You say you want change but.....

[+Sherapy]

"one can adhere to the Nicene Creed and still have differences on other points." - yes, by definition of Nicene Congress deviation in one point constitutes a Heresy, while deviation on more than one point constitutes a non-Christian.

"I agree totally with the Nicene Creed." - No, you not! You do not believe in ONE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, as the Creed requires, and belong to some other church, which is not Catholic and not Apostolic. This alone makes you a Heretic in accordance to the traditional Christian views. But if you the same time have doubts in any other points of the Creed, this makes you a non-Christian. It does not matter what you yourself think about who you are. The religious Creeds must be always taken literally word-to-word, they contain no double sense - but the same time they must be treated with caution. For example I fully agree with Islamic Creed, Symbol of Faith "There is no God except Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet" - and this in the times of early Islam could make me a follower, but not in our times, when the Creed is interpreted in more narrow ways through their amended Theology. My agreement with Islamic Creed would not make the other Muslims to recognize me as one of them; similar way the other Christians (in traditional definition) would not recognize your views as Christian.

Very well said marabear!!!!!

[MARAB0D]

Very well said marabear!!!!!

I find that at all his generally nice personality, PA for some reasons fails to adhere to that part of Christian teaching which demands sincerety and honesty from the followers, for their "yes" to be for "yes" and "no" to be for "no". It is noticeable that his preference would be instead of yes or no to say "yes, but" or "but", and if necessary, support his position by an example irrelevant by sense but related by the wording. I suspect it may come from Peter, who managed to betray Jesus 3 times within one night and whose letters he likes to read as instruction-manual.

[+Paranoid Android]

Pa then your opinion on the bible would not be informed, it would be subjective based on your own filters( life experiences and claims of what you think.....)

therefore your appeal to "your" authority is your opinion correct?......

can you support your opinion with evidence that marabear's posit is in error....

Every person's view on the Bible is simply their "subjective" opinion. However, as I noted in an earlier post in this thread, not all interpretations are equally valid. My interpretation on various views has come after extensive research into the philosophy of each doctrine and then based on the textual strength of each view I have looked at. A lot of the time, these views correspond with the established protestant views. On occasion they bear closer resemblance to the Catholic view, or the Charismatic view, and on occasion they completely deviate from all traditional interpretations of scripture.

But in short, yes, they are subjective. I do not shy away from that. However, an important point to bring up is that I KNOW *yes, that word is in CAPITALS for a reason* I haven't got everything right. I KNOW there are parts of my beliefs I have wrong. For some reason, there seems to be an impression out there from people that a Christian who professes to be Christian must be right on absolutely everything, or else they're completely wrong on everything. I definitely don't agree with that.

While my subjective view of scripture suggests in my mind that I have it right, I am not anywhere near arrogant enough to say that I have it all right. I know there are parts of my beliefs that are wrong. That's human nature. But at the same time, I don't think such mistakes in my own world views somehow devalue the overall beliefs that I have (the comment you made about this being just a "subjective interpretation" or simply a personal opinion is completely false, for example).

I hope that makes sense, Sheri... it's coming on to 4am here and I'm really just reading and responding on the most banal level possible. But I think this basically covers the main points I'm trying to raise

~ PA

[+Paranoid Android]

"one can adhere to the Nicene Creed and still have differences on other points." - yes, by definition of Nicene Congress deviation in one point constitutes a Heresy, while deviation on more than one point constitutes a non-Christian.

"I agree totally with the Nicene Creed." - No, you not! You do not believe in ONE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, as the Creed requires, and belong to some other church, which is not Catholic and not Apostolic. This alone makes you a Heretic in accordance to the traditional Christian views. But if you the same time have doubts in any other points of the Creed, this makes you a non-Christian. It does not matter what you yourself think about who you are. The religious Creeds must be always taken literally word-to-word, they contain no double sense - but the same time they must be treated with caution. For example I fully agree with Islamic Creed, Symbol of Faith "There is no God except Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet" - and this in the times of early Islam could make me a follower, but not in our times, when the Creed is interpreted in more narrow ways through their amended Theology. My agreement with Islamic Creed would not make the other Muslims to recognize me as one of them; similar way the other Christians (in traditional definition) would not recognize your views as Christian.

Sorry marabod, but you don't understand what the "Catholic apostolic church" is. As far as I can see you are using "catholic" in the capitalised "Catholic" sense - in other words the "(Roma) Catholic Church". But the term "catholic" is not a signifier of a denomination, but rather a Greek term - "catholic" means "universal". This is the original etymology of the term from ancient Greece - "catholic" being a Greek term used to refer to "universal"

I am not surprised you would misunderstand the difference, but the term "catholic" simply refers to the universal (ie, total/complete) body of believers. The Nicene Creed does not require one to belong to a particular brand or denomination of Christianity, but simply to be a member of Christ's universal church - something that transcends the petty boundaries of "Roman Catholic", "Anglican", "Presbyterian", "Methodist", etc etc etc etc......

With that said, once we remove the entirely human-based earthly organisations upon which the earlier mentioned denominations rest, there can indeed be a universal catholic (universal) church - one that is not defined by a codified set of doctrines of any particular earthly organisation, but rather a common belief in Christ, something so universal it transcends such petty labels as "Catholic", "Anglican", "Presbyterian"... and so on and so forth.

I'm sorry that you haven't studied this in greater detail than I have, but I must say your comments display a complete lack of understanding in regard to this question (I hope that doesn't sound too derogatory). Good night, marabod

~ PA

[+Paranoid Android]

I find that at all his generally nice personality, PA for some reasons fails to adhere to that part of Christian teaching which demands sincerety and honesty from the followers, for their "yes" to be for "yes" and "no" to be for "no". It is noticeable that his preference would be instead of yes or no to say "yes, but" or "but", and if necessary, support his position by an example irrelevant by sense but related by the wording. I suspect it may come from Peter, who managed to betray Jesus 3 times within one night and whose letters he likes to read as instruction-manual.

Not really relevant to this thread, but I just wanted to point out that your whole "yes be yes and no be no" spiel is completely bastardised out of context to try and make your own comments seem more applicable to the discussion.

Your comments here have really lowered my appreciation for your comments, and I hope this doesn't get in the way of future productive discussions. All the best,

[Sakari]

Each Individual is responsible for " change "....Here are 2 examples that I will never get :

People here complaining about the economy , and loss of jobs here to other countries.( cheaper labor )..Everyone here knows the solution to this is to " buy American " , does everyone do this?...NO !...I do not understand why , I guess it is easier to complain.

WalMart : People here complain about WalMart's putting mom and pop stores out of business....Same thing , " do not shop there "....Does not happen.

Humans are Sheep , a bunch of "followers" , either by choice , or sometimes forced to.Than there are the occasional " black sheep " , that have the money and the time to make change.

Until everyone works together to make changes , those changes will never happen.

[MARAB0D]

Sorry marabod, but you don't understand what the "Catholic apostolic church" is. As far as I can see you are using "catholic" in the capitalised "Catholic" sense - in other words the "(Roma) Catholic Church". But the term "catholic" is not a signifier of a denomination, but rather a Greek term - "catholic" means "universal". This is the original etymology of the term from ancient Greece - "catholic" being a Greek term used to refer to "universal"

I am not surprised you would misunderstand the difference, but the term "catholic" simply refers to the universal (ie, total/complete) body of believers. The Nicene Creed does not require one to belong to a particular brand or denomination of Christianity, but simply to be a member of Christ's universal church - something that transcends the petty boundaries of "Roman Catholic", "Anglican", "Presbyterian", "Methodist", etc etc etc etc......

With that said, once we remove the entirely human-based earthly organisations upon which the earlier mentioned denominations rest, there can indeed be a universal catholic (universal) church - one that is not defined by a codified set of doctrines of any particular earthly organisation, but rather a common belief in Christ, something so universal it transcends such petty labels as "Catholic", "Anglican", "Presbyterian"... and so on and so forth.

I'm sorry that you haven't studied this in greater detail than I have, but I must say your comments display a complete lack of understanding in regard to this question (I hope that doesn't sound too derogatory). Good night, marabod

~ PA

Catholic Apostolic Church is a single religious organization, established by the Apostles of Christ, who were its first Bishops. It consisted of several independent churches, managed by the Apostles, and later by Bishops who succeeded them - in Egypt, Syria, Greece and Italy. What you have said is not true and I suggest you to drop the fantasies and read the church history. "Universal" means all these Churches were promoting one the same doctrine, established by Nicene Council, and nothing else. Rome has nothing to do with this at all, as out of 12 Apostles only two were operating there, Peter and Paul. In 2nd century AD Rome was already a small village with no significance, and not even a formally capital city, so "Roman church" was just a hut with the Bishop of Rome, residing in it as one of many Bishops. Contrary to what you may think in 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th centuries AD neither Rome as a city not the Western Roman Empire had any significance at all, and the entire political life of Europe was ruled from Constantinople. This was the initial sense of "catholic" meaning simply one church and one system of beliefs. You may check it with http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

"Roman" is not an attribute of "catholic" as at the current moment all churches, stemming directly from the initial Catholic Apostolic Church are "catholic" but not all use this word in their title. These churches are: Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Lutheran Church and Anglican Church. They have a right to claim as being established by the Apostles of Christ, and their Bishops represent these Apostles.

[MARAB0D]

Not really relevant to this thread, but I just wanted to point out that your whole "yes be yes and no be no" spiel is completely bastardised out of context to try and make your own comments seem more applicable to the discussion.

Your comments here have really lowered my appreciation for your comments, and I hope this doesn't get in the way of future productive discussions. All the best,

Pardon me! Which exactly "context" did I take these words out??? They were said by Jesus out of any context, he was simply teaching his students not to be sneaky. re-read the Gospels!

[+Sherapy]

Not really relevant to this thread, but I just wanted to point out that your whole "yes be yes and no be no" spiel is completely bastardised out of context to try and make your own comments seem more applicable to the discussion.

Your comments here have really lowered my appreciation for your comments, and I hope this doesn't get in the way of future productive discussions. All the best,

No, pa it wouldn't be out of context for marabear to evaluate and weigh the soundness of your opinion.

Nor would it be immaterial for him to seek clarity in your counters....

IMO you are taking this personal when marabear started by saying you are a lovely person, but setting that aside....In order to have a discussion of value for him, he requests that you frame your counter in a way that sincerely demonstrates your position. (how you have arrived at your counter is gonna matter a lot if its opinion or based in fact)...........

the reason for this is to establish the truth value or the level your pov is informed. in other words how sound is your counter..So far you have not posted any evidence for us to consider about jesus...) after countless requests)

In all fairness so far it appears that your conclusions are derived from on how much you trust something ( a book) and your measure of this is determined by the uni a person goes to and if they are labeled with a 10 dollar word...not to mention you have yourself have said you have no idea on academic religious studies...

I would conclude at this point you are an advocate for a belief system, the truth value or merit of the datum is of no concern to you as you choose to believe on faith that it is....

Now this is neither right or wrong , but immaterial within context of this particular line of reasoning.......

Edited January 16, 2010 by S♥ ♥ ♥

[MARAB0D]

One thing, Sheri, which is not related to PA and even to this conversation. I continue to be thrilled with Fundamentalism and its background philosophy. How is it possible that it allows to promote the idea of Christ, which is supposed to be ultimate Divine Truth, with the help of primitive lies, forgery and deception? One may notice, that there is not a single traditional term which they use in the original sense, this includes such fundamental terms as "Christianity", "Catholic Apostolic Church", "Creed", "History" etc etc. They casually use these words, but upon the scrutiny it occurs they use them in some their own, hidden from the others, novelty meaning - and any note of this altered meaning causes just yet another thread of discussion for them explaining that the original meaning was wrong... I cannot make myself to believe this is a coincidence, the impression is they are trying to create some new, completely amended reality to fit their own existence, as the common reality through which we are living for thousands of years is unsatisfactory for them. It seems they are ready to fake absolutely anything, even something which looks as an obvious truth. What is that? What do you think? We both witnessed one the same feature shown by many participants here...

[Mr Walker]

A number of pastors i know are alo highly qualified in other areas; from teaching to counselling. They "get out" into the world to effect change by working with young people, the disadvantaged, and immigrant/ native groups in particular.

Others travel overseas at their own expense to do practical work like building or agriculture, to teach these skills to others, or simply to provide education to young people in developing countries. MAny pastors who are retired continue this on into their 70's.

A true pastor (or any religious leader) is the shepherd of his flock. He will spend only a small part of his time in church, and most tending to the needs, cuts, and bruises, of his flock; seeking out the lost and wounded, and even rounding up strays to bring them into the protection of the flock/fold.

If your pastors and church do not meet your needs; physical spiritual and intellectual, then find those that do.

[MARAB0D]

A number of pastors i know are alo highly qualified in other areas; from teaching to counselling. They "get out" into the world to effect change by working with young people, the disadvantaged, and immigrant/ native groups in particular.

Others travel overseas at their own expense to do practical work like building or agriculture, to teach these skills to others, or simply to provide education to young people in developing countries. MAny pastors who are retired continue this on into their 70's.

A true pastor (or any religious leader) is the shepherd of his flock. He will spend only a small part of his time in church, and most tending to the needs, cuts, and bruises, of his flock; seeking out the lost and wounded, and even rounding up strays to bring them into the protection of the flock/fold.

If your pastors and church do not meet your needs; physical spiritual and intellectual, then find those that do.

Yes, MW, completely agree. Just want to add that the usage of self-rising flour instead of a proper one accelerates the baking process but badly affects the intended taste of the products.

[Mr Walker]

One thing, Sheri, which is not related to PA and even to this conversation. I continue to be thrilled with Fundamentalism and its background philosophy. How is it possible that it allows to promote the idea of Christ, which is supposed to be ultimate Divine Truth, with the help of primitive lies, forgery and deception? One may notice, that there is not a single traditional term which they use in the original sense, this includes such fundamental terms as "Christianity", "Catholic Apostolic Church", "Creed", "History" etc etc. They casually use these words, but upon the scrutiny it occurs they use them in some their own, hidden from the others, novelty meaning - and any note of this altered meaning causes just yet another thread of discussion for them explaining that the original meaning was wrong... I cannot make myself to believe this is a coincidence, the impression is they are trying to create some new, completely amended reality to fit their own existence, as the common reality through which we are living for thousands of years is unsatisfactory for them. It seems they are ready to fake absolutely anything, even something which looks as an obvious truth. What is that? What do you think? We both witnessed one the same feature shown by many participants here...

MArabod i find difficulty with a lot of what you put forward as fact becuase it appears to come from within a very catholic doctrinal background This is strange given your personal state of belief/ disbelief. If PA an d i are in disagreement it may be becuase we can see tha tthe CAtholic position is evolved , one of many na dby no means universal.

[MARAB0D]

MArabod i find difficulty with a lot of what you put forward as fact becuase it appears to come from within a very catholic doctrinal background This is strange given your personal state of belief/ disbelief. If PA an d i are in disagreement it may be becuase we can see tha tthe CAtholic position is evolved , one of many na dby no means universal.

I know you find difficulty, no worries. I am just saying that the definitions of Physics, Mathematics, Sunset, Ocean, Island, Triangle etc have not changed over the last 2000 years, same as these very objects. Traditional Christianity has not changed too - but why do people use alternative definitions? Where is that turning point in history when Christianity changed its definition? Any references?

[JustinG18]

Just to add to debate... I've read the bible, good read and at the same time I choose not to believe. How can everyone have faith in teachings from a book that has been translated like 50 percent correctly from a dead language? How can anyone teach these words as they are not all correct. Mary could be a prostitute, etc. How can ANY of our interpretations be right or wrong? Funny thing is anything written by a human will be exaggerated, etc. I wish people could find a way to abide those commandments, without needing faith in something that truly is not their. Science proves things, it powers your cars, your education, your everyday items. Yet there have been many travesties set forth by the "HOLY", this is wrong. In the bible's words, love thy neighbor as thyself. In this it means not to differentiate and demean. For everyone, who believes, if it works for you that is fine. But don't be so objective of others demeaning something that provides no physical proof. Why ARE their so many religions? It's been put into play by every government, etc. as a means of more authority. Yet in the same way, a lot of laws, such as possessing an herb (cannabis) is ILLEGAL, now wouldn't this be considered unholy? As we shouldn't worship others except God? His laws are the only we are subject to, yet... In God we trust is on ever monetary item in USA. Our government breaks not only constitutional values, but biblical as well. And that means everyone in this country who enforces these government laws, any which contradict the commandments, can not be true believers themselves. In this about how many people are true believers?

On another note, how can there ever be a Jihad? There is nothing Holy about war. Your only duty to God, Yahwe, whatever, is to abide by their teachings. Not to ENFORCE it upon others. So anyone claiming a HOLY WAR for any reason is subject then by biblical laws and the laws of most religions, to not be accepted into Heaven or whatever. The ONLY thing that would constitute as a HOLY WAR would be revolting against an authority or force that is implementing you to not uphold your rights of your religion. Thus, in case anyone tries to say the Jews escaping and blah was ok yes, this was, but to go to another nation, or another person, and conflict harm upon them? That condemns your soul. So about a good 50 percent most likely more, and ALL Catholics, are not considered true believers. Never has GOD Himself cared to be paid for entry into heaven with worldy penance.

I'm not one to sit here though and say if your faith gives you hope, or helps YOU in anyway or people you know it's wrong. That it is not. I wish everyone with faith great lives. And if there is a greater power, I'm thankful for the opportunity to experience life. I just choose to be a scientist. And the fact that most aren't allowed to see the Arc of the Covenent, the people behind that are condemned. It is not their right to withhold such a thing from believers. And if ever there is proof of God's existence, I will atone for my sin of not believing, and even if that's not possible, will still live by His Creed.

[+Paranoid Android]

Catholic Apostolic Church is a single religious organization, established by the Apostles of Christ, who were its first Bishops. It consisted of several independent churches, managed by the Apostles, and later by Bishops who succeeded them - in Egypt, Syria, Greece and Italy. What you have said is not true and I suggest you to drop the fantasies and read the church history. "Universal" means all these Churches were promoting one the same doctrine, established by Nicene Council, and nothing else. Rome has nothing to do with this at all, as out of 12 Apostles only two were operating there, Peter and Paul. In 2nd century AD Rome was already a small village with no significance, and not even a formally capital city, so "Roman church" was just a hut with the Bishop of Rome, residing in it as one of many Bishops. Contrary to what you may think in 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th centuries AD neither Rome as a city not the Western Roman Empire had any significance at all, and the entire political life of Europe was ruled from Constantinople. This was the initial sense of "catholic" meaning simply one church and one system of beliefs. You may check it with http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

"Roman" is not an attribute of "catholic" as at the current moment all churches, stemming directly from the initial Catholic Apostolic Church are "catholic" but not all use this word in their title. These churches are: Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Lutheran Church and Anglican Church. They have a right to claim as being established by the Apostles of Christ, and their Bishops represent these Apostles.

With all due respect, the term "catholic" does mean universal. Moreover, the term "church" simply means "body of believers". A church is not a denomination, or a building. It is a body of believers, and transcends the aforementioned boundaries of "Catholic" "Methodist", "Baptist", "Anglican", etc.... I belong to the universal group of believers in Christ - you are using wrong definitions for the term "catholic", and the wrong definitions of the term "church" in order to arrive at your incorrect conclusions.

~ PA

Edited January 17, 2010 by Paranoid Android

[+Paranoid Android]

Pardon me! Which exactly "context" did I take these words out??? They were said by Jesus out of any context, he was simply teaching his students not to be sneaky. re-read the Gospels!

Jesus was referring to people giving oaths. People would agree to do something, and then they'd swear an oath that they would carry it out - as if their own word were not good enough. Moreover, if someone said they would do something and didn't make an oath, some would consider it an excuse not to do as they said they would. Jesus squashed down on this practice of oaths by telling people to just be honest - let your yes be yes and your no be no. Read it for yourself (Matthew 5:34-37, also see James 5:12 - James pretty much repeats that same comment when talking about oaths).

This cannot apply to our discussion since I have not attempted to make an oath on anything.

But even were the passage to be relevant, you are implying (actually, you are directly stating) that I am being insincere and/or dishonest. Quoting an out-of-context passage still leaves the fact that you are calling me dishonest because you THINK the Nicene Creed requires one to belong to a particular denomination that existed at the time of the writing of said creed, and because I dispute that you think I'm changing the wording to suit my own means. Had it not been after 4am last night when I responded to your post I would have made that clear. As it was I simply addressed the first point because of the lateness of the night and my closeness to heading to bed

~ PA

[+Paranoid Android]

No, pa it wouldn't be out of context for marabear to evaluate and weigh the soundness of your opinion.

A Bible passage taken out of context is still out of context, regardless of what he is trying to say.

Nor would it be immaterial for him to seek clarity in your counters....

IMO you are taking this personal when marabear started by saying you are a lovely person,

Of course I took it personally. He prefaced his comments about me being all nice, and then labelled me insincere and dishonest because he disagrees with the understanding I came to.

but setting that aside....In order to have a discussion of value for him, he requests that you frame your counter in a way that sincerely demonstrates your position. (how you have arrived at your counter is gonna matter a lot if its opinion or based in fact)...........

the reason for this is to establish the truth value or the level your pov is informed. in other words how sound is your counter..So far you have not posted any evidence for us to consider about jesus...) after countless requests)

I think you're looking at the wrong discussion here, Sheri. Evidence about Jesus is in the other thread. This thread we are talking about the Nicene Creed's statement that "We believe in one catholic and apostolic church". Marabod's assertion here is that if I do not belong to one of the Catholic (capital C) denominations that existed at the time of the writing of the Creed that I am therefore not following the entirety of the Nicene Creed. I countered that claim by referring to the original usage of the term "catholic" (and more recently in my last post, the term "church") and how they do not refer to one belonging to a certain denomination but rather a statement that we belong to a catholic (small c) universal body of believers (since that is what the word "catholic" actually means - universal).

Does that clarify my comments, Sheri?

~ PA

[+Sherapy]

A Bible passage taken out of context is still out of context, regardless of what he is trying to say.

Of course I took it personally. He prefaced his comments about me being all nice, and then labelled me insincere and dishonest because he disagrees with the understanding I came to.

I think you're looking at the wrong discussion here, Sheri. Evidence about Jesus is in the other thread. This thread we are talking about the Nicene Creed's statement that "We believe in one catholic and apostolic church". Marabod's assertion here is that if I do not belong to one of the Catholic (capital C) denominations that existed at the time of the writing of the Creed that I am therefore not following the entirety of the Nicene Creed. I countered that claim by referring to the original usage of the term "catholic" (and more recently in my last post, the term "church") and how they do not refer to one belonging to a certain denomination but rather a statement that we belong to a catholic (small c) universal body of believers (since that is what the word "catholic" actually means - universal).

Does that clarify my comments, Sheri?

~ PA

Pa Quotes:

"A Bible passage taken out of context is still out of context"

how do you determine a bible passage is taken out of context?

oops on the Jesus Reference wrong thread...

[Sakari]

This thread we are talking about the Nicene Creed's statement that "We believe in one catholic and apostolic church".

~ PA

I believe a lot of people made this thread into something it never was....Let's try again?

"Is it just me, or does it seem like all the Pastors in all the churches keep preaching over and over again about how the world needs to "change" but they never leave the security of their church building. Why don't they go out into the streets and protest, obviously they don't want it bad enough. The only way for your voice to be heard is by using it and they don't. They trust in some unnatural power to intervene and make the world change but that's just not gonna happen! You gotta get out there and speak! You gotta protest and hold public gatherings! You have to get your voice out in order for any change to even begin but they don't. They stay in their churches and never branch out. Am I the only one who has noticed this? Surely not! "

[MARAB0D]

With all due respect, the term "catholic" does mean universal. Moreover, the term "church" simply means "body of believers". A church is not a denomination, or a building. It is a body of believers, and transcends the aforementioned boundaries of "Catholic" "Methodist", "Baptist", "Anglican", etc.... I belong to the universal group of believers in Christ - you are using wrong definitions for the term "catholic", and the wrong definitions of the term "church" in order to arrive at your incorrect conclusions.

~ PA

"Catholic Apostolic Church" in Nicene Creed does not point to any "universal" group of believers in Christ. There was always plenty of believers in Christ outside of Nicene Christianity, and Catholic Apostolic Church did not give a damn about them. This name is of the one specific Church, established by the Apostles of Christ, which existed as many territorial Churches, hence Catholic. In about 1000s AD CAC split in two, and then another few split from it, but all together they descend from the Apostles.

If a person does not belong to one of these offshoots of CAC, then this person defies Nicene Creed and cannot be called a Christian. If a car says "toyota" then it is not a "ford" car. You can have fun finding out which exactly Apostle was the founder of the church you belong to, and I bet you would soon discover it was apostle Jo Blow.

[Mr Walker]

I know you find difficulty, no worries. I am just saying that the definitions of Physics, Mathematics, Sunset, Ocean, Island, Triangle etc have not changed over the last 2000 years, same as these very objects. Traditional Christianity has not changed too - but why do people use alternative definitions? Where is that turning point in history when Christianity changed its definition? Any references?

The historical facts are simple. Within a few decades of christ's death there were many variants of his worship in local areas and from local teachers. Within a century or two, there were at least several large and significant variants (including the gnostics) who had spread over wider geographical areas

One of the earliest, and dmost significant divisions, was from the original jewish variant of christianity (for jesus was a jew and lived and preached as a jew) and paul's revision of both the message and its target audience.

During this time, many gospels and letters were written including gnostic gospels and those by more traditional discples of chris.t However when the catholic church gained both the power (including internal and external power groupings) and the will to do so, it standardised CAtholic belief into one form, and wrote down that form. That included the bible as we know it today and the authority of th espiritual descendants of Peter (The popes) to alter biblical truths.

All other forms were considered heresy, and from within its authority, linked to the roman empire, it spent centuries seeking out and destroying most other variants, including some which proved hard to root out and destroy.

It also eliminated internal heresies which did not rigidly conform. There may have been "legitimate" in their eyes, and logical reasons, for this approach.

And for over a thousand years it worked quite effectively. But then the reformation and the printing press began a new chapter in christianity. And we gained all the reformation churches and their descentant groups.

Later still, in the 1800s, a "back to basics" movement began around the world, but particularly in the USA, where peole began studying the bible as a basic tenet for their religion and their lives

. So CAtholicism was neither the original variant of christianity, nor the only one. It certainly is not the most doctrinally pure, or biblically based, one

While catholicism is a legitimate faith, and a christian one, it has no more theological or logical authority than any other. The only authority it did have came from its association with powerful civic rulers, and later powerful industrialised european nations plus the power it gained that any faith can gain (that invested in it by people who believe in it)

So there may never have been one definition of christianity (certainly not one that is truer or has more legitimacy/authority than others) and there certainly isnt now.

PS I think you will find that, both the definitions of a word like physics, and the parameter/content of the symbols associated with that word, will have changed as dramatically as the word "christianity" in the last 2000 years.

Ps your opinion about having to conform to/believe in the niceneian variant to be a christian is just that; OPinion. It also denies historical reality, logic, and common sense.

Christians existed prior to the nicenian declarations, and havee existed outside that grouping ever since. It is self denial, perhaps based on a blinkered view, to believe otherwise.

Its really no different to anyone claiming that only their version of god is correct.

Or, more specifically, its like the catholic church claiming that any other form of belief is a heresy. They have no moral, logical, or theological, authority to claim this, and nor do you.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

Yes, MW, completely agree. Just want to add that the usage of self-rising flour instead of a proper one accelerates the baking process but badly affects the intended taste of the products.

Ah, i see you are a fan of unleavened bread, or are you simply a traditionalist who adds bicarb of soda to their flour to allow it to rise?

Bread dough without a leavening agent wont rise much at all. Its interesting that this analogy is actually used as a christian metaphor, and has been from earliest times.

In my personal experience a good bread is a good bread. While they vary in texture and taste, breads with self raising flour can be just as tasty and nutritous as unleavened ones.

I have the same opinion about spiritual beliefs.

[MARAB0D]

Ah, i see you are a fan of unleavened bread, or are you simply a traditionalist who adds bicarb of soda to their flour to allow it to rise?

Bread dough without a leavening agent wont rise much at all. Its interesting that this analogy is actually used as a christian metaphor, and has been from earliest times.

In my personal experience a good bread is a good bread. While they vary in texture and taste, breads with self raising flour can be just as tasty and nutritous as unleavened ones.

I have the same opinion about spiritual beliefs.

I can see you were not enlightened about bread-making... Never mind, you always can buy. I do not use bicarb soda, I either put yeast for white or make through sourdough for rye.

[Mr Walker]

I can see you were not enlightened about bread-making... Never mind, you always can buy. I do not use bicarb soda, I either put yeast for white or make through sourdough for rye.

Sourdough is an american travesty (or delicacy) of true breadmaking imho( Fortunately it has not made much of an impact in the boondocks of australia as yet except at the odd craft fair or farmers market) We manke not just breads but buns scones pancakes etc. I repeat, while i dont mind some good unleavened bread such as pitta bread, personally i dont think you can beat a well risen white and crusty loaf. To achieve this, either self raising flour, or an agent like bicarb of soda(or as you use, a yeast agent or a piece of sourdough) is needed.

Its probably a matter of taste. I dont particularly like the more yeasty tasting breads (maybe because i dont drink alcohol, including beer, and thus dont have a taste for yeasty products) although many do. On the other hand i like multi grained, very high fibre breads esp when toasted over a fire.

The flour source, including grain type and quality has a much greater impact on taste within standard type breads, than a raising agent, as do other additives such as salt. I buy my flours from local granaries which specialise in unique types and blends for bread making.

Unfortunately the australian govt has mandated the addition of precise quantities of folate in all flour made in australia.

This has greatly reduced the number and range of boutique flours available, due to the difficulty of adding and verifying precise amounts of folate to small quantities of diverse flour types.