Why does everyone cite the Bible as the "end all, be all" reference? perhaps because the majority discussing are christian or have some christian knowledge, i.e. the Bible? What makes YOUR view/ belief any more or less right/ acceptable than say Muslims, or Jews, or Tribal belie in deep Africa or Native Americans? Why is ONE God more right than several or many Gods? Because the Bible says so? Again, why cite the Bible over the Koran or the Tora (sp?), ancient verbal stories from the Cherokee, etc? Just a few more questions to throw into the mix. I certainly do not have any answers that will please any more than a few who think like I do.
Sorry, Coel. I didn't mean to overstate the issue. Is it accurate to say that the nature of Jesus' divinity was not something that was universally agreed upon immediately upon his death and resurrection? That varying interpretations existed which required that definitions be put in place, such as the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed?
Coel, after your post, I realized that I might have made some assumptions about the Council at Nicea that were not historically accurate. In the interest of furthering my own understanding, I did some reading this evening about that event. I already had a book that I have yet to read in its entirety entitled Constantine's Sword, written by a Roman Catholic priest named James Carroll. Its a historical perspective primarily focusing on the relatinship between Judaism and Christianity. Its a huge book, so I'm not sure if I recommend it as something for casual interest, but its what I had on hand as it was written by a schoolmate of my godfather's and he had recommended it to me. Please know that I'm not trying to be intentionally contentious with this post. You just piqued an interest and I did some reading. In regard to the overwhelming vote that you cited as evidence of uniformity in early Christianity regarding the nature of Jesus' divinity, Carroll provides a more political explanation. The two dissenters that you mentioned were exiled by Constantine. From the footnote of the book, which cites an exact quote from Eusebius (c 260 - c 339) who was a historian documenting Constantine's life and as such the proceedings of the council: "On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious emperor, before any one else, testified that it was most orthodox. He confessed, moreover, that such were his own sentiments; and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word Consubstantial which, moreover, he interpreted himself saying the Son subsisted from the Father neither according to division, nor severance: for the immaterial and intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any bodily affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And our most wise and most religious emperor reasoned in this way; but they, because of the addition of Consubstantial, drew up the following formulary." Its sounds to me like there was a good bit of pressure being applied there in the council chambers. I'm open to other explanation, but from what I've read, I stand by my original assertion that one of the primary purposes of the council was to codify the nature of Jesus' divinity, and that there may well have been more diversity on that issue than the overwhelming vote that you describe indicates. More interestingly and something that cames as totally new information to me is that the cross was not a particularly revered Christian symbol until the time of Constantine. Carroll also discusses the evolution of the Nicene Creed over the more than dozen councils from 325 to 381. In reply to:
I found this looking for bozo cass' thread about his pink shirt. These debates were the best of and the worst of what Quack's was. It is too bad that more of these aren't archived. Aside from some of the predictable snipes, there were some great discussions in the past.
I agree with Wash re: the past discussions. The fact that over the years Go_ has been so heavily involved could lead one to suspect he is genuinely searching for some answers, and that's great. The answer to the question "who is saved?" is central to the discussion of God's justice. The threat to non-believers and inherent coercive nature of that threat has troubled me as well over the years. Presumptively, if a good person who does not believe is not saved because he is not a sheep in the flock, then God is not just. I happen to believe, however (as a lifelong Catholic), that although one may not believe during life that there can be mitigating factors: 1. Never knowing the truth--i.e., being exposed to religion but in the heart never believing that a Christian God exists (only good and evil). 2. Knowing the truth at one time but being misled--i.e., the acts of ministers or the world doing such extreme violence to a person's faith that then the faith dies and the belief in God is lost. In these two instances I must say that I personally believe God's mercy will act to fill the interstice that is the mystery driving this discussion. The text-scholars may differ, but they too are by definition unfit to judge the soul of fellow people. Therefore a comfortable acceptance of this mystery is crucial to my own delicate, very human faith. And that is why I have such a difficult time with pious, judgmental individuals. JMVHO, HTH.
Bless this thread for the token appearance of Brickhorn. The discussion has been far too soft. From the allusions to injustice on god's part that have been made previously, I conclude that hell and gods administration of justice are the most evil abomidation of thought ever to come down the pike. According to this conception of hell and "justice", god is an infinite sum of the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Ivan the Terrible, etc. And his followers are legion. This seems to me one of the saddest facts of human existance. It is no small effort to live ones life free of this oppressive notion. The sanctity of religious expression, conventionally speaking, is wholly unjustified. Have a great weekend.
As I've always believed, God created man. Man created religion. And while he/she was at it, man also made a helluva lot of assumptions about God's opinions. The God that I believe in is a kind and loving being that does not punish, condem, or turn anyone away. No matter the reason. Now, if only we could all be that "godlike", how much better would this world be?
i was trying to figure out why the stuff i wrote was vaguely familiar, but nothing i remembered typing. i thought maybe i was drunk at the time, but then i noticed the date.
my first thought was, damn, I must have been working my tail off to miss a 6 pager. as to the topic, I'll throw in another side comment... while I do believe there are clear ways to avoid the judgment of God, I can't say that heaven and hell is as clear as many Christians make it out to be. Heck, the OT has virtually no mention of either and is universally accepted by Christians as the "Word of God".
I really believe that LHG is a strong testament to why there should be female preachers. Her insight is so profound; I love reading these topics with her conjecture.
Coel: That may have been the final vote, but Arianism came w/n a rat's whisker of winning the day. Most of the delegates to Nicea were expected to come ready to fight for Arianism, modalism, et al., but the promises of imperial acceptance and no further persecution by the Empire per Constantine's word quelled that expectation. Past and present Constantinianism has been the single most harmful influence on the Church Universal. One need look no further than around the corner from where you live, from places as large as Thomas Ave. (Rd.?) Bapt. Church in Lynchburg, VA to Memphis, TN where this golden calf... was unveiled this past weekend to see the heresy in its modern manifestation.
