I believe that the current religions of this world have been corrupted by greedy and evil men.
Christinaity was organized in the begining of the fourth centruy by Constatine and the Council of Nicea...at this time they picked and choose among text that the myriad of christians at the time had. Thye choose passages and books that would support their version of Christianity as the only path to salvation, and deemed everythign else heretical. Then they started a covert war on all things that didnt fit w/in their little framwork, they killed people, destroyed records and burned sources of information. We may never know what Jesus life was really about, all we have is what they allowed to propogate, which was mainly their view of things. Among these things were tenants like the trinity, hellfire damnation, and others. Ofcourse none of this can be proven....b/c anything that would have proved it has been destroyed or hidden away so completely it has been or will be millenia more until it is uncovered. Modern people of the faith seem to turn on serious blinders anytime you point out that a lot of the "rules" of their faith make absolutely no sense....I guess they prefer their faith undisturbed....I find that weak. A faith untested by the keeper of the faith, is useless.
Other religion also have suffered form this, some we are seeing today in the perversion of the Islamic faith by radical extremeist, I am sure other religions on this planet have also been corrupted by politicians, and this is the thread to discuss those.
This thread can easily devolve into a flame fest....please people, try to keep that from happening. Even if you dont agree w/ someone, respect their opinion, and do not insult them.
Lets discuss the myriad theories, ideas and conspiracies which plague modern religions...and maybe, just maybe, we can find a nugget of truth in all the lies.
It is neither Atheism or any form of worship. Wether or not there is a God is irrelevant in my life, I care more about developing a good education and a good set of morales from the world around me, and then using them to help my fellow humans, regardless of faith or lack thereof.
my faith is that there is a being above us on the spiritual food chain. I don't know if it dictates this world or not. all I know is that some freaky shit is happeneing here.
So, would you classify that as agonstic? Or are you simply apathetic towards religion? Or are they the same thing?
I think, by definition, you could call yourself agnostic.
ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk) n.
1a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 1b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
The "I don't care bit" is apparently irrelevant to being agnostic.
I'm a christain with high Hebrew overtones that simply refuses to succumb to organized religion.
I don't go to church. I just read the Torah and the Synoptic Gospels.
I get alot of hell from Christian right wingers who say that If I dont' renounce all other religion and accept that Christ is the only way into heaven, I'll go to hell.
I refuse to believe that christ is the one and only way. I do think christ equals salvation for those who choose to take his message to heart, but that it's not a free ride, and that there are other ways, such as self redemption, Hinduism and the like.
You call the thread "Validate Your Faith", maybe you should do that. This is nothing but a thinly veiled attack on Christianity, presenting arguments that have been dismantled and disproven in other threads. Once again, if you have no proof for your theory, it has no merit, and nobody has any reason to believe a word of it. If you want to talk about your own beliefs, that's fine, go to it, but this constant harping on the same tired accusations has really got to stop. If you want to re-launch this thread and call it "Conspiracy Theories", have at it, but this is nothing but rank hypocrisy. Unless you open your mind up to what other people have to say about your ideas, what reason would any of us have to extend that courtesy to you?
I am curious what your religious stance is. It doesn't seem right to create a thread about validating religion without validating your own. Your tends to be confusing and contradictory in the other threads, I'd kind of like to have a straight answer.
Christianity was along far before the Council of Nicaea the only thing that that council did was set the date for the christian passover or Easter. There were 7 generally accepted Ecumenical councils which include both councils of Nicea.
They did nothing of the likes of which you speak. Alot of the Ecumenial Counicls were over the Arian Controversy. They didn't write or re-write the religion like you suggest.
You can't even spell Nicaea right, why should I take you seriously? You can't prove faith, that's why it's faith. I know why I have faith, I have faith that the sun still exists, according to Einstein it could suddenly vansh, and we wouldn't know for seven minuets. Do you think the sun exists? Who are you to tell me the sun is gone?
I like it how you contradict your sources when you cite them.
Sure, christianity existed far before 325, most of the epistles date from the first century and the gospels from the late first or early second century.
But early christianity was not centralized and was not by any means a coherent or generally accepted doctrine. The Arians believed considerably differently from the gnostics, believed considerably differently from the churches in Asia Minor from the churches started in rome and greece. Haver you ever seriously looked at the differences between Catholic christianity and Orthodox christianity? They both date from the same time period. In fact, orthodox christianity is directly decended from the first seven ecumenical councils.
You can learn this much by reading the new testament itself.
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."
If you accept the common date for this, Paul was writing this appeal in about AD 57, within 30 years of the death of Jesus.
What do you think 300 years did to the beliefs of those people, particularly after Jerusalem was destroyed and communities of christians became isolated and independant of one another?
The first council of Nicea was the first meeting among all of the christian sects after christianity was legalized and recognized. It was called by the Roman Emperor constantine the great in 325.
Constantine's motives for this were, in the large part, political. He knew christianity had great power among it's adherents, indeed they had been dying for it for 200 years and yet it had still spread.
he knew that if he could turn his empire to christianity, it would provide new life into the beseiged roman empire.
The first council of nicea decided many of the major issues of faith in the church. They even decided exactly what was going to be in the bible and what wasnt. Much of what they decided they did in political fashion. The nicene creed has it's roots in the baptismal creed proposed by Esubius of Ceasaria and was accepted by the others.
The fact is, around 1800 leaders of the early christian church came together in 325 and decided upon what they thought the correct doctrine was, they did this in much the same way any legislative body has done so since time immemorial. to believe otherwise is to be nieve.
Now, I would ask, why does this matter. There are examples in the bible of meetings just like this.
These were men, and they decided what they thought the correct way to worship god was, their thoughts were falliable just as yours or mine are. What matters is that you think for yourself, if you look at all the evidence and accept what you believe to be true, you can decide for yourself whether or not they erred in their choices or not.
We're talking of the first council of Nicaea. The agenda of the synod were:
The Arian question; The celebration of Passover; The Meletian schism; The Father and Son one in purpose or in person; The baptism of heretics; The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.
and other problems addressed:
1. prohibition of self-castration; (see Origen) 2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen; 3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion; 4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the metropolitan; 5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually; 6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the bishops of Alexandria and Rome, for their respective regions; 7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem; 8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists; 9–14. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius; 15–16. prohibition of the removal of priests; 17. prohibition of usury among the clergy; 18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving Holy Communion, the Eucharist; 19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics; 20. prohibition of kneeling during the liturgy, on Sundays and in the fifty days of Eastertide ("the pentecost"). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Orthodox. (In time, Western Christianity adopted the term Pentecost to refer to the last Sunday of Eastertide, the fiftieth day.) [24]
Of course throughout the council's they decided which books would be in the NT and, which wouldn't. This was not done lightly, most books were excluded due to the author being unkown and, authenticity being questionable. Consatantine called this council for political reasons. They did not re-write the bible like he is suggesting.
Yes, but Erok is making a huge conspiracy theory out of it, and going waaayyy overboard in everything. It would be easier to figure out what he means if he would tell "validate" his faith, but he hasn't been online since I asked him to, so it will remain a mystery for a while.
Your second attempt to disprove Christianity has failed. Also, if you want to discuss validations of religion, referring to ALL religion, bring it here.
And stop with the Da Vinci Code-Style conspiracies to make-up an organized religion. That's getting very freaking old.
