Spirituality
19 Jul 07
19 Jul 07
Folks, this here thread is for sharing what you think are some of the most outrageously awful statements made by users in this forum. The contributions can be examples of logical leaps, circular reasoning, tortured prose style, pathetic ignorance, or other forms of aesthetic, moral or intellectual dreck.
Please keep contributions to single-sentence examples, and limit yourself to one sentence per posting. The examples must come from this forum, and they should be accompanied by appropriate citation information: original author, date, name of thread and link to thread.
Here's an initial offering to get us started:
"Christianity was made up in 325c and can't be referenced to Jesus by any way."
--ahosney, 19 Jul '07 13:54, "To the World's Religious Leaders," Thread 72933
19 Jul 07
3 edits
This one goes in the category of pathetic ignorance.
"Giving him the maximum benefit of the doubt, it appears he used a Reductio ad Absurdum, not a proof by contradiction."
--no1marauder, 27 Apr '07 06:23, "Catholicism and Persuading God," Thread 67802[/b]
20 Jul 07
This one's a fairly recent screamer, which despite hanging ten on the edge of reason is still laudably honest:
"If I want to believe that there are no errors in the bible, then I will."
--josephw, 06 Jul '07 16:04, "Inerrantcy" [sic], Thread 71971
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt's no fun to speak ill of the dead. Especially not those who had died twice.
This one goes in the category of pathetic ignorance.
"Giving him the maximum benefit of the doubt, it appears he used a Reductio ad Absurdum, not a proof by contradiction."
--no1marauder, 27 Apr '07 06:23, "Catholicism and Persuading God," Thread 67802[/b]
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdd'oh
This one's a fairly recent screamer, which despite hanging ten on the edge of reason is still laudably honest:
"If I want to believe that there are no errors in the bible, then I will."
--josephw, 06 Jul '07 16:04, "Inerrantcy" [sic], Thread 71971
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdAhosney's statement could have been phrased better, perhaps, but it is essentially correct. I fail to see what qualifies it for the "hall of shame."
Folks, this here thread is for sharing what you think are some of the most outrageously awful statements made by users in this forum. The contributions can be examples of logical leaps, circular reasoning, tortured prose style, pathetic ignorance, or other forms of aesthetic, moral or intellectual dreck.
Please keep contributions to single-sentence exa ...[text shortened]... hosney, 19 Jul '07 13:54, "To the World's Religious Leaders," Thread 72933
Christianity was made up by a long process that largely culminated with the Council of Nicaea, in 325 CE.
What Christianity came to be has very little to do with the historical Jesus.
20 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettWelcome to the Hall of Shame rwingett!!
Ahosney's statement could have been phrased better, perhaps, but it is essentially correct. I fail to see what qualifies it for the "hall of shame."
Christianity was made up by a long process that largely culminated with the Council of Nicaea, in 325 CE.
What Christianity came to be has very little to do with the historical Jesus.
So why was the Council called? Was it not over whether the doctrine of the Trinity was valid? Were there not over 300 bishops called to the Council? And out of those how many objected? As I recall, only Athanasius objected out of the over 300 bishops.
This council was not over whether or not Christ was the MEssiah. This council was not over whether or not he died and rose again. This council was not over whether or not Chirst died for our sins. This Council was formed to once and for all determain if the Trinity theology was a sound theology. Therefore, to say that Christianity was started because of this Council is absurd to say the least.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyActually, reading through the Wiki article on it, I can see both points; however, I feel compelled to side with rwingett on this one.
Welcome to the Hall of Shame rwingett!!
So why was the Council called? Was it not over whether the doctrine of the Trinity was valid? Were there not over 300 bishops called to the Council? And out of those how many objected? As I recall, only Athanasius objected out of the over 300 bishops.
This council was not over whether or not Christ was the M ...[text shortened]... refore, to say that Christianity was started because of this Council is absurd to say the least.
Certainly there were Christian sects pre-325; however, there was no central organisation, and many of the tenants of the Christian church, such as the supposed date of the resurrection, or whether Jesus was actually "the same" (quite whatever that means) as God, were not decided upon until that time.
However, of course, it all seems a little ludicrous to me. NONE of the bishops attending the meeting ever met Jesus, or knew whether he was the son of God. They were interpreting the scripture (which wasn't written until at least 60 years after Jesus' death) and probably not without political biases in mind.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyDo you know how to read? I didn't say Christianity was invented by a council. I said, "Christianity was made up by a long process that largely culminated with the Council of Nicaea, in 325 CE." All the creative work had already been done by then. All the competing versions of Christianity had already been largely worked out. The council just capped this process off.
Welcome to the Hall of Shame rwingett!!
So why was the Council called? Was it not over whether the doctrine of the Trinity was valid? Were there not over 300 bishops called to the Council? And out of those how many objected? As I recall, only Athanasius objected out of the over 300 bishops.
This council was not over whether or not Christ was the M ...[text shortened]... refore, to say that Christianity was started because of this Council is absurd to say the least.
You seem to be woefully misguided as to what the Council of Nicaea actually was. It wasn't a meeting of all the various branches gathering together to decide which of their diverse interpretations was correct. It wasn't a meeting where the Marcionites, Gnostics, Ebionites, and proto-orthodox christians gathered and decided to go with orthodoxy. It was a meeting restricted to orthodox bishops to decide the exact content of orthodox scripture. If only one bishop objected, it's because they only sent invitations to orthodox bishops. They didn't invite Gnostic bishops. They didn't invite Marcionite bishops. Those groups were still around and had large followings at the time. So no, not everyone agreed with orthodoxy. Not everyone agreed with trinitarian theology. As far as Christianity as a whole was concerned, these issues were still up in the air. The Council of Nicaea merely clarified and firmly established the orthodox interpretation.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by rwingettThat's right. Ahosney did, which is why he's here. Language barriers or not, saying that a reified conception of Christianity was "made up" in 325 is unacceptably simplistic.
Do you know how to read? I didn't say Christianity was invented by a council.
I'm with you, rwingett, on the proliferation of early xianities, and the belief that the triumph of one flavor over the others was essentially a political one: the result of an exertion of power rather than a prevalence of truth.
But it wasn't made up in 325, and it can in fact be traced back in some ways to the statements scholars consider to be the closest to the historical Jesus. Maybe not in all ways, or even in the most important matters of doctrine, but there are some aspects of xianity that can be traced back to a historically responsible portrait of Jesus.
24 Jul 07
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdAlmost none, I would wager. I think modern christianity would be virtually unrecognizable to Jesus. I think the bulk of what passes for christianity these days was generally made up during the oral period of church history, from the time of Jesus' death to about the time of the destruction of the Temple, in 70 CE.
..but there are some aspects of xianity that can be traced back to a historically responsible portrait of Jesus.
24 Jul 07
4 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnz++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, reading through the Wiki article on it, I can see both points; however, I feel compelled to side with rwingett on this one.
Certainly there were Christian sects pre-325; however, there was no central organisation, and many of the tenants of the Christian church, such as the supposed date of the resurrection, or whether Jesus was actually "t til at least 60 years after Jesus' death) and probably not without political biases in mind.
However, of course, it all seems a little ludicrous to me. NONE of the bishops attending the meeting ever met Jesus,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ridiculous.
They attended most likely because they HAD met Jesus.
"The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor .15:45)
They had met Jesus in His pneumatic form as the life giving Spirit.
That's why they cared.
That's why it was not easy for Arius and other heretics to pull the wool
over their eyes that Jesus was not God Himself.
And that's why Christians today who have also met Jesus, in His form as Holy Spirit, are not easily swayed by Jesus Seminar like exercises in unbelief and skepticism.
24 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillYeah, and I Met Charles Darwin once.
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
However, of course, it all seems a little ludicrous to me. NONE of the bishops attending the meeting ever met Jesus,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ridiculous.
They attended most likely because they HAD met Jesus.
"The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor .15:45)
...[text shortened]... t, are not easily swayed by Jesus Seminar like exercises in unbelief and skepticism.[/b]
Gee man, don't get me started on you, this could get longer than the "what's wrong with evolution" thread🙄
24 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzSarcasm and boasting gets you nowhere on this one.
Yeah, and I Met Charles Darwin once.
Gee man, don't get me started on you, this could get longer than the "what's wrong with evolution" thread🙄
You can say that you don't believe it. PERIOD.
You can say to have such faith in that is foolish.
But Jesus taught, predicted, foretold, prophesied, instructed that He would be known by His believers after His resurrection.
The council was attended by disciples who, whatever else were their weaknesses, KNEW that they had met Jesus Christ. Just like the Apostle Paul asked the Corinthian church:
" ... do you not realize this about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?" (2 Cor. 13:5)