through Jesus is a God that thinks like Jesus says he does. "Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father." John 14:9

Lutherans who really understand their denomination will tell you that they consider themselves not a denomination, but a movement in the worldwide universal church. And as a movement, their aim is not to recruit people in from other religions, but to bring to the Gospel to all religions. So a Lutheran would look at the beauty, majesty, and compassion of Buddhism and ask that Buddhism continue being Buddhism but accept that God loves them unconditionally. They would ask them to consider that the resurrection of Christ means that evil and death are ultimately conquered. Although the notion of the resurrection of Christ is central to Christianity, the important thing is to trust the implications of that resurrection rather than to swear blind and exclusive allegiance to it.

So Lutherans will claim that they are simply a movement in the greater universal church, charged with bringing the message of God's Grace to all corners of it. They will even say that even if it means Lutheranism goes out of business in the process, if they accomplish their task, then their work is done.

So the idea is not to have everyone choose Lutheranism instead of another religion. The idea is to bring the notion of God's Grace to all the other religions.

Lutherans have been very busy making this happen. They have been forming "concords" with other religions to the point where having agreed on the basic notion of God's grace, pastors and priests from these religions can serve at each other's churches. For example, an Episcopalian pastor can be called to be the Pastor at a Luthern church, and vice-versa.

The Lutherans finally fulfilled Martin Luther's dream, (which was to reform the Catholic Church, not compete with it), by signing the 1999 Joint Declaration with the Roman Catholic Church. It is a document signed by the leaders of both churches that declares the common understanding of "justification", which might be defined as "what it means for a person to be made right for salvation." The Declaration basically says that Luther's course correction for the church was right after all in that one is saved by God's Grace and not by one's own actions.

Does this in any way address your question. This is much different than a loyalty oath, isn't it?
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
JustAsking said:
Before I answer this, I need to mention that I thought your post #65 was truly lovely. I didn't realize you could be so profound and poetic when not shooting at fucktards. Up until now, I thought it was only the idiocy of others that inspired you to eloquence.

Haha, and I'm sure that most people here must see the same thing. You would probably have to go back two years or so to see how much I used to post to the needs of others. However, that was when we had minors on here, and I must admit I have higher expectations of adults. I'm also lousy at patience. Thanks for the compliment though, coming from you it means a lot.

Yes, your explanation covers some of my concern, but I would really be happier to hear about how you view your faith in regards to other religions, not denominations. This is a conversation I had with a pastor I admire greatly, and he admitted that he didn't have an answer. That was a frustrating day for me. I have later come to understand that protestant pastors and preachers don't have to attend an accredited college or seminary to earn their post, so there is perhaps a lack of education, even as to the history of their own faith.

I am aware that John Paul and the Dali Lama communicated and perhaps considered each other friends, and I did read what you said about Buddhists, but where I get stuck is on other Holy figures- do we show them reverence or disdain, and if we do not show them reverence, how then do we expect others to show respect to Christians, or Christianity? Again, if Jesus is THE way, the truth and the light, what about everyone else? Hare Krishnas predate Christianity by a good margin, and coincidentally, have NEVER started a war. How then do you view Krishna consciousness? Hinduism? Are all these people showing faith in folly? If they are, why is it that Christians are not?

See, if we're "right" then everyone else has to be wrong. This is what gets under my panties and bites. IF Jesus is who he claims, then the other messiahs were not. He made no mention of other messiahs, other than John the Baptist. See, I would eagerly embrace the idea that Messiahs have come to different places and times to address different social needs- all sent by the same Father, but no religion teaches this, and no religious documentation supports it. I would, in effect, be just making up an answer to satisfy my own mind.

Since that seems absurd, I have chosen instead to retreat all the way back to "I don't know, you don't either, but at least I don't believe in absurdity." Yes, it's an angry position, but there's a lot to be angry about. NOBODY is willing to just fucking take responsibility for the atrocities that have been done and are continuing in the name of Christianity, and without that apology, there can be no movement forward.

If I were to believe in a fictional character to represent my beliefs about life and purpose, I'd pick one with less blood on his hands. Jesus was in all likelihood a fascinating man who had a great many brilliant ideas. I'm sure I'd have been following him around listening to every word if I were alive back then, but I feel (yes, I said "feel", just my opinion based on my personal impressions) that his persona as reported has been so inflated as to obscure the beauty of his message. If he has to already be a God to have done what he did, then there really is no hope for me. He challenges me to "be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect", but he's already God, so how can He understand what he's asking of me?

No, he would have to be a guy, born of a woman, conceived by sex just like every one of us, feel the same pains when he bleeds, and live with the uncertainty we all do. THEN if he had great faith, I'd be impressed. I am impressed, in fact. I'm always impressed when "just some guy" goes and does something heroic and/or brilliant. That's the beauty of the story of Jesus for me, but raping him of his humanity just because being a God would give some white guys in robes more authority is a vile rape to me, and if it had been done to me (someone changing the story to make me something I'm not) I would be furious. Righteously so. Jesus and I get pissed sometimes, yanno. Not very "godly" but there are plenty examples of both of us cursing and yelling- not to mention lobbing the occasional zinger. For me, I am loving life and exercising my right to reject bullshit when encountered by it on a massive scale.

I'm in good company, people miss a lot of what I see when I read the Bible, and I'm not claiming to be brilliant. How bright do you really have to be to just read what's on the printed page? I have come to believe that most people really haven't read the Bible, even the NT cover-to-cover. They read the passages highlighted for the week's sermon, and they discuss it in the manner their pastor chooses to discuss it, but they never get a whole view of the books, never seek outside sources for verification, never have conversations with people of other faiths, and never question what chain of events led them to their "fervent belief". To me, that is nauseating, and there's no way in HELL I'd ever show respect for ignorance.

You and I live in Ohio, and it is rare for me to encounter a Christian here in fundieland who does not fall into the category above. Talking to you has been a rare and delightful treat.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
SpoiledPrincess,
This is in response to your post #75, which is too long to quote, but not too long to read over and over again. You make a good case and you write beautifully and convincingly. However, I think I there are even things in your argument that support the notion of Jesus' claim to divinity.

I think your two points about this are:

- Jesus never made any direct claims to divinity.
- Jesus would not have claimed divinity because that would have been outrageous to his Jewish audience.

To the first point, if you read John 10, you can hear Jesus claiming that he and the Father are one. In this chapter Jesus claims the power to grant eternal life and salvation. The Jews are insensed by this, as you predicted. They even want to stone him for claiming to be God.

Read John 14 and you will see Jesus claiming again to be the only route to salvation. Its the place where he declares himself the very gateway to God and salvation In these passages he is clearly implying that he is a proxy for God himself.

Its also the place where he answers the people who are asking Jesus to show them God with "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." In fact he seems pretty pissed that even his own followers are doubting him.

He keeps going with this stuff and they start really getting pissed at him.

19At these words the Jews were again divided. 20Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"

When he finally ends with:


30 I and the Father are one.

He gets from them:

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

In your long post, you said,

"It has been pointed out that Jesus didn't leave any dogma or set of rules to live by, as Jesus himself said in Matthew 5 1.17 & 18 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill.' in the OT there are many laws and this underlines that he agreed with them in totality, this also points to him being in every way a Jew and his thinking being allied with current Jewish thought."

But I maintain that this is part of a counterexample to your argument. Here, Jesus is beginning to develop the foundation of his New Covenant. He has come to replace the God given Mosaic Covenant, which is the deal God makes with the Jews. In the Old Covenant, God gives the Jews "The Law" which they must follow in order to receive their end of the bargain, which is passage to the Promised Land.

Jesus comes along and starts breaking every element of The Law he can find at those times when those laws interfere with love and compassion. To your point about him not leaving any dogma, when asked what the greatest commandments are, he says,

"Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).


Then he tells the Good Samaritan parable to cement the fact that the entire Jewish purity code (represented by the law abiding Priest and Levite in the parable) is now subsumed by even a despicable Samaritan's instinctive act of love.

So yes, Jesus fulfills The Law by replacing it with Love. He replaces the old dogma of Law with a dogma of Love. This is not quite abolishing the Law, but it certainly turns the Jewish order on its ear. Also, one must remember who it is who gives the Jews the Law, to begin with. It is God who gives it, and now here is Jesus claiming the authority to toss it out for a more comprehensive principle that sustains the spirit of it, but throws out the letter of it.


Finally, during the last supper, it is pretty clear:

"This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

The New Covenant is to replace the Old Covenant. Jesus seals the new covenant with the wine which he says is his blood, just as Moses sealed the old covenant with blood. But where Moses is a messenger for God in bringing the Old Covenant, Jesus here is actual giver of a covenant just like God was before.

Anyway, this can go on and on. Event after event, parable after parable, Jesus thumbs his nose at convention, castigates the existing system of Law and Purity Code, and claims to be personally replacing it with a whole new concept.

Finally, he says that the Temple will be destroyed and rebuilt by him in three days. He is referring to the entire Jewish Temple system, which is ground zero for Jewish Law, politics, and religion, and is considered the very house that God lives in. The three days Jesus is referring to is the time between his death and resurrection. The implication is that the entire Jewish order will be replaced by Jesus himself once he is resurrected. Jesus is evicting God, or more accurately, he is evicting the Jews' notion of God with a new notion that the only notion one should have of God is known only to us through Jesus.

Either Jesus is divine, or he is crazy. I will accept the crazy verdict but not the notion that Jesus never claims divinity. I see him doing it all over the New Testament, and I see him making outrageous and even suicidal claims day after day to anyone in earshot who could be outraged by them.
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
121
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Jesus lost his temper, he showed arrogance, he was mean to his mother, he was in no way the flawless being we're led to think he was. He was a Jew and the message he sent out was to other Jews and not intended for the Gentiles, he said in Matthew 15:24 'I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,' in Matthew 10 1.5 he says 'Go not into the way of the gentiles,' he reiterates his message that his ministry and leadership is only intended for Jews in many passages so any Christian who is alive now would be someone who the real Jesus would not be overly concerned with preaching to. His thinking wasn't in any way new or radical, what can't be denied is that he was a charismatic leader who gathered around him enough of a following that the Romans felt their power threatened and had him killed. What Christians should try to emulate perhaps is not the real message of Jesus the man, but the message of the New Testament which is ostensibly one of tolerance and forgiveness tinged with the knowledge that humans (like Jesus) are imperfect, one that other religions should also embrace.
 

sykray

Cherished Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Posts
763
Media
0
Likes
380
Points
283
Age
76
Location
Chonburi (Chon Buri, Thailand)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Thank you to all contributors for a very interesting, intelligent and erudite thread. It is a wide topic and clearly some are coming from a historical perspective; gnosticism; Biblical interpretation; faith; and other viewpoints.

I am a psychologist and not a theologian. I am not a Christian but I am delighted to come across JustAsking's contributions which allow for the messiness of it all and still maintains a clear Christian belief.

I live in a Buddhist country but it is not the Buddhism that I learnt about in the 70s in the UK. Here Buddhism is mixed with animistic beliefs, Hindu and Brahmin religion and Confucianism. It has been shaped and influenced by politics and power dynamics within an essentially feudal cultureand has still incorporated the "primitive" animism of the "peasantry". The monkhood, especially the educated theological elite, may not believe in the extra baggage from other religious and philosophical standpoints but they see it as pragmatic and expedient to perform rituals and promote beliefs that are not central to Buddhism. Here is an example of accommodation of heterodoxy.

Historically, theocracy has been a powerful influence, bringing prestige and power to religious leaders. Debate and dissent and deviation are anathematous to them because self interest is often more important than a quest for truth.

As far as I can guess, Constantine was facing political crisis. The roman empire was fraying at the edges and crumbling at the centre. he needed a state religion to unify the Empire. He needed a religion that had a divine figure. Arianism and gnosticism would not do. He had to have Jesus as divine. I do not know how much pressure he exerted on convocation but I don't think he would have accepted Christianity until and unless the creed defined Jesus as God. To what extent would Christian leaders be tempted by the power and prestige of their religion becoming the state religion of the empire? Would they have made compromises, fudged issues or enforced an orthodoxy in order to acchieve this?

There is much contradiction in the canonical gospels. The Dead Sea Scrolls include versions of the gospels that have verses and passages that were omitted from the canon.

We also have problems with translation. Anyone with fluency in more than one language knows that "word for word" translations are impossible, even for related languages such as the European ones. For me, Thai illustrates this point very clearly indeed. I also know that as a psychologist, the language that we use to think forms, modifies and constrains our attitudes and the way that we think.

Some languages are more metaphorical. I understand that Aramaic is full of metaphor and allegory. Jesus is a sheep. Simon Peter is stone. It becomes clear that literal translations and interpretations are on very shaky ground.

I cannot see any religious tract as the Word of God. They may each be inspired by the God within all of us or from the external God that is worshipped. There is a lot of commonality in the basic precepts and ethics of the major religions in the world.

What is written or spoken or interpreted is done so by humans. Humans with human failings and virtues - greed, pride, need for certainty, need to control, a need for power, a need to be important, etc. They may imperfectly understand. What they mean may not be what they say and what they say may not be how we understand it. They may deliberately distort for political ends. They may think of themselves as superior, wiser, more intelligent and wish to keep others ignorant or confused.

It is indeed "messy" as JustAsking and others are saying. I don't think that we can achieve the certainty and unambiguity that some seem to desire.
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
121
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I've tried to keep this as simple as I could, and not let it get bogged down in quote after quote after quote, but it turned out to be fairly complicated, hope it's understandable.
In John 10 Jesus repeatedly calls himself the shepherd, he is the shepherd and Israel is the flock and he is the one who will lead them to the Father but is not himself the Father. In St John 10:15 he says ‘As the father knoweth me, even so know I the father,’ he later says ‘he is the only route to salvation’, the Jews wanted him stoned not because he claimed to be God but because he claimed he was a mediator between God and the Jewish people, nothing any of the preceding Messiahs or prophets had claimed, Moses had private conversations with God but even he, arguably the greatest of the prophets never claimed that it was only through his intercession that anyone could achieve God’s grace. In John 10:24 the Jews plainly ask Jesus if he is the Messiah, they do not ask him if he is God for this is not what he is in any way laying claim to be, but surely if he had laid claim to be God incarnate this is what the question would have been at that point. He does indeed say ‘I and my Father are one,’ but this is something the meaning of which has been debated, and in the context of the preceding passage it can’t really be taken to mean he actually thinks he is God when it has just been demonstrated that his claim is to be the Messiah. In John 10:33 when the Jew’s threaten to stone him for making himself god he himself denies this is what he is actually saying and says that he has simply called himself the Son of god but in John 10:34 Jesus himself makes a justification that under Jewish law any man can call himself a god (Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods) his justification is not that he is actually God but that it is written in their law that any to whom the word of God came could be called gods- but he has already refuted in the previous chapter that he said he was God. In any case from the reading my interpretation is that the meaning of the question the Jews were asking him was not ‘are you god’ but actually meant ‘are you putting yourself in a godlike position.’ In 36 & 37 he does actually appear to make a solid claim to be the Messiah, he says (I paraphrase) 'you say I blaspheme because I said I am the Son of God, if I don’t do the works of God disbelieve me, but if I do do the works of God then believe that the spirit of God is in me.' Again this is not a claim to actually be God, when a Messiah was anointed the spirit of God descended on him (e.g 1 Samuel 13:13 ‘the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day) and as Jesus believed himself to be a Messiah and had in fact been anointed as such by John the Baptist he believed that he was God’s mouthpiece.

As you yourself say read John 14 and you will see that Jesus is implying that he is a proxy for God himself – yes a proxy but not God, but even that is overstepping the bounds of what a normal Godfearing Jew would find palatable. In John 14. When he is asked to show us the Father what they are asking is to be shown the physical presence of God as he was manifested in the early days of the Israelites, a pillar of fire going before them, a burning bush, something physical, Jesus’ reply doesn’t mean that they have seen God because he is the physical manifestation of God, he means he has demonstrated the proof of God’s powers through his miracles – as Moses did with the snakes, as many other prophets did through the miracles they were able to perform because the spirit of the lord had descended on them. In John 14:14 he again says ‘believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me,’ again not a claim to being God but a claim to being divinely chosen as a Messiah.

On his new covenant this was not in any way anything original to Jesus, his ‘new covenant’ was simply current Jewish thinking of the time, Hillel who was living at the same time as Jesus encapsulated the whole of Jewish law in the dictum ‘Do not to your neighbour that which is hateful to yourself (Shabbath 31A), when Jesus says ‘love your neighbour’ he’s not formulating some new idea, he’s simply reiterating one of the guidelines of the religion to which he belonged – Judaism. During the time Jesus was alive the Essenes also preached the imminence of the coming of the Kingdom of God

In reality Jesus was not the gentle Jesus meek and mild we have been led to believe in, he was an ardent nationalist whose talk of the establishment of the Kingdom of God was an appeal to overthrow the Romans and establish a new and independent Jewish state – a new Israel which had always been, as far as the Jews were concerned, the Kingdom of God. When his followers began to be disaffected with his lack of success in this they began to drift away and we can see signs of this disaffection, as Jesus begins to see that his support network is getting smaller he begins to talk of his oncoming death. He must have been only too well aware that the only fate for a failed Messiah was death, as his own cousin John the Baptist had died not too long ago. It is hardly surprising that his betrayal came at the hands of Judas Iscariot, the etymology of whose name quite possibly means Judas the Assassin, the Sicarii were Jewish rebels who were aiming to drive the Romans out, so it is possible he betrayed Jesus who had disappointed him when his attempts to gain a following large enough to overthrow the Romans began to appear to be fruitless. The Messiah was expected to be a ruler not a religious man which is why his descent was expected to be from David not from Moses, Elijah or any of the other prophets.

Jesus does say that the Temple will be destroyed and rebuilt by him in three days, however the Temple, whether it was a spiritual temple of the actual Jewish Temple was not destroyed and rebuilt in three days – proof in itself that he was not God.

You say either Jesus was divine or he was crazy, all the alleged claims to be God himself don’t actually stand up to inspection, some of them he refutes, others on closer examination are nothing more than any Jew could claim, some are the especial claim of a Messiah. What Jesus was was someone who wanted to bring back the Kingdom of God in very troubled times, in a time when people claiming to be the Messiah were common, his claims were a little more extreme than most only in that he claimed to be a direct mediator between God and man, but none of his thinking was original except that one thing and that was probably what drove away his Jewish followers, that he would stand between them and their Father.

The NT was not written for the Jewish audience of Jesus, it was written to convert Gentiles into becoming followers of Jesus, so put simply the writers left out as much as they possibly could which underlined Jesus’ essential Jewishness but even so there is enough left that we can see what he actually was – a militant leader who fell foul of the strong Roman authorities. The NT is a large book and it contains not the actual words of Jesus himself but the reported words, words which were intended to sway us to the idea that he was much more than a contender for Messiahship, a book in which his disciples in part tried to white wash the world, for every sentence that can in some way be interpreted as him referring to himself as in any way God there are ten sentences which refute this, numerous occasions he refers to God as his Father, where he speaks of he and God as entirely different beings and where he talks about going to his Father.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
This is the Nicene creed, the declaration of belief that was agreed at this council.

First Council of Nicea (325)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.
[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable


This was the next effort

First Council of Constantinople (381)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


The changes say an awful lot and should prove beyond argument that humans determine Christian dogma. You will know your current one better than I.

I actually find it hard to see Christianity as a monotheistic religion within the terms of the creed. I don't think a gnostic creed would have had the same problems.
 

Full_Phil

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Posts
223
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
62
Location
Northeastern Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
So much of what we believe about the exact role of Jesus in Christianity hinges upon whether he is truly quoted in the bible, or whether he is paraphrased, altered, MIS-quoted in order to push forward a religious concept, etc--- I do want to say that as someone who has spent a lot of time in a church setting where the hymn "God and I are one" is sung almost every service, I in no way felt any self-divinity by singing along --- I was acknowledging my oneness with the Almighty and my other fellow men and women. To me, everything Jesus says boils down to "follow my example" in its meaning beyond whether the words are accurate or were manipulated by writers for effect.

For Madame Zora, I would suggest that she just realize that it is the nature of groups that band together to look for reasons that make their bonding a good thing. If one bonds religiously, and part of the scriptural commonality calls for special people to survive (Last Days), then one by nature will see oneself as earning survivalship by one's choice of group. Not all of Christian thought has this "we are the true church" mentality, but I admit it's hard to find. One can believe in Jesus as a way-shower, and also believe that there were other legitimate and worthy prophetss that gave mankind other "Keys to the Kingdom".

I prsonally choose to believe that God is so beyond our understanding that he, she or it can identify with every human soul simultaneously, and that God is open to any soul reaching out DIRECTLY for help and guidance. I also believe that God wants us to choose his revealed way of love and acceptance --- that revelation not limited only to the teachings of the Bible, Koran, or Torah, etc --- but to what we know within ourselves about the way things should be. Truth comes AFTER Faith that comes AFTER the willingness to listen and trust our inner voice. True revelation comes from within, just like all personal change and improvement.
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Constantine was a recent convert, and wished to make all citizens of the empire convert, he was not in favor of a narrow and exclusive theological definition of Christianity, he considered the doctrinal differences trivial. He was more interested in ending bickering.
The Arian-Athanasian controversy, which the council of Nicea was supposed to settle, began primarily as a dispute between two factions for possession of the See of Alexandria, at that time probably the most important in the empire. It is a bit amusing the charges their followers invented. Constantine intervened several times in favor of Arius, one time even banishing Athanasius (an extremely combative person) as far away as Augusta Trevororum (Trier), in Germania Superior. The dispute outlived Constantine, and Constantius II as well.

When emperor of only the west, he had called a council in Italy to resolve the Donatist controversy, also a dispute between two factions, in this case for possession of the See of Carthage, the second in importance in the latin part of the empire. It continued for generations, untill the Arab conquest.

The Nicene and Constantinople creeds which Lord P. has quoted in full above, each and every phrase was very specifically crafted to exclude a particular 'heresy'.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Okay Kalipygian, what is a "see"? I thought it was misspelled, but I googled it and I found the Patriarchal See of Alexandria, but I still don't know what that is. Your posts here have been very informative and much appreciated.

LordPendragon, you put the LP in LPSG. I'd read both versions of the Creed, but it's nice to know what changed, and why. I'm not anti-religious, I'm just anti-religiousity, if that makes sense. I don't like blind faith with no regard to reality. Thanks for bringing more of that reality into focus.

SpoiledPrincess, I've been reading your posts too with great interest. I'm always so excited when newer members don't hesitate to give of themselves in the heavier topics. Sure, we all love hoo-hoos, but how often do you really get the opportunity to discuss these kinds of things in real life with people who actually give a shit? I'm going to be looking for your posts elsewhere from now on.
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
121
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I've enjoyed posting on this a lot MZ, a sex site doesn't all have to be about frivolous subjects, I only hope I haven't offended anyone, my doubt isn't of their faith, but of the representation of Jesus we've been given.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I've enjoyed posting on this a lot MZ, a sex site doesn't all have to be about frivolous subjects, I only hope I haven't offended anyone, my doubt isn't of their faith, but of the representation of Jesus we've been given.

I'm glad you felt free enough to express yourself so honestly, I was hoping this would happen.

This is why every so often, some of us go on a tirade about free speech and how important it is to protect it. If I can't say "fucktard" when I feel like it, the next step is that I can't express a thought of any kind without checking in with the moral majority, who always have an agenda. Without feeling safe to say what's really on our minds, in the words we choose, there is no chance of any real learning happening.

The problem is the if my speech is free, yours is too, so I can't really be tenderfooted if you (meaning anyone) say something I disagree with or find offensive. What people fail to understand is that no one can make you feel anything, we choose our reactions to words. They needn't be any more troubling than we allow them to be, but if we're not completely stupid, the disturbing ones might just give us an opportunity to grow. Thanks for adding to all of our opportunities.

I've said it many times, but it's comforting to have a deep sense of agreement with someone, but I definitely learn more from those whose perspective is different from mine in some way.
 

kalipygian

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Posts
1,948
Media
31
Likes
139
Points
193
Age
68
Location
alaska
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
MZ, sorry for being obscure. See is the seat of a bishop, from latin 'sede' (the Vatican is called the 'holy see'). Bishop is from greek, literally 'overseer', epi-scopus, they were then chosen locally, and afterwards confirmed by other area bishops. The Bishop (later patriarch) of Alexandria was the metropolitan (or primate) of Egypt, meaning he had a degree of authority over the whole province, up the nile, the 'pentopolis' (modern Jordan) and Cyrenaica to the west. The Bishop of Carthage was primate of Africa. The Bishop of Rome was the primate of the latin speaking area, but not yet really Pope in the modern, very monarchical sense, he didn't, for example appoint bishops to other established sees, and couldn't really order anyone beyond the city. During the byzantine period, the Patriarch of Constantinople was the most important bishop, but was under the authority of the emperors, as were the bishops of Rome, more or less effectively up untill the iconoclast controversy in the 8thc.

(the Popes these days appoint someone from the Curia as Patriarch of Alexandria 'in partibus infidelium', purely an honorific)
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
This is a personal rhetorical question.I just can't get to understand what it is that Christians believe.The Canon isn't clear in authenticity and some of Mathew is quite honestly horrifyng ref. 19:12 and Origen's self castration etc. Also see canon I of Nicea - self castrators can't become priests - well wow. First item on the agenda.The creeds keep being changed for political and theological reasons. There are many in daily practice around the world.Was Jesus Divine on the cross and if so, how can a divinity die? If you are begotten of God, surely you are divine, or just semi divine. I can't buy into any of it when so many things are unclear.When it suits, it's metaphorical, when it can be, it's litteral. And again, how can you be monotheistic with a Trinity? The other Abrahamic religions don't have this problem. The problem was caused by the in fighting of the Apostles and their subsequent followers and the truth is lost.Back on topic - Constantine always favoured Arius, looked after him after the council of Nicea and indeed was only baptised after the council, by one of Arius' bishops.It's a funny old world.
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,997
Media
3
Likes
23,739
Points
643
Gender
Male

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
LP see my interpretation of Matthew 19:12 here

183

which isn't horrific at all:smile:.

Your interpretation would mean that the issue of gay priests was first item on the agenda at Nicea in 325 AD.

I like that idea so very much Dreamer.

So nothing has changed - only they voted to ban gay priests in 325 AD, unless they were born gay or forced to be gay by another man, but not if they affected gayness and weren't.