Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Dogma: While I agree that many people subscribe to the idea of a lowest common denominator in terms of acceptance as a Christian, that LCD is the Nicene Creed.

Sure, that's the lowest common denominator if the category being discussed is Nicene Christianity, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing Christianity as a whole. Its very similar to discussing the category of Abrahamic Religions as requiring the belief in Abraham as a significant figure.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Religions such as: LDS, RLDS, Jehovah's Witness, etc. are definitively not Christian. Take a closer look at their faith and you will understand why. Just because some has the same name for something, that doesn't mean it is the same thing.

But its not simply the same name. The Mormon Church for example specifically acknowledges that the Jesus figure in the Book of Mormon is the same one spoken of in the New Testament. That is sufficient to categorize their beliefs as Christian. Just as the acknowledgment given to Abraham in any canonical mention of the OT in a Christian Bible is sufficient to consider that Bible, and the denomination which holds it sacred, as being a component of the Abrahamic category.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Almost all the churches I have ever been to, and trust me that is plenty all over the world, acknowledge the authority and wisdom of the first 7 ecumenical councils.

That's fine. Most Christians the world over are Nicene Christians. That doesn't mean that there aren't other kinds of Christians.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Those council's took place because of things like gnosticism, which you pointed out, arianism, nestorianism, etc. as they were heretical, and ultimately unhealthy for the Body of Christ. That is why the creeds were introduced as the basic requirements of the Faith. They give the terms and definitions that are prerequisite to membership in the Body of Christ.

Which is just ancillary theological posturing.

Thanks for admitting mistaken thought. +1 to respect.
Booyakasha!

youngblood wrote:
Dogma, how come you understand christianity better than 90% of those who belong to the religion?

I have far too much time on my hands.

dogma wrote:

youngblood wrote:
Dogma, how come you understand christianity better than 90% of those who belong to the religion?

I have far too much time on my hands.

I was thinking it was because you are the Einstein of faith.

I like your answer more.

@Dogma: While I respect your ability to write very impressive looking sentences, I am a little disappointed in their content.

"Nicene" Chrrsitianity is not "one kind of Christianity" it is Christianity. You claim this is theological posturing. You compare it to the Reformation claims of sola scriptura and the modern American tendency to believe that "my personal interpretation, based on my feelings, is the right one" that GenerealGrok wisely warned against earlier in the thread. The difference that you're missing is history. (JEB tried to point this out, but you ignored him.) The Nicene Creed wasn't invented at Nicea. It represents what orthodox Christian communities had believed since the earthly ministry of Christ. Were their other Christians who believed otherwise? Yes, of course. In the case of Nicea, the most powerful group were called Arians. But after a long debate, it was "settled" (as dogma at least) that the teachings of the orthodox Christians rather than the Arians represented the authentic teaching of Jesus.

Acknowledging the religious significance of the historical human being Jesus, as the groups that JEB mentioned do, does not make one a Christian. Just ask Muslims, who see Jesus as a prophet second only to Mohammed in importance, whether they are Christians.

JEB is 100% correct. The doctrine of the Trinity is the lowest common denominator of Christianity. If a groups claims to be Christian but does not accept this, they are not Christian. It's quite simple: one cannot claim to be something that one does not meet the definition of and it does not matter how much one cries "but that's not my definition!"

dogma wrote:Sure, that's the lowest common denominator if the category being discussed is Nicene Christianity, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing Christianity as a whole. Its very similar to discussing the category of Abrahamic Religions as requiring the belief in Abraham as a significant figure.

Except for the major point of the nature of Christ and of God. The Church established what is necessary to be a Christian, and that is the standard that is agreed upon. Whether or not you claim the title of "Christian" is pure semantics, the reality is the beliefs one must adhere to in order to be included as a Christian has already been established.

dogma wrote:But its not simply the same name. The Mormon Church for example specifically acknowledges that the Jesus figure in the Book of Mormon is the same one spoken of in the New Testament. That is sufficient to categorize their beliefs as Christian. Just as the acknowledgment given to Abraham in any canonical mention of the OT in a Christian Bible is sufficient to consider that Bible, and the denomination which holds it sacred, as being a component of the Abrahamic category.

Sure they do, and they also say that Christ is the brother of Lucifer, not God in the flesh - but rather his first born, etc. That is definitively not the Christ of the New Testament, and therefore not Christian. It is a religion, but one outside the realm of Christendom.

dogma wrote:That's fine. Most Christians the world over are Nicene Christians. That doesn't mean that there aren't other kinds of Christians.

By my definition, and that of the Church fathers, the modern church, most Christians, etc, it sure does. You can claim that they are because of the things they say, but because the Creeds are defined as the definition of the faith, they are not included as being Christians. Just as if one hailed the Emperor of Japan as his leader, practiced Zen, and ate sushi, but was a Spaniard. It doesn't make him any more Japanese then his neighbors. He claimed all the things that many would consider Japanese, but definitely was not.

dogma wrote:Which is just ancillary theological posturing.

If you consider the nature of God, Grace, Salvation, etc. to be nothing but ancillary theological posturing. I sure don't, and no real Christian does either...

Emperors Faithful wrote:
@Luna: Yes, ones attidue does have a lot to do with how they come out of a situation. But in regards to your 'sad wounded vet' vs your 'happy wounded vet' in both situations I would call getting your legs blown off (then maybe getting abandoned by the government) as a crap situation. Their outlook can make the best of it, but it still sucks.

Look at it this way:

You see a woman being attacked in a rape attempt on the street corner. You could easily intervene, run out and stop this vile act. Not even that, the phone is right next to you, so you could call the police. No one else can hear this womans sceams. (Aside from the offender) you alone hold power over what this situation turns into.

1: You do the honourable thing. Why wouldn't you? This woman is clearly in danger, and about to be taken advantage of. You stop this madness, or at least call for help from others.

2: You don't do anything. You watch. Maybe you got a sick luagh out of it. Maybe you take pictures. Maybe you tell yourself 'It's all how she mentally recieves the rape'. Doesn't change the fact that you could have helped this person, at no cost to yourself, but you didn't.

I say again. "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

Again EF , you are misunderstanding my sentence. NOWHERE did i mention about what God "should do" or " not do "
Infact i wasnt even discussing about that .

All i was saying is , humans have the choice when they are faced with an irreversible event ,
to either face it positively , or negatively.
Because positive outlook brings a possibility of a future , while same negativeness will get nowhere always sad , all the time.

Are you understanding me now? yes im mad because you are sort of calling me to be inhumane because
i wasnt even talking about the samething you thought i was.

Ive only been here a fortnight and im tired of reading the word existential nihilist....

What does that mean to the great unwashed like myself? I've heard of 'righteous douchebag.' is that related?

Yes definitely.

"ve are Nihilists Lebowski. Ve believe in Nothink!"


"****, Nihilists! Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism- at least it's an ethos!"

Mannahnin wrote:"ve are Nihilists Lebowski. Ve believe in Nothink!"

"But his girlfriend cut off her toe. It's not fair!"

"Fair?!?! Who's the fething nihilist??/"

LunaHound wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
@Luna: Yes, ones attidue does have a lot to do with how they come out of a situation. But in regards to your 'sad wounded vet' vs your 'happy wounded vet' in both situations I would call getting your legs blown off (then maybe getting abandoned by the government) as a crap situation. Their outlook can make the best of it, but it still sucks.

Look at it this way:

You see a woman being attacked in a rape attempt on the street corner. You could easily intervene, run out and stop this vile act. Not even that, the phone is right next to you, so you could call the police. No one else can hear this womans sceams. (Aside from the offender) you alone hold power over what this situation turns into.

1: You do the honourable thing. Why wouldn't you? This woman is clearly in danger, and about to be taken advantage of. You stop this madness, or at least call for help from others.

2: You don't do anything. You watch. Maybe you got a sick luagh out of it. Maybe you take pictures. Maybe you tell yourself 'It's all how she mentally recieves the rape'. Doesn't change the fact that you could have helped this person, at no cost to yourself, but you didn't.

I say again. "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

Again EF , you are misunderstanding my sentence. NOWHERE did i mention about what God "should do" or " not do "
Infact i wasnt even discussing about that .

All i was saying is , humans have the choice when they are faced with an irreversible event ,
to either face it positively , or negatively.
Because positive outlook brings a possibility of a future , while same negativeness will get nowhere always sad , all the time.

Are you understanding me now? yes im mad because you are sort of calling me to be inhumane because
i wasnt even talking about the samething you thought i was.

Someone wise once told me there are always 2 type of people in Dakka's Off Topic Forum:

Type A) They are interested in what you want to discuss, and would discuss it with you.

Type B) They care not for what you want to say nor do they care for what you want to discuss. They only care what you have said. And will hammer you over and over again ignoring the purpose and intention of the thread provided if your original statement isn't solid and allows the possibility for them to re twist the words. They pride themselves in arguing this way as "winning an debate".

Sometimes in the heat of a debate, we forget this... Now, I am going to try to interpret Luna again... Every body duck!

I think Luna is the optimist
I think Wrex, EF, et al share the pessimists point of view.

tblock1984 wrote:
Someone wise once told me there are always 2 type of people in Dakka's Off Topic Forum:

Type A) They are interested in what you want to discuss, and would discuss it with you.

Type B) They care not for what you want to say nor do they care for what you want to discuss. They only care what you have said. And will hammer you over and over again ignoring the purpose and intention of the thread provided if your original statement isn't solid and allows the possibility for them to re twist the words. They pride themselves in arguing this way as "winning an debate".

Wait lol.... errrrrrrr o_o

JEB_Stuart wrote:Except for the major point of the nature of Christ and of God. The Church established what is necessary to be a Christian, and that is the standard that is agreed upon. Whether or not you claim the title of "Christian" is pure semantics, the reality is the beliefs one must adhere to in order to be included as a Christian has already been established.

So I take it none of Arians can be considered Christian, then? None of the Unitarians, or the Gnostics? Even if they existed before the Creed was laid down? If, at any point, a person could be considered Christian without subscribing to the Nicene Creed, then the Nicene Creed is not the defining element of the Christian faith. Unless you're going to claim that God's true revelation is found within the Nicene Creed, in which case you should really call yourself Nicene Disciples and avoid the confusion.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Sure they do, and they also say that Christ is the brother of Lucifer, not God in the flesh - but rather his first born, etc. That is definitively not the Christ of the New Testament, and therefore not Christian. It is a religion, but one outside the realm of Christendom.

Yes, because the notion of contradiction within scripture is simply ridiculous.

The trinity is a nonsensical doctrine, which is fine as it doesn't have to make sense in order to be believable. However, it does have to make sense in order to be the only possible answer. Its no more than a clever piece of theology designed to answer a question of faith posed by many believers as the direct result of contradictory passages in the New Testament. To pretend that it somehow makes earthly sense, in anyway beyond "He can be three things at once, He's omnipotent", is disingenuous.

While it makes sense to refuse to believe something because it contradicts something else you previously believes, it does not make sense to put them in the same category if that is what the nature of the thing requires. Mormonism is clearly a Christian faith. Simply because one strand of Christianity has been historically dominant it does not follow that it can dictate what it is to be Christian.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
By my definition, and that of the Church fathers, the modern church, most Christians, etc, it sure does. You can claim that they are because of the things they say, but because the Creeds are defined as the definition of the faith, they are not included as being Christians.

That's absolutely circular, and therefore irrelevant.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Just as if one hailed the Emperor of Japan as his leader, practiced Zen, and ate sushi, but was a Spaniard. It doesn't make him any more Japanese then his neighbors. He claimed all the things that many would consider Japanese, but definitely was not.

That's more supportive of my position than yours as the point turns on the necessity of being of Japanese descent to be considered Japanese. A person who was born in Japan, to Japanese parents, but lacks any value for the traditions of his people is still Japanese in the sense of heritage if not culture.

You're essentially arguing that, in order to be Japanese, one would have to be born in Japan, to Japanese parents, and profess adherence to Japanese cultural norms. Which is all well and good if you're discussing your feelings about what a Japanese person is, but it isn't particularly useful if you're trying to reach a category of people that are, in some sense, Japanese.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
If you consider the nature of God, Grace, Salvation, etc. to be nothing but ancillary theological posturing. I sure don't, and no real Christian does either...

It might not be ancillary to you, as a Christian, but is is ancillary to determining whether or not you actually are a Christian. Remember, the vast majority of people that claim "He isn't a true Christian" really mean "I don't like what he believes". That's the whole point of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Agree with Dogma.

Manchu wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Manchu:
Unfortunately, not everyone can pull off that stunt of rising from the dead. After the point about Jesus...well to be honest you kina lost me. What did that have to do with God choosing not to stop evil-doers?

Remember the story of Jesus in the desert being tempted by Satan? (I assume you've heard the Gospel at some point or at least are generally familiar with it.) One of the things that Satan says is "if you're really the Son of God, throw yourself off this high place and surely God will save you." Now the idea is not that this literally happened (maybe it did, who knows, that's beside the point) but rather that Satan's temptation represents the idea that God's existence should be premised on our ability to "test" it by having no bad things happen to people in general but especially not to the faithful. But this is a misunderstanding of faith, of God's relationship to humanity, and of humanity itself. As I said, human beings are free. If God went around "stopping" evil-doers we would no longer be free. And then what would it mean to do good? Good that is not chosen is not good. Not moral good anyway. It can still be a practical good, like having food. But this isn't the same thing as morality.

I see your agrument here, and it does have it points. But if that is the case, and God does not wish to take away our free will, why then does he not at least give out justice to the evil-doers? I'm sure you believe that they will be punished in the afterlife (If they don't repent), but forgive me if I take that theory with a grain of salt.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So wait? What IS christianity?

Is it whatever the Nicean Council declared? Or is it about Jesus? (the two may overlap, but meh)

At the time, there were many churches that recognised Jesus as the Messiah, but not his divinity. (which I don't remember in any prophecies either)

At the Council of Nicea, all the leaders of the Christian communities in the world gathered together and had a great debate on the subject of "what is Christianity"? The result was the Nicene Creed, which is a comprehensive statement of what Christians believe. The ideas of the Arians, to whom you refer, were basically thrown out and never fully recovered thereafter (although there were plenty of powerful Arians for a long time after). The idea that the creed defined by the Nicene Council is not about Jesus is totally laughable.

Now that, in all honesty, is naive.
The Nicene Council was not about Jesus, it was about thier 'interpertation' of Jesus, and what they deemed to be orthodox. Anyone who had a slightly different view, like tha Arians, were cast out.
And there are th issues of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why did the council refuse to acknowledge THEM?

Back on topic (kinda):

@Luna: Sorry, I do suppose I get carried away. The 'rape' scenario was not aimed at you specifically, but at the thread in general. I see your point now, how being a pessimist or an optimist has a great affect on your fate. But that doesn't change the fact that horrible things happen regardless. My argument was that regardless on peoples attidute, good people should have these things happen to them. In a 'just' universe.

I don't know why this thread is eating away at me so much. I don't ussually care a great deal for threads like these.

Oh, yeah. That's right. There was a storm and the surfs crap here. I've got nothing better to do.

dogma wrote:So I take it none of Arians can be considered Christian, then? None of the Unitarians, or the Gnostics?

Exactly, they are not Christians. They do not believe a the definitive teaching of Christianity. So they are not Christian.

Unless you're going to claim that God's true revelation is found within the Nicene Creed, in which case you should really call yourself Nicene Disciples and avoid the confusion.

We believe that God' revelation is a person, Jesus Christ. The creed is not that person but the summary of our belief in Him.

The trinity is a nonsensical doctrine, which is fine as it doesn't have to make sense in order to be believable. However, it does have to make sense in order to be the only possible answer.

More smoke and mirrors, dogma. The only possible "logical" answer? You acknowledged in the preceding sentence that was impossible. Besides the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity in purely logical terms is ANCILLARY to to this discussion (I know you like that word)

Its no more than a clever piece of theology designed to answer a question of faith posed by many believers as the direct result of contradictory passages in the New Testament.

A-historical an incorrect yet again. The doctrine of the Trinity did not come from readings of scripture.

Mormonism is clearly a Christian faith.

No it isn't and this isn't an argument. Mormons do not believe what Christians believe. They talk about Jesus and somewhat incorporate the New Testament--heavily modified through the lens of their own revealed text--and that's where the similarities end.

Remember, the vast majority of people that claim "He isn't a true Christian" really mean "I don't like what he believes".

But that's not what JEB or I am saying. We're saying that there is a definition of Christian and some people do not meet it. You're saying that the word "Christian" basically means whatever anyone who uses it wants it to mean. That might sound convincing here on Dakka but it does not reflect any serious consideration of religion (which is exactly why it works on OT).

Manchu wrote:
The difference that you're missing is history. (JEB tried to point this out, but you ignored him.) The Nicene Creed wasn't invented at Nicea. It represents what orthodox Christian communities had believed since the earthly ministry of Christ.

There was no such thing as an orthodox Christian community prior to the council at Nicaea. You're painting history retroactively. Many people understood the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in a manner similar to that which is described in the Trinity (though we have no way of knowing how many). The most definitive thing you can say is that the Nicene Creed was written as it is because it was the dominant opinion. However, that does not mean it was the only opinion. You can claim that anyone who didn't accept the consensus was a heretic, but even heretics are Christians.

Manchu wrote:
Acknowledging the religious significance of the historical human being Jesus, as the groups that JEB mentioned do, does not make one a Christian. Just ask Muslims, who see Jesus as a prophet second only to Mohammed in importance, whether they are Christians.

I didn't state that one must acknowledge that Jesus was 'historically significant' in order to be a Christian. I stated that you had to accept him as the Messiah. Muslims accept him as a significant prophet, not as the Messiah.

Manchu wrote:
It's quite simple: one cannot claim to be something that one does not meet the definition of and it does not matter how much one cries "but that's not my definition!"

Interesting...

Manchu wrote:
Yes, of course. In the case of Nicea, the most powerful group were called Arians. But after a long debate, it was "settled" (as dogma at least) that the teachings of the orthodox Christians rather than the Arians represented the authentic teaching of Jesus.

You've already labeled Christians who did not agree with the doctrine of the Trinity as Christians. Therefore that cannot be the basic standard for the definition of the term. You can add more if you want, but it doesn't change the fundamental meaning of the term. This is logic 101.

Mormonism is clearly a Christian faith.

No it isn't and this isn't an argument. Mormons do not believe what Nicean Disciples believe. They talk about Jesus and somewhat incorporate the New Testament--heavily modified through the lens of their own revealed text--and that's where the similarities end.

Fixed it for you.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Now that, in all honesty, is naive.
The Nicene Council was not about Jesus, it was about thier 'interpertation' of Jesus, and what they deemed to be orthodox. Anyone who had a slightly different view, like tha Arians, were cast out.
And there are th issues of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Why did the council refuse to acknowledge THEM?

EF, I like you, but this discussion is pretty much at a stand-still until you learn more about the things you want to discuss.

EF , if you believe that im once again a humane person and not a satanist , there is still something i havnt discussed yet we can do in PM

Mormonism is technically a form of Islam.

They worship Jesus but they also worship other gods, just like Islamics worship Allah and Muhammad (which is like their trinity).

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Mormonism is clearly a Christian faith.

No it isn't and this isn't an argument. Mormons do not believe what Nicean Disciples believe. They talk about Jesus and somewhat incorporate the New Testament--heavily modified through the lens of their own revealed text--and that's where the similarities end.

Fixed it for you.

Who are you quoting? Did I miss something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Mormonism is technically a form of Islam.

They worship Jesus but they also worship other gods, just like Islamics worship Allah and Muhammad (which is like their trinity).

That deserves an Orkish Facepalm!!!

Are you referring to Heavenly Mother? She is not part of the Godhead. This isn't like Bill and Hillary... Elohim's wives haven't been worshiped since early in the 20th century...

@Orkeo: Woah, mate. You are WAAAAY off there. I lived in Dubai for most of my childhood, and none of my Arab friends ever viewed Mohammed as a god. They viewed him as a great man, a prophet, but not a divine being.

Just like I look at Mother Teresa as a great women, a wonderful person, but not as a god.

Muslims respect and revere Mohammed, but they do not worship him as God like they do Allah.

@tblock1984: I was qouting Manchu, who was qouting JEB. I kinda fethed it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tblock1984 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Mormonism is technically a form of Islam.

They worship Jesus but they also worship other gods, just like Islamics worship Allah and Muhammad (which is like their trinity).

That deserves an Orkish Facepalm!!!

+1

Also, where did you get that Orkish facepalm? That's so cool!

dogma wrote:There was no such thing as an orthodox Christian community prior to the council at Nicaea.

*sigh* Yes there was. Like EF, you need to learn a little more about the things you want to discuss. You have a good sense of method in argumen (i.e., logic) but your premises are pretty faulty. Example:

dogma wrote: I stated that you had to accept him as the Messiah.

And what pray tell do you think this means apart from a Trinitarian understanding of God? Whatever it is, it's not Christianity.

dogma wrote:You've already labeled Christians who did not agree with the doctrine of the Trinity as Christians. Therefore that cannot be the basic standard for the definition of the term. You can add more if you want, but it doesn't change the fundamental meaning of the term. This is logic 101.

I believe you could teach logic 101. But you're in desperate need of introductory courses on history and theology. The point that I was trying to make is that Arians believed themselves to be Christians not that they actually were in a doctrinal sense. For example, there are many people in the parishes who hold Arian opinions quite unconsciously. Does this effect whether or not they are Christians? You are mixing categories. With regard to dogmatic definitions heretics are not Christians. When we talk about doctrine we are in the realm of "you must believe X in order to profess Christianity." If one does not, one is not Christian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Mormonism is technically a form of Islam.

They worship Jesus but they also worship other gods, just like Islamics worship Allah and Muhammad (which is like their trinity).

Epic. I love you Orkeo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:@tblock1984: I was qouting Manchu, who was qouting JEB. I kinda fethed it up.

Actually, I think I was quoting dogma. JEB would not have stated that Mormonism is a type of Christianity.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:That deserves an Orkish Facepalm!!!

+1

Also, where did you get that Orkish facepalm? That's so cool!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/265813.page
At the bottom...