NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe in it?

I think it is waaay more efficient than hell, I mean, if you burn for etenity, and there's no time, then how do you suffer?

Plus, what kind of god would condemn people he created to an eternity of suffering and hell? Wouldnt he give them one last chance, with just a little kick up the backside?

You do know that purgatory was invented sometime in the 1100s as a measure to increase revenue, and that it was clarified in 1254, right?

The entire premise of purgatory was simply to increase revenue of the Roman Catholic Church.

Why it was created by the Catholic church is largely moot now; it's an entirely un-Biblical concept.

The second bit... how do you figure that there's no Time in the afterlife?

And the third bit, questioning God's loving-ness... some people would say that while they're on earth people have enough backside kicks anyway, from nature, from Christians shouting in the streets, perhaps even from God if you're lucky. If people choose to miss these signs, or acknowledge but ignore them anyway... how kind has God gotta be to win here? You've got a lifetime to figure it out, how much longer do people want?

People want to go to God's Heaven, but they don't want to follow His instructions in getting there; John 14:6 wraps it up neatly.

I was given a pamphlet that said in big letters on the front: "What Does The Bible Say About Purgatory?", when I opened it, nothing was written.

Hehe, repeat for Transubstantiation.

And the reverence for the Pope and Mary.

Although the names of some Catholic churches I've heard are quite poetic, sometimes you wonder where their worship is aimed.

Hehe, repeat for Transubstantiation.

And the reverence for the Pope and Mary.

Although the names of some Catholic churches I've heard are quite poetic, sometimes you wonder where their worship is aimed. We're actually Satan worshippers, and the Pope is the Antichrist.

Hehe, repeat for Transubstantiation.

And the reverence for the Pope and Mary.

Although the names of some Catholic churches I've heard are quite poetic, sometimes you wonder where their worship is aimed.

Yet another overly perverted misinterpretation of Catholicism. Worship is never veered from God, all three parts included. When contemplating the idea, it should seem very hard to emulate Jesus due to his divine heritage. The next best method is to view and attempt to emulate a human who has lived like Christ, not necessarily knowing or understanding any better than ourselves but just did. For example, St. Augustine lived a very worldly life until he had his conversion and realized a better way to live. Not all of us are lucky as that to have a direct conversion, so we are taught to recognize how others have lived Christ-like. If any one of us were to live very Christ-like, in the same light, we should try to emulate him or her. Never do Catholics declare any reason or justified action of worship. Calling upon their inspiration is not worship at all, its the same as asking a friend for advice.

In response to transubstantiation:

Transubstantiation, as you probably know, is that the blessed bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Looking from a different perspective, it means that blessed bread becomes equivilant to body and blessed wine becomes equivilant to blood. So in equivilance, we can also say that body becomes bread and blood becomes wine. Thus we can again revert to saying that the body and blood of Christ is our blessed bread and wine. The two are in union. Unlike the Protestant denominations which believe the body and blood of Christ are only represented by the bread and wine. Read your Last Supper passages again, they read that the the bread is Christ's body, not like Christ's body.

Also, become educated on the actual theology before you blindly argue generalizations.

Hehe, repeat for Transubstantiation.

And the reverence for the Pope and Mary.

Although the names of some Catholic churches I've heard are quite poetic, sometimes you wonder where their worship is aimed.
Keep going. Holy Trinity? The few vague, contradictory and absurd references in (some of the) the Gospels were standardized in the IVth century.
Even the Gospels are unreliable. The four were selected out of a scriptural ocean (some of them were containing exact opposites of official teachings that are the norm today). How am I to believe that they weren't altered in the process?
And the Apocalipse seems to be a book written by the first Christians in the expectation of an IMMEDIATE end (the "characters" have been read as references to the world they lived in - I think the Beast is, most likely, Nero). By the way, for those who don't know it: the John who wrote it is not the apostole, since he lived at a time when John would've died of natural causes.

Yet another overly perverted misinterpretation of Catholicism. Worship is never veered from God, all three parts included. When contemplating the idea, it should seem very hard to emulate Jesus due to his divine heritage. The next best method is to view and attempt to emulate a human who has lived like Christ, not necessarily knowing or understanding any better than ourselves but just did. For example, St. Augustine lived a very worldly life until he had his conversion and realized a better way to live. Not all of us are lucky as that to have a direct conversion, so we are taught to recognize how others have lived Christ-like. If any one of us were to live very Christ-like, in the same light, we should try to emulate him or her. Never do Catholics declare any reason or justified action of worship. Calling upon their inspiration is not worship at all, its the same as asking a friend for advice.

Yeah, a dead friend. And how do we contact our dead friends for advice? :eek:

Keep going. Holy Trinity? The few vague, contradictory and absurd references in (some of the) the Gospels were standardized in the IVth century.
Even the Gospels are unreliable. The four were selected out of a scriptural ocean (some of them were containing exact opposites of official teachings that are the norm today). How am I to believe that they weren't altered in the process?
And the Apocalipse seems to be a book written by the first Christians in the expectation of an IMMEDIATE end (the "characters" have been read as references to the world they lived in - I think the Beast is, most likely, Nero). By the way, for those who don't know it: the John who wrote it is not the apostole, since he lived at a time when John would've died of natural causes.

Very true about Revelations. Mostly it was written as code to Christians to remain strong whilst the world was against them.

Though, faith is the only justification that the chosen books in the Bible are the holy ones. Those without faith cannot understand and those with do.

Also, to derail your possible counter-argument. Faith is not blind acceptance, it is about hope, peace of spirit, and peace of mind.

Yeah, a dead friend. And how do we contact our dead friends for advice? :eek:

Hmm, it would kinda be similar to having a friend die because he/she drove drunk and got into a wreck. Thus you choose not to drink and drive. Though in this case (so you don't hurry up and say BS like religion is equivilant to drunk driving), you look for positive influences.

Very true about Revelations. Mostly it was written as code to Christians to remain strong whilst the world was against them.

Though, faith is the only justification that the chosen books in the Bible are the holy ones. Those without faith cannot understand and those with do.

Also, to derail your possible counter-argument. Faith is not blind acceptance, it is about hope, peace of spirit, and peace of mind.
I will confront you to the paradox, using the precise argument of faith:
-you are told to believe in Jesus and the events of his life (Christians may disagree on who Jesus was, but they all agree on this)
-it means that, even though spectacular/true/exemplary, these events were leading to many interpretations
-so, the moment of "picking" the right Gospels (the Council of Nicaea) impied a moment of ABSOLUTE and UNDENIABLE faith. Isn't this implied as more important than Jesus's life? I mean, God allowed people to argue about Jesus, but only up to a moment.

Add to this: all Protestants have been arguing about how to interpret the Gospels that Rome, Constantinople and Antioch had picked for them. Haw-haw!

I will confront you to the paradox, using the precise argument of faith:
-you are told to believe in Jesus and the events of his life (Christians may disagree on who Jesus was, but they all agree on this)
-it means that, even though spectacular/true/exemplary, these events were leading to many interpretations
-so, the moment of "picking" the right Gospels (the Council of Nicaea) impied a moment of ABSOLUTE and UNDENIABLE faith. Isn't this implied as more important than Jesus's life? I men, God allowed people to argue about Jesus, but only up to a moment.

Add to this: all Protestants have been arguing about how to interpret the Gospels that Rome, Constantinople and Antioch had picked for them. Haw-haw!

Again, your obvious lack of faith on this topic puts you in no place to argue an issue solely up to those with faith. Maybe I'll write your biography and put a bunch of lies and BS into it and declare that you are not allowed to choose which story of you gets told. How would you like that. :p HEE-HAW!!!!

Again, your obvious lack of faith on this topic puts you in no place to argue an issue solely up to those with faith. Maybe I'll write your biography and put a bunch of lies and BS into it and declare that you are not allowed to choose which story of you gets told. How would you like that. :p HEE-HAW!!!!
You're missing the point: Christianity is about events, it is factual (in a sense, but still...) and historical or it isn't at all.
The idea is that, if you cut out the Gospels, you don't have much. And when you look at all the Gospels (the "ocean" I mentioned - The Gospels according to Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene etc. - all in circulation, all with followers in the 1st-IVth centuries) you see a myriad of beliefs. All those people were guided by faith, just as well. So, it's not like a biography - it's like wether the events happened and what I am to see in them.
But IT HAS to be factual - Jesus brings something relative TO TIME (God is eternal, but time is important - don't get me started on this paradox).

You're missing the point: Christianity is about events, it is factual (in a sense, but still...) and historical or it isn't at all.
The idea is that, if you cut out the Gospels, you don't have much. And when you look at all the Gospels (the "ocean" I mentioned - The Gospels according to Thomas, Judas, Mary Magdalene etc. - all in circulation, all with followers in the 1st-IVth centuries) you see a myriad of beliefs. All those people were guided by faith, just as well. So, it's not like a biography - it's like wether the events happened and what I am to see in them.
But IT HAS to be factual - Jesus brings something relative TO TIME (God is eternal, but time is important - don't get me started on this paradox).

Thank you for proving my point without me having to explain too much. Take your argument and then merge it with my biography of you idea and see my point. Sooner or later someone had to stand up and say "All of these *points to a stack of scrolls* are complete bullshit." Now my issue of faith comes into play. Who judges what is truthful and where do they get their inspiration? Only faith can make one believe that the people who chose the four gospels were inspired to do so by God. Without faith, I can understand your skepticism.

Let me ask you this: where did Jesus go before He was resurrected?

Note: If he "died" in a sense (official belief in Eastern Churches), was the world void of God? Or, if somebody (the Father?) took over, aren't Christians politheists?
On the other hand, if He didn't, why does it mean anything that He was crucified? How is it still a sacrifice?
Plus: obvious "solution". The Gospels, as bastardized as they were, don't point out constantly to Jesus being God or The Son of God. In other words: cot out the inconsistancies and you have an important man - a prophet or something. Maybe that is what was intended. The early Church was waiting for His return, so He had to seem more important than that.

Thank you for proving my point without me having to explain too much. Take your argument and then merge it with my biography of you idea and see my point. Sooner or later someone had to stand up and say "All of these *points to a stack of scrolls* are complete bullshit." Now my issue of faith comes into play. Who judges what is truthful and where do they get their inspiration? Only faith can make one believe that the people who chose the four gospels were inspired to do so by God. Without faith, I can understand your skepticism.
Faith in WHAT? In ANYTHING? (The Early Christians believed in things THAT YOU WOULD WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH. They TOO were guided by faith. BUT WHICH FAITH?)
Only if God Himself would come and point out what you're to believe in. Only in that instance would you make sense.
And: if God would do that, why does He not do it all the time? And where did you get knowlege of the events?
Note: I'm not Christian, but I am a believer of sorts.

Hehe, repeat for Transubstantiation.

And the reverence for the Pope and Mary.

Although the names of some Catholic churches I've heard are quite poetic, sometimes you wonder where their worship is aimed.

Mary is revered as the mother of God, what's wrong w/ that? The Pope is God's earthly representative, given authority by apostolic decree, just as ST Peter was.

BTW, pick up a Catechism nad you'll find references to why Catholicism teaches Purgatory.

be well:)

Let me ask you this: where did Jesus go before He was resurrected?

Note: If he "died" in a sense (official belief in Eastern Churches), was the world void of God? Or, if somebody (the Father?) took over, aren't Christians politheists?
On the other hand, if He didn't, why does it mean anything that He was crucified? How is it still a sacrifice?
Plus: obvious "solution". The Gospels, as bastardized as they were, don't point out constantly to Jesus being God or The Son of God. In other words: cot out the inconsistancies and you have an important man - a prophet or something. Maybe that is what was intended. The early Church was waiting for His return, so He had to seem more important than that.

Christians believe in the Trinity (if you don't believe, don't criticize, it'll make life easier), so we're not polytheists. Christ had left his worldly existance upon death. His risen self was more a superbeing over humanbeing.

here's the belief:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


I know you don't believe, but understand that some people probably haven't killed the majority of us yet because they were Christians. God knows if there wasn't any afterlife, I would have started some killing rampages of my own. Allow people to be better because they have faith, even though that is not your choice in life, nor your choice for theirs.

Mary is revered as the mother of God, what's wrong w/ that? The Pope is God's earthly representative, given authority by apostolic decree, just as ST Peter was.

BTW, pick up a Catechism nad you'll find references to why Catholicism teaches Purgatory.

be well:) Purgatory's based on simple logic, isn't it? You need to expunge your sins before entering the Kingdom, and that state is called Purgatory.

I think it is much easier to simply believe that at death we simply become maggot food.

Well are already there.....

Well are already there.....

Fuck armaggeden, this is hell.

Hemingsoft, I know very well WHAT you believe in. I know the Catholic dogma. Unlike you, I guess, I am familiar with most other Christian dogmas (I'm willing to bet you don't know which Churches are still monophysite, for example).
It's precisely this, that every word has several interpretations - and that every word comes from a source, one that is supposed to show you the elements of faith (so much for faith and faith only). That's why.

If I were to believe in the teachings of "my" Church, you would not say that we are "united" by faith (even though we would both beleve not only in one God, but also in the same Gospels). Example: Orthodox churchgoers do NOT believe that the Holy Spirit is an attribute of The Son, maintaining that it can only pass from The Father to The Son.

Oooh, what a lot of very quick responses. [edit: Heck, many more]
Yet another overly perverted misinterpretation of Catholicism. Worship is never veered from God, all three parts included...I would hope not. But there's a church in central Florida that I've driven past plenty of times called "Mary, Queen of the Universe", and I consider that too far. It's nice that she was the mother of Christ, but she should not be prayed to or through; she should not act as the modem to our Internet God, because Jesus made us all broadband-enabled (with no download limit or other usage regulations). Always on. Hehe, I quite like that analogy. Not ideal, but when are they ever? Bottom line, Mary = not holy. I'm not comfortable with the Pope being God's appointed spokesperson either, sounds a lot like the British monarchy going back a few hundred years, and that was hardly a shining point in human history.

And why can't we take inspiration from Jesus? He lived as a human, as we all do; He peed and defecated with the rest of us. He sets a better example then anyone else ever could, and should be the first port-of-call for making decisions. Augustine and Joe Ratzinger might be Thoroughly Nice Guys, but they're no Christ. Wouldn't measure up to His ankles, even on stilts. Or a trampoline. Or both at the same time. Don't get me wrong; I will accept advice from friends or various (and varied) clergy that I know, as long as I know that it's consistent, or a mirror with Christ's actions.

Aaaaand onto that Eucharist...
your post is uniting the two views, the Catholic and the Protestant, as saying that they're just different perspectives. Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually become flesh and blood. Protestants don't, they believe that they remain as bread and wine, and are merely representative... symbolic, of that first Lord's Supper those 1970-odd years ago. These views can't lie together, that defies logic. I take my view that the bread and wine do not change from the passage 1 Corinthians 11:23-27. I believe that the words spoken by Jesus in the accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke were poetic, as in, not literal. Paul affirms this for me with the verse 26; "For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup you are announcing the Lord's death until He comes again." (NLT)... it mentions nothing of body or blood. We are eating bread and drinking wine, and them being blessed (you did say that word a lot, were you trying to make a point? Don't forget that our Sunday Breakfast is blessed as well) makes no difference to me.

I say "to me" because, as an Anglican, this is one of the discrepencies between my denomination and Catholicism. It is not a discrepency that will condemn one of us though; our salvation isn't going to be tipped by what we think we're taking in.

Argesia... where's the issue with the Trinity? God and the Spirit appear within the first few lines of the whole library, and there's numerous references to God and the Messiah throughout the OT. The Spirit then really gets going in the NT. Three parts, all seperate but the same (yay for the paradox).

Oh, and I think that Revelation is a fantastic book, because it can be read so many ways with so much imagery and it's just so... ooo, well, poetic. And I like that. I don't concern myself with the details, because I don't think it's especially important. The main points to draw from it would be, Heaven = Good, Hell = Bad, and I'm very happy with that. :eek: :D

Hemingsoft, I know very well WHAT you believe in. I know the Catholic dogma. Unlike you, I guess, I am familiar with most other Christian dogmas (I'm willing to bet you don't know which Churches are still monophysite, for example).
It's precisely this, that every word has several interpretations - and that every word comes from a source, one that is supposed to show you the elements of faith (so much for faith and faith only). That's why.

If I were to believe in the teachings of "my" Church, you would not say that we are "united" by faith (even though we would both beleve not only in one God, but also in the same Gospels). Example: Orthodox churchgoers do NOT believe that the Holy Spirit is an attribute of The Son, maintaining that it can only pass from The Father to The Son.

I think that the creed quoted above sums up what is essential about Christianity. As a convert to Catholicism from Pentecostalism, I realize that most of the divisions within Christianity are more superficial than real. It's our belief in Christ as the Son of God that unites us.

Hemingsoft, I know very well WHAT you believe in. I know the Catholic dogma. Unlike you, I guess, I am familiar with most other Christian dogmas (I'm willing to bet you don't know which Churches are still monophysite, for example).
It's precisely this, that every word has several interpretations - and that every word comes from a source, one that is supposed to show you the elements of faith (so much for faith and faith only). That's why.

If I were to believe in the teachings of "my" Church, you would not say that we are "united" by faith (even though we would both beleve not only in one God, but also in the same Gospels). Example: Orthodox churchgoers do NOT believe that the Holy Spirit is an attribute of The Son, maintaining that it can only pass from The Father to The Son.

See, unlike you give me credit for, I do know much about all religions. Though unlike you, I do not use my knowledge to belittle or try to discredit any other religion. By the way, the Maronites were once monophysites can't so much remember if they still consider themselves believing in the single nature of Christ. If you wish to preach criticism of a religion, join a hate group, else learn to be more accepting and peaceful. See, that's what my religion has taught me. Obviously, yours hasn't.

I highly suggest reading the Revelation of St. Peter. It is intended as an alternate to the Book of Revelation that is found in the bible. You can read it
at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsepeter-mrjames.html

Here is a short passage, and to me, the most inspirational in all of Christian literature.

And I asked him and said unto him: Lord, suffer me to speak thy word concerning the sinners: It were better for them if they had not been created. And the Saviour answered and said unto me: Peter, wherefore speakest thou thus, that not to have been created were better for them? Thou resistest God. Thou wouldest not have more compassion than he for his image: for he hath created them and brought them forth out of not being. Now because thou hast seen the lamentation which shall come upon the sinners in the last days, therefore is thine heart troubled; but I will show thee their works, whereby they have sinned against the Most High.

Behold now what shall come upon them in the last days, when the day of God and the day of the decision of the judgement of God cometh. From the east unto the west shall all the children of men be gathered together before my Father that liveth for ever. And he shall command hell to open its bars of adamant and give up all that is therein.

Should you not understand, Jesus is telling Peter a secret, that hell is only temporary and that one day all shall be released into the Kingdom of God. Therefore, we can conclude that hell is a sort of 'purgatory', and that all shall eventually be allowed into the City of God.

>Hinky

Argesia... where's the issue with the Trinity? God and the Spirit appear within the first few lines of the whole library, and there's numerous references to God and the Messiah throughout the OT. The Spirit then really gets going in the NT. Three parts, all seperate but the same (yay for the paradox).

Oh, and I think that Revelation is a fantastic book, because it can be read so many ways with so much imagery and it's just so... ooo, well, poetic. And I like that. I don't concern myself with the details, because I don't think it's especially important. The main points to draw from it would be, Heaven = Good, Hell = Bad, and I'm very happy with that. :eek: :D
I have no issue with The Trinity as a concept, personally. Given the precepts of religion, it makes sense as an idea.
BUT:
My point was that anything in the texts should not be taken for a fact. People in the 4th century (Catholic and Orthodox bishops, by the way) have selected inspired texts. I've made my point clear in previous posts - read them in their entierty, ask me a question more to the point when you get that information. Check it, if you will. If it appears in the first lines of an unreliable text, it's not the same thing... You want me to write one? I can do it, no problem.
Also, Christians in the beginning did not believe in the Holy Trinity, or it looked completely different to them. They had several Gospels, arguably closer to the source, but these were banned by the official (and no, not Anglican) Church. Look it up.

Aaaaand onto that Eucharist...
your post is uniting the two views, the Catholic and the Protestant, as saying that they're just different perspectives. Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually become flesh and blood. Protestants don't, they believe that they remain as bread and wine, and are merely representative... symbolic, of that first Lord's Supper those 1970-odd years ago. These views can't lie together, that defies logic. I take my view that the bread and wine do not change from the passage 1 Corinthians 11:23-27. I believe that the words spoken by Jesus in the accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke were poetic, as in, not literal. Paul affirms this for me with the verse 26; "For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup you are announcing the Lord's death until He comes again." (NLT)... it mentions nothing of body or blood. We are eating bread and drinking wine, and them being blessed (you did say that word a lot, were you trying to make a point? Don't forget that our Sunday Breakfast is blessed as well) makes no difference to me.

That I am well aware of. But for a Catholic, the blessed part is more significant to us than any other denomination. At our Mass, as you probably know, there is a recreation of the Last Supper, in which our eucharist becomes central to the Catholic faith.

Though DYK, Anglican eucharist is acceptable in the eyes of Catholics when it comes receiving? So is Orthodox. God bless brother.

I have no issue with The Trinity as a concept, personally. Given the precepts of religion, it makes sense as an idea.
BUT:
My point was that anything in the texts should not be taken for a fact. People in the 4th century (Catholic and Orthodox bishops, by the way) have selected inspired texts. I've made my point clear in previous posts - read them in their entierty, ask me a question more to the point when you get that information. Check it, if you will. If it appears in the first lines of an unreliable text, it's not the same thing... You want me to write one? I can do it, no problem.
Also, Christians in the beginning did not believe in the Holy Trinity, or it looked completely different to them. They had several Gospels, arguably closer to the source, but these were banned by the official (and no, not Anglican) Church. Look it up.I know. The Protestant church didn't exactly exist until Henry VIII had that argument in the 1500s, there's no way that the people responsible for compiling the first Bible would have had Protestant, let alone Anglican, leanings.

I first started typing that reply when there was like only 6 posts on the thread, so missed much in it. But you two've been going along fine yourselves.

Basically, your argument here is lying on the fact that you can't accept the Gospels as... well gospel. Unfortunately, there's very little I can do about that; my only argument is that I believe that the compilers were divinely inspired, and obviously to a skeptic, that's not going to hold much water. I wish you well, but I fear that this particular line of discussion can't go much further. :/(plus I'm really tired and want to get a few rounds of CS in sometime)

Hemings; I realise and understand the importance of Mass to you and other Catholics. It's an important part of Christian life and fellowship, and we too sort-of re-enact the events in that upper room. But it is, for us, purely in memory. I don't 'get' your second paragraph though, could you rephrase it?

See, unlike you give me credit for, I do know much about all religions. Though unlike you, I do not use my knowledge to belittle or try to discredit any other religion. By the way, the Maronites were once monophysites can't so much remember if they still consider themselves believing in the single nature of Christ. If you wish to preach criticism of a religion, join a hate group, else learn to be more accepting and peaceful. See, that's what my religion has taught me. Obviously, yours hasn't.
Sorry. Really. I didn't mean to be hostile, I just want to get my point through - and not that I trust in it being right, I just believe it to be an unfamiliar approach. I wanted to get through what I believe is not usually addressed.
In return: Please, don't go "ad hominem" on me.
I do not preach criticism of religion, just of Christianity. And not for personal preference, but after being faced with the ambugity of its message. It is contrieved, but I would not challenge your personal beliefs, just what we should both accept can pass into dialogue. In fact, I credited Christianity with
being more than "illogical" (not meant as an insult - faith is not logical). I tried to prove that the idea of faith as a basis was introduced by people who knew the more logical aspects to be flawed.
The still Monophysite Churches (actually, Monothelite - there's a nuance) are the Ortodox ones in Syria, Egypt and Ethiopia. It has always been a mystery to me how come they're alligned with Eastern Orthodoxy, which is virulentlly anti-Monophysite - I guess they chose to look at what "unites" them, as in "we're not Catholic" :) . See, different dogmas are essential - not just as facts of history, but as defining different notions of what the world is.
Incidentally, I find Catholicism to be the most respectable form - in the way that it argues and defines its points, in the fact that most are thought through. But Christianity as such has a huge hole at its centre.
Please, read all of what I'm posting. It's hard for me to write the same over and over again.

my only argument is that I believe that the compilers were divinely inspired, and obviously to a skeptic, that's not going to hold much water
Please, see post 13 for my conclusion to that. I don't think it is "just skeptical", the question is even more valid since it is expressed within the purposes of religion. It's proof of sophistry!

Please, see post 13 for my conclusion to that. I don't think it is "just skeptical", the question is even more valid since it is expressed within the purposes of religion. It's proof of sophistry!
Do you mean the
-so, the moment of "picking" the right Gospels (the Council of Nicaea) impied a moment of ABSOLUTE and UNDENIABLE faith. Isn't this implied as more important than Jesus's life? I mean, God allowed people to argue about Jesus, but only up to a moment.bit? Because I didn't follow what you said there.

If you mean that the leap to have faith that the Council got it spot on is a leap too far, then I'd argue that once you've made a leap to accept Jesus as Lord and Messiah, then it's not actually far at all.

If you don't mean that, then what did you mean?

I thought it was a kickass movie and Julie Roberts brother was an awsome villain.....

Do you mean the
bit? Because I didn't follow what you said there.

If you mean that the leap to have faith that the Council got it spot on is a leap too far, then I'd argue that once you've made a leap to accept Jesus as Lord and Messiah, then it's not actually far at all.

If you don't mean that, then what did you mean?
They, unlike others, were inspired - not just accepting, it means that they could get straight to the proper notions in a quagmire, and that they made it so that everyone else would be a heretic (at any later time). We can all agree on that. But what are the impications?
God can make you "not be wrong". But, had this happened during Jesus, the story would've not made sense (imagine Judas being gripped by faith, imagine the meaning of salvation if people could not do wrong in this respect). Even more so, God interferes with human character: it's either selective manipulation or complete nonsense (I would argue: nonsense for a believer, just as well).
Consider the importance of the event: Jesus accepts the wrong in human nature, and sacrifices Himself to "take it upon Him". But, 400 years later, it becomes UNDENIABLE and IMPORTANT that people just as those CANNOT BE WRONG. "They felt the presence of The Holy Spirit" - why doesn't this happen to everyone anytime? Before you answer: it DOES NOT happen to believers, so it is an unparalleled situation. Again, if it happened, it should be more relevant than anything Jesus did.

Do you mean the
bit? Because I didn't follow what you said there.

If you mean that the leap to have faith that the Council got it spot on is a leap too far, then I'd argue that once you've made a leap to accept Jesus as Lord and Messiah, then it's not actually far at all.

If you don't mean that, then what did you mean?
Two more issues:
1- why would Church leaders in a Council be more inspired when selecting Gospels than people WRITING THEM? Did you know that even in the Four that were selected you can see blatent interventions in the texts (there still exist fragments of, let's say, Luke that have simpler texts and are older)?
In Christianity, God seems to spend a lot of time making people be right when mending and interpreting the texts - and not making others write them clearly or even properly to begin with. Don't tell me that religious texts are naturally complicated because the doctrine is complicated: religion moves mountains to make sure the believers get it right, but it didn't do it back then, apparently.
2- do you think that Church leaders were inspired throughout? Because then you do not believe in your own Church: it rejected other Councils' decisions with a sort of fury (so did Lutherans etc.)

Do you believe in it?


Nope. Next!