NationStates Jolt Archive

I posted this question on Yahoo! Answers. However, knowing that the IQ gap between there and here is 1,000 (in YOUR favor), I've decided to post the question here also for better results.

For those that don't know, the main difference between "mainstream" Christianity and Arianism... is the belief in the Trinity. Arians... do NOT believe in the Trinity, and many of them deny that the Bible is 100% accurate.

Historically, Arians came before the Council of Nicea, and thus before the doctrine of the Trinity and the canonization of the Bible. Arius taught that God is One (a belief held by Jews and Muslims today).

When Arius was preaching his Christianity, there was no Catholic Church, no Trinity, and there was no Bible. All of this came from the Councils of Constantine, of which Arius came before.

....

So what are your thoughts on Arianism...?

So, Atheists and Christians alike - do you think that Arianism is the true Christianity?

NOTE: Where there are "....", I took out references to Unitarianism since I just want to talk about Arianism (but there, I was talking about both).

Define Christianity, and then define true Christianity, and then ask your question again.

In my books, if they don't believe in the Holy Trinity, they're not Christians, and therefore they are a cult. (Christian definition of a cult, which is anything that is non-Christian, despite any similarities. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, these are all cults, despite that they insist on Christianity. Well, except for Unitarians, I don't know much about them.)

Define Christianity, and then define true Christianity, and then ask your question again.

Christianity - The belief in YHWH as the One True God and Jesus as the only acceptable way to him.

Well, except for Unitarians, I don't know much about them.)

They are basically the modern Arians, though I think they have some different beliefs (not referring to Unitarian Universalists, but to Christian Unitarianism).

all i know is that no true christian puts sugar on his porridge

edit: haha, in before "in before no true scotsman"

In before No True Scotsman

Looks like the smart people are still at work/school...

(with the exception of 2 people besides myself)

I posted this question on Yahoo! Answers. However, knowing that the IQ gap between there and here is 1,000 (in YOUR favor), I've decided to post the question here also for better results.



So, Atheists and Christians alike - do you think that Arianism is the true Christianity?

NOTE: Where there are "....", I took out references to Unitarianism since I just want to talk about Arianism (but there, I was talking about both).

"true" Christianity is the in the eye of the beholder... Those holding to what classified in the general "orthodox" (yet another word held in the eye of the beholder), of the Orthodox, Catholic or various mainstream protestant groups will say no it is not... Those holding to Oneness theology will also disagree.... And only other Unitarians and similar (Jehovah's Witnesses) will say that it is.

Christianity - The belief in YHWH as the One True God and Jesus as the only acceptable way to him.
I've never understood why that "One True God" angle is even part of christianity. Does god ever claim to be the only god?

He insists "thou shalt have no other gods before me", but I don't recall a declaration that he was the only true god.

all i know is that no true christian puts sugar on his porridge

edit: haha, in before "in before no true scotsman"

Fucking timewarpers.

Looks like most of the smart people are still at work...

So, Atheists and Christians alike - do you think that Arianism is the true Christianity?

seems to me that you could say arius and others held one of a number of possible interpretations. perhaps one of the more reasonable possible interpretations too. but it's not like that was the original belief and other stuff was just invented after it. early christianity was a mess of all sorts of contradictory nonsense.

seems to me that you could say arius and others held one of a number of possible interpretations. perhaps one of the more reasonable possible interpretations too. but it's not like that was the original belief and other stuff was just invented after it. early christianity was a mess of all sorts of contradictory nonsense.

Indeed. If you take "true" Christianity to mean the original belief, then there is no such thing. Early Christianity was way too fragmented to say that any one version-- particularly anything practiced today-- at all resembles what was intended by those who called themselves the disciples of Yeshua of Nazareth.

Now, as an atheist, I think Arianism is equally wrong as any other form of Christianity, or indeed any religion. It has no more or no less evidence in its favor than does any other faith.

In my books, if they don't believe in the Holy Trinity, they're not Christians

I, (as a Christian myself - non-denominational) have to agree, the foundation of Christianity according to the NT is in belief as Christ being the only PErfect way to God, who is Himself God, and in the Holy Spirit (composing the Holy Trinity).

Are they close? Like Mormons and J's Witnesses, yes, but they miss the mark enough in my book.

In before No True Scotsman

No True Scotsman!!

Indeed. If you take "true" Christianity to mean the original belief, then there is no such thing. Early Christianity was way too fragmented to say that any one version

Even then, one must ask whether it refers to the 'Jewish' Christianity (before Paul started preaching to Gentiles), or the post Gentile Christianity.

-- particularly anything practiced today-- at all resembles what was intended by those who called themselves the disciples of Yeshua of Nazareth.

I have to disagree in large part. At my (non-denom.) church we actively read the accounts of Paul, and examine what that means we should be like in our attitude towards God, and others, how we should live and practice our faith. Thats about as original as it can get. (Yes, we also study, heavily, the gospels, and the words, and deeds of the Christ Himself.)

I've never understood why that "One True God" angle is even part of christianity. Does god ever claim to be the only god?

He insists "thou shalt have no other gods before me", but I don't recall a declaration that he was the only true god.

I think it comes with the omnipotence. After all, what is a god? If you live in Judaea around 1000 BC (a little after the Exodus), and you worship with your heart and soul a small lump of stone or gold fashioned in the shape of Baal, is that not a god? It is still nonetheless powerless (unless you whip at someone's head).

The idea of 'no other god's before me' means that God (the only one) wants your full devotion. People who live for money, worship money. People who follow all of the latest celebrity fashions and gossip, and rumours, worship celebrities. People who live for themselves first, and above all, worship themselves.

All of these things are gods in their own rights. Nothing more than they already are, or would have been, except that it is a title ascribed when something receives a certain veneration or worship.

The term "God" referring to an omnipotent being, however has it's own meaning, seperate from that of the quality of being worshipped (and where that meaning comes from). And God, exclusively, fits that bill. After all, look at Christian Scripture, and we see that Satan's folly was desire to be worshipped, but if God were open to pantheon beliefs there would be no problem, one more god out of many. Instead, Satan is not the One God (and there aren't others of whom he can join the ranks), so in his pride, and his sin he is cast from the favour of (the) God.

EDIT: Also, if there were multiple omnipotent gods, why would they let God (the Abrahamic one) cast Satan out? Wouldn't it better benefit the polytheistic beliefs if Satan were allowed to be a god as well? After all tht would be more gods advocating for polytheism, and thus more believable. Why wouldn't they combine their powers and put a stop to all of God's glory hogging? I maintian that it is because they don't exist.

I posted this question on Yahoo! Answers. However, knowing that the IQ gap between there and here is 1,000 (in YOUR favor), I've decided to post the question here also for better results.



So, Atheists and Christians alike - do you think that Arianism is the true Christianity?

NOTE: Where there are "....", I took out references to Unitarianism since I just want to talk about Arianism (but there, I was talking about both).

Um, your question to yahoo was rather flawed, and the belief you portrayed there is common for some reason. Anyways, the trinity concept was around LONG before Nicea, and long before Arianism. The Council of Nicaea only firmly establish what the apostles and the church fathers said to be true. So, the ideas of trinity, the divinity of Christ, and so forth, came from the very first Chrisitians who either knew Christ, or people that knew him. Therefore, I can reasonably conclude that Arianism is just another heresy that was wisely shut down.

no its not the true christianity.

consider this quote from wikipedia

"Arianism is most commonly used to refer to the theological positions made famous by the theologian Arius (c. AD 250-336), who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. "

so no, its just one of a dozen (or a hundred) different christian mix-and-match theologies that were popular before the council of nicaea solidified the doctrines of "true" christianity and the church went about the business of wiping the rest out.

I have to disagree in large part. At my (non-denom.) church...

Since you're one of the few Non-denominational Christians that I can actually talk to, I have to ask this question: What are your views about the final destination (Heaven, Hell, reincarnated...?) of the following people:

1) The one who never learned the positive side of Christianity and was only taught bad things about it

2) The fetus/the baby

3) The clone

Nowhere in scripture does Yahweh claim to be omnipotent. In fact, the Old Testament at several points makes it very clear that Yahweh is not all powerful. Extremely powerful, yes. Wanting to be the first, most certainly. But it never claims that he was the only, nor does it claim his omnipotence.

Neither, in fact, does the New Testament. God's omnipotence is never proclaimed by Jesus. Jesus does claim that Yahweh is omni-benevolent, however. But benevolence does not translate into power.

But still weaker than iron chariots!

I think it comes with the omnipotence. After all, what is a god? If you live in Judaea around 1000 BC (a little after the Exodus), and you worship with your heart and soul a small lump of stone or gold fashioned in the shape of Baal, is that not a god? It is still nonetheless powerless (unless you whip at someone's head).

The idea of 'no other god's before me' means that God (the only one) wants your full devotion. People who live for money, worship money. People who follow all of the latest celebrity fashions and gossip, and rumours, worship celebrities. People who live for themselves first, and above all, worship themselves.

All of these things are gods in their own rights. Nothing more than they already are, or would have been, except that it is a title ascribed when something receives a certain veneration or worship.

The term "God" referring to an omnipotent being, however has it's own meaning, seperate from that of the quality of being worshipped (and where that meaning comes from). And God, exclusively, fits that bill. After all, look at Christian Scripture, and we see that Satan's folly was desire to be worshipped, but if God were open to pantheon beliefs there would be no problem, one more god out of many. Instead, Satan is not the One God (and there aren't others of whom he can join the ranks), so in his pride, and his sin he is cast from the favour of (the) God.

EDIT: Also, if there were multiple omnipotent gods, why would they let God (the Abrahamic one) cast Satan out? Wouldn't it better benefit the polytheistic beliefs if Satan were allowed to be a god as well? After all tht would be more gods advocating for polytheism, and thus more believable. Why wouldn't they combine their powers and put a stop to all of God's glory hogging? I maintian that it is because they don't exist.

Nowhere in scripture does Yahweh claim to be omnipotent. In fact, the Old Testament at several points makes it very clear that Yahweh is not all powerful. Extremely powerful, yes. Wanting to be the first, most certainly. But it never claims that he was the only, nor does it claim his omnipotence.

Neither, in fact, does the New Testament. God's omnipotence is never proclaimed by Jesus. Jesus does claim that Yahweh is omni-benevolent, however. But benevolence does not translate into power.

The very question presupposes that there is an objective standard by which any particular branch of Christianity can be measured in its closeness to 'true' Christianity. Christianity doesn't exist in itself, so the only judgement we could potentially make is 'how close is X to the beliefs of the earliest Christians?', but even this presupposes a unified early church and that we can reliably know what their beliefs were.

Was Arianism closer to original Christianity than the orthodox beliefs of today? Buggered if I know. They were probably right with respect to the Trinity (a concept which isn't found in the New Testament: 1 John 5:7–8, the Comma Johanneum, is a sixteenth century interpolation which Erasmus intended to leave out of his translation of the Bible because it was absent from the original Greek texts) and the Synoptic Gospels don't portray Jesus as being one with God, but only as his son, a view which would be compatible with Arianism. The Arians may well have been right with respect to their denial of scriptural inerrancy, as the only proposed reference to inerrancy in the NT is found in 2 Timothy, a document which is widely held to be a later forgery rather than a genuine Pauline work.

Does this satisfy the OP's hopes for an intelligent answer?

btw just so you know the catholic church was around. the Catholic Church's beginning is in the bible and was started before Christ's death and resurrection. It was founded by St. Peter the Apostle.

btw just so you know the catholic church was around. the Catholic Church's beginning is in the bible and was started before Christ's death and resurrection. It was founded by St. Peter the Apostle.

I'm talking from a secular point of view, as the Catholic Church is the only group that says that Peter was the beginning of the Catholic Church (get where I'm going?)

Since you're one of the few Non-denominational Christians that I can actually talk to, I have to ask this question: What are your views about the final destination (Heaven, Hell, reincarnated...?) of the following people:

1) The one who never learned the positive side of Christianity and was only taught bad things about it

2) The fetus/the baby

3) The clone


1) Honestly, I'm not quite sure what exactly you mean here... please elaborate a little?

2) Jesus says that we should do things like baptism, and communion. They are not necessary. I also agree with (a very common thought, as far as I'm aware, outside the Catholic Church) the line of thought that suggests an 'age of accountability' an age (which vaires form person to person) at which we become 'aware' of right and wrong in an ethical sense. A five-year old can know, but not understand as such that wrong action is truly wrong. In accordance with this thought people as yet below this age (again individually dependent on each person) are free from the weight of their sins due to Christ's Grace, if they don't have the chance to understand Christ, I don't believe He would hold it against them. I also do not believe that baptism/communion/comfirmation provide any security in themselves, they are representations of our faith, I had water sprinkled on my head as a babe, but as I came to Christ in High School, I didn't feel that that was enough to satisfy my desire to publicly proclaim for God in my life, and so I was baptized by my 'new' Church, it was a symbol alone, the salvation rests in my heart, and my will.

3) I honestly hope this phase will end, I don't like the idea of clones, but if they have the mental capacity to understand right an wrong, and the Salvation of Christ, then I can't see how they would differ from 'standard' humans.

Also, I firmly believe against reincarnation, unless you want to be ridiculous and say that because Heaven is eternal life, and you 'come back to life' in Heaven that you are reincarnated there :p.

I of course believe in Hell as much as Heaven... a grim place indeed.

btw just so you know the catholic church was around. the Catholic Church's beginning is in the bible and was started before Christ's death and resurrection. It was founded by St. Peter the Apostle.

Actually, if you read the earliest Gospel (Mark) you'll see that it isn't terribly complementary towards any of the Disciples, but Peter is singled out for special criticism.

But that's besides the point, where is the Catholic Church mentioned in the Bible?

But that's besides the point, where is the Catholic Church mentioned in the Bible?

That's funny, because Jesus said (of Peter) that he would be the rock on which the church was founded. So, the Catholic Church slapped the title 'First Bishop of Rome" (Pope) onto Peter, now that they have their justification they can go crazy with things like they get to decide who goes to Heaven and who doesn't (even though Jesus made it clear that He decided...), they get to make up fancy things like Purgatory.

That's funny, because Jesus said (of Peter) that he would be the rock on which the church was founded. So, the Catholic Church slapped the title 'First Bishop of Rome" (Pope) onto Peter, now that they have their justification they can go crazy with things like they get to decide who goes to Heaven and who doesn't (even Jesus made it clear that He decided...), they get to make up fancy things like Purgatory.

Indeed. It goes without saying that, even if Peter was granted special authority, there's no indication that this authority was to be passed on to anyone else after his death. It's also worth noting that in the New Testament Ekklesia is only ever used to refer to a collection of worshippers, never to a building, institution or organisation.

its simple, really. god beats paper. paper beats iron chariots. iron chariots beat god.

So... I understand how to make the 'paper' symbol... but how on earth do you make 'God' into a hand symobl? Even Iron Chariots are easier... but still?!

I'm so confused! :(

:p

1) Honestly, I'm not quite sure what exactly you mean here... please elaborate a little?

Suppose a Christian killed my father. My mother would tell me that Christianity is bad from birth. I would never get the chance to learn about Christianity as I would only know the side that my mother gave me.

As another example:

I've lived in Japan all my life. I die there, and never learn about Christianity.

But still weaker than iron chariots!

its simple, really. god beats paper. paper beats iron chariots. iron chariots beat god.

Suppose a Christian killed my father. My mother would tell me that Christianity is bad from birth. I would never get the chance to learn about Christianity as I would only know the side that my mother gave me.

As another example:

I've lived in Japan all my life. I die there, and never learn about Christianity.

I don't have any authority to rightly say. I can only presume that genuine and complete ignorance of the gospel of Christ would excuse one... but I make no claims of a genuine ability to say one way or another.

Indeed. It goes without saying that, even if Peter was granted special authority, there's no indication that this authority was to be passed on to anyone else after his death. It's also worth noting that in the New Testament Ekklesia is only ever used to refer to a collection of worshippers, never to a building, institution or organisation.

Paul uses the term 'saints' quite frequently... to refer to the general collection of believers, for example "To the saints in city X" doesn't mean only to those who have been canonized by the Catholic Church, it refers to the Christians in that city. Also the stringent Catholic hierarchy belies the frequent mention (even by Jesus) of equality among believers, or even 'first shall be last, last shall be first' ideology.

Also, I think Peter earned special merit sometimes by examples that he set, and that is Jesus' statement about him being the rock of the church... that his fiath is admirable.

Technically the “Trinity” is not the problem that Arius had with the other bishops at the council of Nicaea. His question was, is Jesus God, or just like God, it was about the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father. According to Arianism God’s first act of creation was to make Jesus, thus Jesus would was a created being with divine attributes, The Son of God divine but not the Divine. After debate and discussion and then voting, only two of the Bishops in attendance (out of 250-318) voted in favor of Arius’ view.

As to the other stuff:
When Arius was preaching his Christianity, there was no Catholic Church, no Trinity, and there was no Bible. All of this came from the Councils of Constantine, of which Arius came before.
This is all pretty much a misrepresentation of the actual event. There was a church, the accepted books of the Bible were not determined by the council (the council of Nicaea didn’t do anything about canonizing scripture), the Trinity belief was not invented at the council, it was approved as the accepted Christian theology.

So no, the answer is that Arianism is NOT the true Christianity, it was never even close.

So... I understand how to make the 'paper' symbol... but how on earth do you make 'God' into a hand symobl? Even Iron Chariots are easier... but still?!

I'm so confused! :(

:p

thats why YOURE not the pope.

it was never even close.

Indeed, examine the nature of the name of the belief: "CHRISTianity. From the greek word christos to mean 'Messiah' which I think places more emphasis on Jesus than Arianism did.

damn it, now i want to change it in honor of our fundie friends. paper should be science.

That makes it even harder... how do make 'science' a hand-sign?

thats why YOURE not the pope.

:D

Well, that and some other reasons, lol.

This is all pretty much a misrepresentation of the actual event. There was a church, the accepted books of the Bible were not determined by the council (the council of Nicaea didn’t do anything about canonizing scripture), the Trinity belief was not invented at the council, it was approved as the accepted Christian theology.

The DaVinci Code has a lot to answer for. :D

its simple, really. god beats paper. paper beats iron chariots. iron chariots beat god.

damn it, now i want to change it in honor of our fundie friends. paper should be science.

damn it, now i want to change it in honor of our fundie friends. paper should be science.

"Ok, ok, a game of Science, God, Iron Chariots determines the winner of a tie."

"Best two out of three?"

"Always, it helps represent the Trinity!"

Lol.

:pThe DaVinci Code has a lot to answer for. :D

I will hold his arms and you punch, k?

:p

I will hold his arms and you punch, k?

Or you could do what the Catholic Church does. Raise a big fuss that does nothing as well as it draws direct attention to the thing that should be avoided....

That makes it even harder... how do make 'science' a hand-sign?

you just make your hand into the shape of science. duh.

Are you arguing that Araianism should be considered as being more true than orthodox Christianity because it predates it?

I would think that many of the Gnostic schools could equally be considered teh True Xianity, if you want to go by how old they are.

So no, the answer is that Arianism is NOT the true Christianity, it was never even close.

provided we define 'true christianity' as that which was approved at the council and which doesn't put sugar on its porridge.

you just make your hand into the shape of science. duh.

Wow, now that you say it, it seems so obvious... I kinda feel like a dunce for missing the obvious. Thanks man! (or woman?)

I think it comes with the omnipotence. After all, what is a god? If you live in Judaea around 1000 BC (a little after the Exodus), and you worship with your heart and soul a small lump of stone or gold fashioned in the shape of Baal, is that not a god? It is still nonetheless powerless (unless you whip at someone's head).

The idea of 'no other god's before me' means that God (the only one) wants your full devotion. People who live for money, worship money. People who follow all of the latest celebrity fashions and gossip, and rumours, worship celebrities. People who live for themselves first, and above all, worship themselves.

All of these things are gods in their own rights. Nothing more than they already are, or would have been, except that it is a title ascribed when something receives a certain veneration or worship.

The term "God" referring to an omnipotent being, however has it's own meaning, seperate from that of the quality of being worshipped (and where that meaning comes from). And God, exclusively, fits that bill. After all, look at Christian Scripture, and we see that Satan's folly was desire to be worshipped, but if God were open to pantheon beliefs there would be no problem, one more god out of many. Instead, Satan is not the One God (and there aren't others of whom he can join the ranks), so in his pride, and his sin he is cast from the favour of (the) God.

EDIT: Also, if there were multiple omnipotent gods, why would they let God (the Abrahamic one) cast Satan out? Wouldn't it better benefit the polytheistic beliefs if Satan were allowed to be a god as well? After all tht would be more gods advocating for polytheism, and thus more believable. Why wouldn't they combine their powers and put a stop to all of God's glory hogging? I maintian that it is because they don't exist.

As someone who follows a polytheistic religion I can simply tell you that polytheism is not one lump thing. Having Satan as a god helps no one. While in my opinion Satan is a god, I fail to see how this aids any god in any other pantheon. Satan seems to have completely different goals then most gods I know of. (both mine and others).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the question; I think it is fair to say that any 'true' form of Christianity died when Constantine converted. The rest are all as equally true as the next. (With the exception of Mormonism which goes on a wild tangent)

Zilam:

I remember you back when I posted as the nation "Icovir". I seem to recall you being Muslim, though now you are obviously Christian. Why the conversion, if any?

I'm not being confrontational, just asking.

provided we define 'true christianity' as that which was approved at the council and which doesn't put sugar on its porridge.

As I said, but you probably failed to read in my other post, the council only initiated what the apostles and church fathers, as well as the very first Christian community, already knew! Its not like all these different factions in the 4th century were equal, and Nicean Christianity won out. No, it was that they were following the example which was left behind by the original church. Those other factions only sprouted when the western church was mixing with other world views, to try and get more followers. That is why we don't follow their creeds.

Are you arguing that Araianism should be considered as being more true than orthodox Christianity because it predates it?

I would think that many of the Gnostic schools could equally be considered teh True Xianity, if you want to go by how old they are.

Gnosticism is still wrong though, because again, the came after the original church, and went in a complete different direction that what the apostles and church fathers taught. gnosticism shouldn't be considered religion at all, but rather, a twisted philosophy.

:p

I will hold his arms and you punch, k?

Now there's something we can agree on. ;):)

So your saying Arian was BEFORE Constantine?

His theology was presented before the Council of Nicea decided what is and what isn't Christian aside from the obvious (belief in Jesus as savior).

btw do you remember how Arian died?

He was going "numero uno" when all of a sudden blood came out and he died from some disease.

Not exactly a "saintly" way to die...

Saints are only in the Catholic Church.

Are some of you saying Arius was from the time of Jesus?

No. Arius was born about 200 years after. But Jesus never taught philosophy - he just taught that he was the only way to God.

I posted this question on Yahoo! Answers. However, knowing that the IQ gap between there and here is 1,000 (in YOUR favor), I've decided to post the question here also for better results.



So, Atheists and Christians alike - do you think that Arianism is the true Christianity?

NOTE: Where there are "....", I took out references to Unitarianism since I just want to talk about Arianism (but there, I was talking about both).

Sorry to be radical here but whatever


So your saying Arius was BEFORE Constantine? Umm... Constantine was a Catholic (difference here Roman Catholic and Catholic, Catholic was the only "sect" back then besides other heresies and agnostics)

The Catholic church (once again not Roman) was the only church it started when Jesus started.


btw do you remember how Arius died?

He was going "numero uno" when all of a sudden blood came out and he died from some disease.

Not exactly a "saintly" way to die...

EDIT: Are some of you saying Arius was from the time of Jesus?

As I said, but you probably failed to read in my other post, the council only initiated what the apostles and church fathers, as well as the very first Christian community, already knew! Its not like all these different factions in the 4th century were equal, and Nicean Christianity won out. No, it was that they were following the example which was left behind by the original church. Those other factions only sprouted when the western church was mixing with other world views, to try and get more followers. That is why we don't follow their creeds.

well, the bible certainly doesn't imply trinitarianism, and seems to actively speak against it in some places. seems to me that early christianity was rather more mushy about all of this than it is even today - mainly because they hadn't actually developed a set of people devoted to mucking about with the actual details of their various beliefs yet. whereas now we are mushy about it because everybody disagrees about which details are the proper ones.

Gnosticism is still wrong though, because again, the came after the original church, and went in a complete different direction that what the apostles and church fathers taught. gnosticism shouldn't be considered religion at all, but rather, a twisted philosophy.

I was unaware of any 'church' or sect of Xianity that predates the Gnostics. Do you have a source?

Umm the DaVinci code is under fiction...:eek:

There's a little disclaimer at the front to the effect: "While this book is a work of fiction, all descriptions of history, documents, rituals etc. are accurate". A lot of people believed it.

In fact (confession time :() I must admit to having believed it when I first read it (in my defence I was only fourteen at the time).

The DaVinci Code has a lot to answer for. :D

Umm the DaVinci code is under fiction...:eek:

Gnosticism is still wrong though, because again, the came after the original church, and went in a complete different direction that what the apostles and church fathers taught. gnosticism shouldn't be considered religion at all, but rather, a twisted philosophy.

The apostles and the church fathers weren't all-knowing either. Paul went to great extents to synthesize Christianity with Greek philosophy, which was developed by non-Christian pagans, after all.

The apostles and the church fathers weren't all-knowing either. Paul went to great extents to synthesize Christianity with Greek philosophy, which was developed by non-Christian pagans, after all.

Prove that point about paul please. I want to see how he mixed Chrisitianity and Greek philosophy. They only thing he did was preach to the greeks in ways they would understand. The message of Christ stayed the same, but just told to the people in a way they'd understand. And i trust the apostles more than 4th century barbaric heretics, because they received their instruction straight from Christ when he was on earth, and then from the Holy Spirit which came down on pentecost.

Prove that point about paul please. I want to see how he mixed Chrisitianity and Greek philosophy. They only thing he did was preach to the greeks in ways they would understand. The message of Christ stayed the same, but just told to the people in a way they'd understand. And i trust the apostles more than 4th century barbaric heretics, because they received their instruction straight from Christ when he was on earth, and then from the Holy Spirit which came down on pentecost.

I like your sig.

I think it comes with the omnipotence. After all, what is a god? If you live in Judaea around 1000 BC (a little after the Exodus), and you worship with your heart and soul a small lump of stone or gold fashioned in the shape of Baal, is that not a god? It is still nonetheless powerless (unless you whip at someone's head).

The idea of 'no other god's before me' means that God (the only one) wants your full devotion. People who live for money, worship money. People who follow all of the latest celebrity fashions and gossip, and rumours, worship celebrities. People who live for themselves first, and above all, worship themselves.

All of these things are gods in their own rights. Nothing more than they already are, or would have been, except that it is a title ascribed when something receives a certain veneration or worship.

The term "God" referring to an omnipotent being, however has it's own meaning, seperate from that of the quality of being worshipped (and where that meaning comes from). And God, exclusively, fits that bill. After all, look at Christian Scripture, and we see that Satan's folly was desire to be worshipped, but if God were open to pantheon beliefs there would be no problem, one more god out of many. Instead, Satan is not the One God (and there aren't others of whom he can join the ranks), so in his pride, and his sin he is cast from the favour of (the) God.

EDIT: Also, if there were multiple omnipotent gods, why would they let God (the Abrahamic one) cast Satan out? Wouldn't it better benefit the polytheistic beliefs if Satan were allowed to be a god as well? After all tht would be more gods advocating for polytheism, and thus more believable. Why wouldn't they combine their powers and put a stop to all of God's glory hogging? I maintian that it is because they don't exist.

Recognising that Trotskylvania has handily beaten the omnipotence argument, here's why he didn't even need to.

You presupposed that the other gods wish to be worshipped. You also presupposed that they preferred that each other be worshipped (your polytheism argument).

Without those presupposition,s your conclusion is baseless. Other omnipotent gods could well exist, with the full power to counter-act or even destroy the Christian god, but they simply haven't used that power (as far as we know).