Tis the season....

[K.Bullock]

If I have any dispute with more traditional religious beliefs it is in two areas: the belief that one religion is in some manner correct and that others are wrong; and the belief that you can achieve salvation (or damnation) by believing the right (or wrong) thing without regard to the morality of your acts. For what it's worth, I do not believe that Jesus was wedded to either of these beliefs. I feel they were brought in much later because each of these beliefs tends to increase the institutional power of an organized church over its members. This was the explicit purpose of the First Council of Nicaea which was convened for the primary purpose of defining the parameters of a church that would help stabilize an empire and reinforce the power of the state. In my own beliefs, I view almost all religious dogma as an exercise in power more than morality.

I am not sure what you mean by "the belief that you can achieve salvation (or damnation) by believing the right (or wrong) thing without regard to the morality of your acts." It is the orthodox Christian belief that salvation comes from Christ alone through faith in God alone. It is called justification, which is a big deal because it is Martin Luther's position on salvation that began the reformation. Right acts come from being a believer. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi , his deity aside, he would have held on to the exclusivity of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And nothing in his teachings would contradict that.

The first council of Nicea had very little to do with government, that would be apparent just from the diversity of churches represented at the council. It was called by Constantine in 625 to shore up important aspects of common necessary doctrine between several churches to combat heresy and false teaching. Today they would be combating the health and wealth wack jobs we see on TV.

[Tatyana]

Not trying to read your mind at all, only to understand. Does that mean that heterosexuals marry primarily for tax reasons? When I got married I actually lost a lot of money in taxes since the "marriage penalty" was far greater than all the benefits combined. I have to admit that I never once considered those costs or benefits as I steeled myself to "pop the question" or when I happily said "I do."

I nowhere said that tax reasons are primary. Someone mentioned wills, I just added to a list of reasons why they might want to have marriage over a civil union.

[Pete]

QuoteNot really, it has turned into that over time, the apostle Paul viewed marriage as a necessity for those who could not forsake sexual relations and devote themselves entirely to God. He did outline some very challenging ideas about marriage in Ephesians 5 that challenges husbands to love their wives as Jesus loves the church, which is not at all what I hear preached by some or lived out by many. It is much easier to criticize other people and their lifestyles. unquote
As a matter of fact read what Paul says before he says that.

You have taken 1 verse out of the bible and built your own interpretation around it. You haven't even considered the context in which Paul was speaking in.
And I could feed you a library of info on this topic also.
Spare me the sunday school mentality.


QuoteDivorce happens for a lot of reasons. I have known some very committed Christians who have divorced under circumstances I hope to never go through. I guess that is why when Peter asked about John's future Jesus told him to mind his business Unqoute

Well they weren't commited enough or they would have both gone back to the word and figured out what the right way to think on their problems was. And the one that was wrong if not both would have changed their mind. After all God word says it then if you believe his word you will change your thinking accordingly. If you don't then your are just blowing smoke.

Jeff
If people want civil unions go ahead
but to call the relation ship between a God respecting man or woman the same as a gay relationship. No I would agree. In order to recieve tax breaks from the gov. It should be a man and woman because even though .
I would rather see kids grow up in an orphanage than be raised by parents of the same sex.
It just makes this mentall sickness if you will seem more normal and acceptable.


Quote I disagree. God inspired the bible specifically for those that reject him which is nearly everyone at some time or another. Including Jesus disciplesUnquote

Please reread:
Here is the kicker,,,,the bible was never written for the God rejecter
It was only written to whomsoever will believe. So if someone rejects God now but down the road the light comes on,,then he is no longer a rejecter. right,,,I thought I throw that in there because I could just smell the responses coming from that statement. Thats new testement.

You make this way to easy
K bullock
Maby you need a little more direction
Its all pretty black and white
There is just an overwhelming amount of info and cross referncing that has to be done.

[K.Bullock]

QuoteNot really, it has turned into that over time, the apostle Paul viewed marriage as a necessity for those who could not forsake sexual relations and devote themselves entirely to God. He did outline some very challenging ideas about marriage in Ephesians 5 that challenges husbands to love their wives as Jesus loves the church, which is not at all what I hear preached by some or lived out by many. It is much easier to criticize other people and their lifestyles. unquote
As a matter of fact read what Paul says before he says that.

You have taken 1 verse out of the bible and built your own interpretation around it. You haven't even considered the context in which Paul was speaking in.
And I could feed you a library of info on this topic also.
Spare me the sunday school mentality.


QuoteDivorce happens for a lot of reasons. I have known some very committed Christians who have divorced under circumstances I hope to never go through. I guess that is why when Peter asked about John's future Jesus told him to mind his business Unqoute

Well they weren't commited enough or they would have both gone back to the word and figured out what the right way to think on their problems was. And the one that was wrong if not both would have changed their mind. After all God word says it then if you believe his word you will change your thinking accordingly. If you don't then your are just blowing smoke.

Jeff
If people want civil unions go ahead
but to call the relation ship between a God respecting man or woman the same as a gay relationship. No I would agree. In order to recieve tax breaks from the gov. It should be a man and woman because even though .
I would rather see kids grow up in an orphanage than be raised by parents of the same sex.
It just makes this mentall sickness if you will seem more normal and acceptable.


Quote I disagree. God inspired the bible specifically for those that reject him which is nearly everyone at some time or another. Including Jesus disciplesUnquote

Please reread:
Here is the kicker,,,,the bible was never written for the God rejecter
It was only written to whomsoever will believe. So if someone rejects God now but down the road the light comes on,,then he is no longer a rejecter. right,,,I thought I throw that in there because I could just smell the responses coming from that statement. Thats new testement.

You make this way to easy
K bullock
Maby you need a little more direction
Its all pretty black and white
There is just an overwhelming amount of info and cross referncing that has to be done.

Pete, again your stating opinion and claiming it is scripture or doctrine or whatever. It is not, it is merely your opinion.

Sadly there are too many like you who want to claim expertise in an area without putting any time in. That's your business, I think it is bad form though and think you should reconsider and reexamine some of your positions.

[Hoosier]

Pete and K.Bullock I don't want to come off as noisy, but what specific churches do you attend. I'm curios because your discussions sound a lot like mine and a friend of mine. He was raised Lutheran and I more of a fundamentalist.

[K.Bullock]

Pete and K.Bullock I don't want to come off as noisy, but what specific churches do you attend. I'm curios because your discussions sound a lot like mine and a friend of mine. He was raised Lutheran and I more of a fundamentalist.

I attend a conservative non-denominational church. As a kid I was Presbyterian(calvinist) as a teen I hooked up with a Grace Brethren youth group.(reformed) As an adult entered in to the Nazarene denomination and later obtained a ministerial license through that denomination. I was held captive at one their institutions for a few years, I have escaped into another college for now.

Theologically I am closer to a Wesley Arminian than anything else. (think intense Methodist)

[Pete]

Pete, again your stating opinion and claiming it is scripture or doctrine or whatever. It is not, it is merely your opinion.

Sadly there are too many like you who want to claim expertise in an area without putting any time in. That's your business, I think it is bad form though and think you should reconsider and reexamine some of your positions.
__________________
All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.- J. R. R. Tolkien,


The last 30 years of my life have been dedicated to biblical research almost every day of my life.

Its what I do first thing most every morning.
So I am not sure I understand what you mean by not putting in enough time.

Anyway,,, I have no affiliation to religion. Just a desire to walk the best walk I can. ,,When you play foot ball you play by the rules of football,,,when you play field trials you play by the rules of field trials
when you play the game of life you play by the rules given in the book that governs life. Pretty simple. Does that make me something special HELL NO. I am just a guy posting on a subject that I have spent a long time putting the pieces together on . God can not lie so there fore there can be no contradictions in what he says.
If there is a contradiction it is either in our understanding or our lack of meekness to gain understanding.


There is great understanding that comes with knowing exactly what the rules say. Lets put it this way. There is no way to know what a counterfiet 20 dollar bill looks like unless you know what an authentic 20 dollar bill looks like.

And by the way I have had to change my position on things before as new things come to light in my studies.. I never am embarrested to admit when I have erroniously believe something..

People are going to think or believe whatever it is they do. The last thing I would try to do is change someones belief system over the internet.
It doesn't matter to me what people believe. I can only control 1 mind . Mine.

Am I saying I am smarter than you when it comes to the scriptures. Hell no. But I know the subjects biblically that I have put the effort into knowing, and feel just as comfortable and competant in detailing them as any.

Pete

[YardleyLabs]

I am not sure what you mean by "the belief that you can achieve salvation (or damnation) by believing the right (or wrong) thing without regard to the morality of your acts." It is the orthodox Christian belief that salvation comes from Christ alone through faith in God alone. It is called justification, which is a big deal because it is Martin Luther's position on salvation that began the reformation. Right acts come from being a believer. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi , his deity aside, he would have held on to the exclusivity of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And nothing in his teachings would contradict that.

The first council of Nicea had very little to do with government, that would be apparent just from the diversity of churches represented at the council. It was called by Constantine in 625 to shore up important aspects of common necessary doctrine between several churches to combat heresy and false teaching. Today they would be combating the health and wealth wack jobs we see on TV.

There is a limit on how far I can/will go in a theological debate given that I have already indicated a lack of belief in the divine characteristic of the gospels. However, I tend to think that both the Catholic and Lutheran views of faith vs. works as disputed during the Reformation were somewhat manufactured for convenience and supported by cherry picking quotes. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. " (Matthew 7:16) I believe that in the view of Jesus faith could not exist if it were not evident in living a life reflecting good works. "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:17-18)


With respect to the Council of Nicaea (325, not 625), the difference may be one of perspective: why di d the bishops attend and why did Constantine invite them. From Constantine's perspective, this was clearly a political dispute. The Empire was in turmoil. The growth of Christianity had undermined the effectiveness of the Roman gods as an instrument of State, and divisions among the different sects of Christianity were adding to that instability. From Constantine's perspective (a pagan one), it was important to unify the Christian synods around a common doctrine that the State could then adopt as an official creed to promote the legitimacy of its authority. I suspect that Constantine's motivation for the Council had a great deal to do with how it evolved. I also think it's a good and very early example of how the integration of church and state can have the effect of corrupting both.

[K.Bullock]

There is a limit on how far I can/will go in a theological debate given that I have already indicated a lack of belief in the divine characteristic of the gospels. However, I tend to think that both the Catholic and Lutheran views of faith vs. works as disputed during the Reformation were somewhat manufactured for convenience and supported by cherry picking quotes. "Ye shall know them by their fruits. " (Matthew 7:16) I believe that in the view of Jesus faith could not exist if it were not evident in living a life reflecting good works. "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:17-18)

I didn't know Luther so I do not know his motives. i do know he was ill tempered and ego centric from what i read of him. Regardless he came to some very difficult conclusions when he read scripture and challenged the Roman catholic church at a time when it was raking in the bucks selling indulgences. He went through great personal difficulties and risked being burned at the stake for his views. I tend to pay attention when people take their convictions that seriously. To his credit he remained, in his mind at least, a Catholic Priest until the day he passed. His position was that the church left the truth he didn't leave the church.
The Catholic church has since cleared his name Under Pope John Paul and Vatican II.

I believe that in the view of Jesus faith could not exist if it were not evident in living a life reflecting good works. "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:17-18)

That is James view, Jesus speaking to Nicodemus said something different altogether. The difference is works are not necessary for salvation, they are a fruit of salvation. Which is why I tend to agree with the Arminians in my theology, I believe we have something to do with that. At the end of the day it is just semantics and the essentials are the same.

With respect to the Council of Nicaea, the difference may be one of perspective: why di d the bishops attend and why did Constantine invite them.

He had a good mom?

From Constantine's perspective, this was clearly a political dispute. The Empire was in turmoil. The growth of Christianity had undermined the effectiveness of the Roman gods as an instrument of State, and divisions among the different sects of Christianity were adding to that instability. From Constantine's perspective (a pagan one), it was important to unify the Christian synods around a common doctrine that the State could then adopt as an official creed to promote the legitimacy of its authority. I suspect that Constantine's motivation for the Council had a great deal to do with how it evolved. I also think it's a good and very early example of how the integration of church and state can have the effect of corrupting both.

You could take that position, still the other bishops came I believe because of the threat the Arians were posing to sound doctrine, they were teaching that Jesus was not God's son at all. The council is where we get the doctrine of trinity from. Whatever Constantine's reasons( i thought that Christianity was the state religion by then and he was afraid of a heresy destabilizing his population) it would not be the first time that unlikely players advanced Christianity.

I also think it's a good and very early example of how the integration of church and state can have the effect of corrupting both.

A good church board can do that.

[K.Bullock]

Am I saying I am smarter than you when it comes to the scriptures. Hell no. But I know the subjects biblically that I have put the effort into knowing, and feel just as comfortable and competant in detailing them as any.

Pete[

It is only with the help of all saints that one may hope to be "able to comprehend what is the breadth,and length,and depth,and height" of God's revelation to man.-Ralph Earle
That is one of my favorite quotes from a Nazarene Professor that wrote some commentaries we had to study.

It kind of reminds of Labradors, the more I learn about them the more I realize how little I know, and how much there is to learn.

I misunderstood you Pete, I apologize.