Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Arianism - still kicking

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Enough!!!



Please post to the topic.
Further disruptions will result in post removals and possible posting bans.

You are responsible for your own posts.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Here's an interesting article on LDS and Arianism. Previous to reading it I really thought they leaned toward Arian thought, but this seems to refute that notion.

www.libertypages.com...



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by HardToStarboard
 


They don't call it Arianism so much anymore. Seems they call it Nontrinitarianism. LOL "A rose by any other name...."
en.wikipedia.org...

The Encyclopædia Britannica states, "To some Christians the doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God....They therefore denied it, and accepted Jesus Christ, not as incarnate God, but as God's highest creature by Whom all else was created..


I found this statement consistent with my personal beliefs. I don't see Jesus as a god, but as the highest potential for humanity. He represent what we are capable of becoming. He is the way, because he taught us how to find our god within, to find the path to "Christ Consciousness."



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by HardToStarboard
 


Those are very interesting points, Windword.

They are, in fact, a summary of another Christian heresy, known as Socinianism.

The do-it-yourself flavour of American Protestantism means that most American Protestants are not actually Christians at all, but heretics of one kind or another. They're all going to Hell, especially if they vote Republican.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by HardToStarboard
Here's an interesting article on LDS and Arianism. Previous to reading it I really thought they leaned toward Arian thought, but this seems to refute that notion.

www.libertypages.com...


Do you have any specific questions about Mormon belief? I found some similarities with Mormonism, but only superficial ones.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by HardToStarboard
 


Those are very interesting points, Windword.

They are, in fact, a summary of another Christian heresy, known as Socinianism.

The do-it-yourself flavour of American Protestantism means that most American Protestants are not actually Christians at all, but heretics of one kind or another. They're all going to Hell, especially if they vote Republican.


LOL, absurd. Salvation always has been, and always will be of the Lord. Jesus saves. No man can come to Him unless the Spirit draws them, and every person the Father gives to the Son will come to Him. And NO MAN who calls upon the Name of the Lord will be cast away.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Fortunately, the LOLness and absurdity of other people's belief systems doesn't factor into their right to believe. The rights of spin off sects from the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England were hard fought after centuries of ruthless persecution.


The Act allowed freedom of worship to Nonconformists who had pledged to the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and rejected transubstantiation, i.e., Protestants who dissented from the Church of England such as Baptists and Congregationalists but not to Catholics. Nonconformists were allowed their own places of worship and their own teachers, if they accepted certain oaths of allegiance.
en.wikipedia.org...

The "Tolerance Act 1689" seems to have provided a compromise, allowing certain kinds of descent while requiring adherence to certain Christian tenets, such as The Trinity.

The "Bill of Rights" went one step further by separating church and state altogether. In America there are many Christian sects that demonstrate certain descent where their convictions are concerned. This a proud history and creates a place for those that disagree with you. Your beliefs are also protected.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


No one is advocating persecution. Don't mind me using my freedom of speech, the USA isn't controlled by China completely yet.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I believe Jesus is God in the flesh. remember the name "Immanuel" God with us? He was God incarnate. He always existed and was the word before he came flesh. I believe God to be a 3 part being like we are a 3 part being spirit,mind,body - Father,Son,Holy Ghost. I know its hard to compute but, its one of those things we have to take by faith. False religions around the globe try to take away the deity of christ as God and make him "A God" or just a prophet.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Keeper of Kheb
 


I believe Jesus is God in the flesh. remember the name "Immanuel" God with us? He was God incarnate. He always existed and was the word before he came flesh. I believe God to be a 3 part being like we are a 3 part being spirit,mind,body - Father,Son,Holy Ghost. I know its hard to compute but, its one of those things we have to take by faith.

Indeed. You, at least, appear to be a Christian.

The definition of who is and who is not a Christian was not worked out by the Roman Catholic church or any other church in isolation. The elements of the Nicene Creed define the Christian faith, and the Creed was a doctrinal compromise on which the majority of churches then in existence could agree; those who did not, including Arians and others, were defined as heretics.

The Creed compels belief in 'one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God, being of one substance with the Father.' There is no room there for the belief that Jesus was just a divinely inspired man, or even a divine being separate from and inferior to the Father. Anyone who believes such thing is not a Christian, though this may come as a surprise to some of the heretics who call themselves Christians in these degenerate days.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


So are you saying that one has to Catholic to be true Christian? Under the definition of the Nicene Creed the Gnostics weren't Christians either then. By the way, "The Tolerance Act" of 1689 redefined who may call themselves Christians without persecution.

Personally I know many, and come from a long line of Christians who didn't believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection or that Jesus was a blood sacrifice for sin. These people, as well as the Gnostics believed in the life and teachings of Jesus and following them, living your life by those teachings make one a Christian.

Believing in a certain dogma doesn't make one a Christian. Living a Christlike life does.
edit on 22-5-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


So are you saying that one has to Catholic to be true Christian?

Wherever did you get that idea?


The Nicene Creed has been normative for the Anglican Church, the Church of the East, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church including the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Old Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church and many Protestant denominations, forming the eponymous mainstream definition of Christianity itself in Nicene Christianity. Source


Under the definition of the Nicene Creed the Gnostics weren't Christians either then.

And they still aren't. Gnosticism is seen as a deadly heresy by Catholics and Protestants alike.


"The Tolerance Act" of 1689 redefined who may call themselves Christians without persecution.

In England, yes. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about.


Believing in a certain dogma doesn't make one a Christian. Living a Christlike life does.

That is in absolute contradiction to all Christian belief. In fact, it is yet another heresy, known as Pelagianism.

All Christians agree that it is belief in the divinity of Christ and the saving power of his sacrifice that fundamentally defines a Christian. You, plainly, are not one, however you may protest otherwise; the case is closed.

Instead of arguing with me, think about what it means. This could be Liberation Day for you; didn't Jesus say the truth would set you free?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I have long ago given up on calling myself a Christian. I like your Christ but not your Christians. However, this thread is a carry over from the Mormon thread. Mormons are Christians too, even though their beliefs vary from yours.

There are many sects of Christianity that do not adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity, the virgin birth, the resurrection or the blood sacrifice that still call themselves Christian.

They may not fall under your definition, but they still have the right to exist as Christians.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





All Christians agree that it is belief in the divinity of Christ and the saving power of his sacrifice that fundamentally defines a Christian. You, plainly, are not one, however you may protest otherwise; the case is closed. Instead of arguing with me, think about what it means. This could be Liberation Day for you; didn't Jesus say the truth would set you free?


Get behind me Astyanax.

What's your motive here?

Is it to strengthen the faith of those that believe in Christ?




The truth is that the God's Word is the authority on the matter, not you, certainly not self important men and their isms'.

Jesus was a carpenter, his disciples were fishermen. Those that followed Christ were humble and teachable.

Being a Christian is not buying a praise Jesus CD for $9.95 or driving around with a fish symbol on your car or wearing a symbol of death around your neck. It does not mean supporting an organization more concerned with politics and money than they are with feeding Christ's sheep.

Being a Christian, means doing.

It is living it.

You practice what you preach to the best of your ability.

A Christian sees Christ as the King of God's Kingdom.

They understand that this world will run them over for doing the right thing, 'cause after all, the one they follow, got nailed to a piece of wood for being a good person.

A Christian turns the other cheek, returns what someone lost, holds their friends hand when they are dying, all the while believing they will be together again.

It is standing up against the mocking and ridicule of this world.


Sometimes it means saying a prayer for a friend.


Sometimes it means saying a prayer for an enemy.




Christ will judge us based on our actions.

Ultimately he will decide who loves him and who doesn't


"Simon, son of John, do you love me, more than these?"



edit on 22-5-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


What's your motive here?

Mainly my loathing of wilful, self-serving ignorance, and of a degenerate consumer culture that sees the individual ego and its gratification as the final test of all values, even religious ones. Buffet Christianity (help yourself to the dishes you like and leave the rest alone) is one part of this vile culture; it gives real Christianity – the fundamental tenets of the faith and the concept of a community of believers – a bad name. I have been an atheist for many years, but I greatly respect the historical, cultural and moral puissance of Western Christianity; it has been a vital force (for good and for ill) in the development of modern civilization.

I live in a country where the great majority of people are non-Christians, but which was once ruled by Europeans; although no-one seriously wants the imperialists back, many of us deeply regret the decline in public institutions and ethics that attended the eclipse of Christianity here.

My country is poor, riddled with corruption and superstition and eternally poised between tyranny and anarchy. Yours, I presume, is a little more stable. But even in the West, and particularly in America with its drive-in churches and obsession with material self-aggrandizement, civilized values and institutions are crumbling. Buffet Christianity is a symptom of this erosion.


The truth is that the God's Word is the authority on the matter, not you, certainly not self important men and their isms'.

Then you agree with me that belief in the divinity of Christ and the saving power of his sacrifice are the basic attributes of a Christian.


Being a Christian is not buying a praise Jesus CD for $9.95 or driving around with a fish symbol on your car or wearing a symbol of death around your neck. It does not mean supporting an organization more concerned with politics and money than they are with feeding Christ's sheep.

I agree that these are by no means the fundamental attributes of a Christian.


Being a Christian, means doing, etc., etc.

Being a Christian means, above all, believing. What you call God's Word insists on that, not once but many times over. Well, the things one must believe in are contained in the Nicene Creed. It lists only the fundamentals of belief – that is why it is so short – but it is compulsory. It is not a buffet.

Your long list of Christian attributes misses out a very important one: membership in the community of Christian believers. Yes, Christianity offers personal salvation, but this personal salvation is always offered to Christians through membership in the Christian community – that is, in fact, the meaning of the Eucharist.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Christianity can't be defined simply by boxing people's experiences and convictions into 2 boxes, Catholic or Protestant. That would be like saying all Americans are either Republicans or Democrats.

Religion expresses spirituality, and that expression differs from individual to individual.

The organized religions have an agenda to promote and restrict behavior and critical thought process, but in reality, they don't have the individuals personal spiritual progression at heart, but a need for control and power.

You say you're an atheist, yet you seem to promote the Catholic Church's viewpoint. In my opinion, the Catholic Church has done more to corrupt the teaching and life of Jesus, and is more evil than Satan himself.


Catholic vs. Gnostic
The largest one of the smaller branches was by far the Gnostics (Gnostic is based on the Greek root word gnosis meaning knowledge). They were far and away the largest Christian-based religion under the Catholics. The Gnostic Church based its religion on the love and teachings of Jesus trying to emphasize knowledge and learning about God , where the Catholics based theirs on faith, the resurrection, and obedience to God in a much more familiar way to the Jewish beliefs to begin with.

The Influence of the Council of Nicea

Finding that the new religion was also branched into different denominations that also disagreed on very major levels, he ordered the Council of Nicea to happen in 325 AD. What happened next was a political move. To make sure the two major denominations were represented, Constantine ordered 318 members to attend from both the Catholics and the Gnostics. The count was 306 Catholics and 12 Gnostics. The Catholics made all of the decisions and ordered the Gnostics, all of their members, and all of their sacred writings to be destroyed. Since the winners write the history books, and the Catholics now had the same army that had been killing them for hundreds of years now behind them, Gnosticisms faded off until today after archeological findings have brought their works back to life.

The Council of Nicea also decided much of the dogma of the Catholic religion that we still have to this day. With opposition out of the way it was much easier to get beliefs of Jesus as God incarnate and the belief of Hell passed into the doctrines we have today.
mark-l-porter.suite101.com...


Just because the Gnostics were bullied, out numbered and persecuted doesn't mean that they didn't teach the truth about the life and teaching of Jesus. They were the first and purest of the Christian faith.
edit on 23-5-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by HardToStarboard
 


You do realize that the Council of Nicaea in itself is a religious fraud and conspiracy, even ATS members know this, it comes in at number 20 on the all time list.



Everybody knows in manufacturing if the original mold is defective, every copy will be bad, eventually it is just accepted as normal as nobody knows any different. The Council of Nicaea was a bad mold influenced by pagans and apostates. And ever since, those brave souls trying to fix this are branded as heretics and even non-Christians.

The question is, will you let some old men from the 4th century decide an important doctrinal point, or will you research it, and make you own choice?
I know, I did.

Edit
As did the poster directly above me, showing the political nature of the council, and you have a semi-pagan emperor behind the scene maneuvering events as well. Not a good mixture to have the real truth advocated into the future.
edit on 23-5-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to posts by windword and Blue_Jay33
 


Originally posted by windword
Christianity can't be defined simply by boxing people's experiences and convictions into 2 boxes, Catholic or Protestant.

Do you think that is my intention? No, I am simply trying to show what are the basic, irreducible articles of Christian belief. I have already mentioned the Orthodox Communion more than once. Westerners tend to forget it exists, but it is the principal form of Christianity in Russia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia.


You say you're an atheist, yet you seem to promote the Catholic Church's viewpoint.

That would be very strange, considering that the church in which I was raised broke away from the Catholic Communion in 1534. I hold no brief for Catholicism whatsoever.

In fact, I am arguing for community over doctrine and not the other way round as some of you seem to think. A minimum of mutually agreed belief is necessary for a religious community to exist; otherwise, it breaks up into doctrinal factions. The Nicene Creed has been tremendously successful, in that the factions which have emerged in the Christian communion since its adoption have generally been able to agree on its articles, even when they could agree on nothing else. Of course, a person who belongs to no church may not appreciate the value of this fact.


Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
You do realize that the Council of Nicaea in itself is a religious fraud and conspiracy

Yes, right up there between chemtrails and Freemasons. How many of the preceding 23 'conspiracies' on that list do you, personally, believe in?

The Council of Nicaea was a political process that resulted in a political compromise. I have read Gibbon's Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, in which all that is very clearly explained. Conspiracy or not, the Creed that emerged from it was a very good and successful compromise, precisely because it defined the essentials of Christian faith so accurately. Despite what some of you are claiming, all established Christian churches today accept the Creed.

I am not at all surprised that Biblical literalists like you, as well as doctrinal deviationists like windword, disagree with me. What I say, however, remains true. Luther certainly revived the concept of a personal relationship with God in Christ as the basis of salvation, which the Roman church had suppressed, but he was no less convinced of the fundamental importance of the community of the faith than any cardinal of Rome.

Tthe Bible quotes Christ as saying 'whenever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.' That's pretty unambiguous, I think.

Windword, you would like to define Christianity as you wish. Well, so would every other Christian. It has always been thus, from quiet monkish contemplatives in their cells to hair-shirted flagellants, from the Athanasians to the Gnostics, from the Rollers to the Shakers to the snake-handlers to the believers in the Revelation of the Archangel Moroni. Sadly, all these self-defined 'Christians' have ended up believing different, often contradictory things. So who, then, is right? What are the essentials of Christian belief?

Somebody has to draw the line somewhere. There's no use saying 'go to the Bible' as literalists do – because everyone who goes to the Bible comes away with a different interpretation of it, and insists all the others are wrong! No, there has to be a definition all can agree on, a basic minimum of belief that all Christians can share. You won't find that in the Bible. You will find it in the Nicene Creed.

On a personal level, Christianity means nothing to me, so I am an unlikely defender of the faith. On a social level, however, I believe Christian belief, however wishful and false it may be, has been an important factor in the development of our civilization, and particularly of the humane liberalism which many right-wing Christians today loathe, but which is nevertheless the rock on which modern ideals of liberty and democracy are founded.

edit on 23/5/12 by Astyanax because: of rudeness about the Archangel Moroni.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join