LinuxQuestions.org
Visit the LQ Articles and Editorials section
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

View Poll Results: You are a...
firm believer 168 28.82%
Deist 18 3.09%
Theist 23 3.95%
Agnostic 120 20.58%
Atheist 254 43.57%
Voters: 583. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 04-25-2011, 03:10 PM   #1216
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,747

Rep: Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz View Post
I have half a mind though just to open the door in my undies if they do turn up early Sat. morning. Don't worry, if there is a young one with them though, then I might pull out some interesting Halloween costumes instead. Either way, doubt they would ever come back .
Wouldn't you being just in your undies be an interesting Halloween costume in it own right? Be careful yo don;t get charged with "Crimes Against Humanity"
 
Old 04-25-2011, 03:16 PM   #1217
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64-bit with multilib
Posts: 2,075

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
Wouldn't you being just in your undies be an interesting Halloween costume in it own right? Be careful yo don;t get charged with "Crimes Against Humanity"
Perhaps, but I don't really wanna be charged with exposing myself to children even if it is JWs. On the condition there would be a kid tagging along I would rather have some kind of alien costume or something just to scare them both off.

At least I am considerate .
 
Old 04-25-2011, 05:23 PM   #1218
corp769
Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,807

Rep: Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996Reputation: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz View Post
Perhaps, but I don't really wanna be charged with exposing myself to children even if it is JWs. On the condition there would be a kid tagging along I would rather have some kind of alien costume or something just to scare them both off.

At least I am considerate .
LOL...
 
Old 04-25-2011, 09:29 PM   #1219
Coresay
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2011
Distribution: CentOS
Posts: 8

Rep: Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul View Post
Wouldn't it be better, if you would have told them gently, that you are a staunch follower of Christianity, even more fanatic than them and you don't have even time to answer the door bell because you are busy reading the Bible for 100th time and have started learning a foreign language too since becoming a Jehovah's witness is the main aim of your life!

That would perhaps satisfy them since that is what they want in the end!
I just tell them that I'm a Satanist; the look I get is usually one of horror esp. since I must be crazy to even joke about something like that... but, for the record, I AM just joking.

Or, if it's someone I know or work with, I'll just start asking if they think God is really and alien and if the Son's of God who bred with the daughters of Man and bred giants (as mentioned in Genesis) are really just aliens too. HOWEVER, this tactic does NOT work on Mormons! Mormons will entertain such ideas and incorporate their own brand of pseudo-physics into their spiritual concepts. The Mormons are a real trip.
 
Old 04-25-2011, 09:48 PM   #1220
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64-bit with multilib
Posts: 2,075

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coresay View Post
I just tell them that I'm a Satanist; the look I get is usually one of horror esp. since I must be crazy to even joke about something like that... but, for the record, I AM just joking.

Or, if it's someone I know or work with, I'll just start asking if they think God is really and alien and if the Son's of God who bred with the daughters of Man and bred giants (as mentioned in Genesis) are really just aliens too. HOWEVER, this tactic does NOT work on Mormons! Mormons will entertain such ideas and incorporate their own brand of pseudo-physics into their spiritual concepts. The Mormons are a real trip.
I tried that, but that unfortunately backfired. I was then faced with almost a whole week of the same people coming to my door bent on 'saving my soul'.

Yea and I'm not surprised about how the Mormons responded, you should have expected that. Rude or not in the end you may as well just slam the door in their faces when they come. Quick and easy.
 
Old 04-25-2011, 10:18 PM   #1221
Coresay
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2011
Distribution: CentOS
Posts: 8

Rep: Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz View Post
I tried that, but that unfortunately backfired. <snip>
I'm kind of unique in that I like talking religion, even though I will first admit that I am an atheist. I really do enjoy debating with a religious person and will do so for hours on end. Pretty soon they realize they just don't have the stamina to keep-up and there are easier targets elsewhere. Plus, it's just too uncomfortable for them to be around a non-believer all the time because you make them think, and once that happens, they start to doubt. Any doubt in a Christian's mind is cause for emergency or at least running in the opposite direction.

Which touches on my theory as to why Muslims are so willing to get violent when their religion is called into question or is mocked. Since their teachings are so hard on them with harsh repercussions (death for Apostates), any external source of doubt can cause extreme psychological stress and fear for the simple reason that is temporarily tests their beliefs, no matter how minimally and deeply in their psyche. Doubt in a Muslim's mind is the first step towards severe punishment or possible death. Therefore, they quickly add-up that they are in a fight for survival and that it is well justified to kill the source of the cause doubt than to allow themselves to be killed, beaten, stoned, raped, etc..
 
Old 04-26-2011, 12:00 AM   #1222
DaneM
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Chico, CA, USA
Distribution: Linux Mint
Posts: 731

Rep: Reputation: 77
k3lt01, I can't help but disagree with you. Many early Christians (in the first 400 years or so) didn't believe in the Trinity, but were surely Christians nonetheless. It wasn't until the (politically-motivated and heavily "stacked") Nicene Creed that it became "heresy" (and often punishable by death) to NOT believe in the Trinity. JWs, while I adamantly disagree with many of their teachings and practices, are most certainly Christians. They believe in and worship Christ. That they have a different view of Him than most modern, mainstream Christians makes them no less Christian. I can't help but take exception to those who say "if you don't believe in Christ in exactly the way I do you're not Christian." It bears noting that, so far as I can recall, the term "trinity" never appears in the Bible. Furthermore, since the Bible can be interpreted to say almost anything at all, according to the desires of the person reading it (from "don't use technology" to "kill all liberals" to "the end has already come and gone and I'm Jesus" to "be peaceful to everybody" to ...), it's pretty absurd to say that those who look at it differently aren't followers of the Bible or Christ (even if it's "supposed" to mean just one set of things). While the concept of the trinity has been around for a long time, it's not necessarily as old as Christianity.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 12:06 AM   #1223
lupusarcanus
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,022
Blog Entries: 19

Rep: Reputation: 146Reputation: 146
I don't need any advanced evasion tactics. I have a peephole. Me = win.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 01:34 AM   #1224
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,747

Rep: Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneM View Post
k3lt01, I can't help but disagree with you.
That is your right, do you feel like an open and frank discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneM View Post
Many early Christians (in the first 400 years or so) didn't believe in the Trinity, but were surely Christians nonetheless.
Were they? Can you be sure about this? Are you positive that in the end days they will pass into paradise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneM View Post
It wasn't until the (politically-motivated and heavily "stacked") Nicene Creed that it became "heresy" (and often punishable by death) to NOT believe in the Trinity.
Political motivation is an amazing thing. It become heresy to disagree with the RC Pope but unless he had the backing of the Kings he could do nothing. Ever heard of the concept of "Divine Right to Rule"? Political games used by Kings and the RC Pope, in the Popes case an attempt to remain Pope more often than not, to control the masses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneM View Post
JWs, while I adamantly disagree with many of their teachings and practices, are most certainly Christians. They believe in and worship Christ.
So do Muslims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneM View Post
That they have a different view of Him than most modern, mainstream Christians makes them no less Christian.
So would you say a person who follows Islam is a Christian? It is the exact same scenario as a JW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneM View Post
I can't help but take exception to those who say "if you don't believe in Christ in exactly the way I do you're not Christian."
Did I say that? Nope. I haven't even said what I believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneM View Post
It bears noting that, so far as I can recall, the term "trinity" never appears in the Bible.
Trinity is an English word so of course it doesn't appear. Nonetheless if you read through the book itself you can see 3 distinct "persons" even in the OT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneM View Post
Furthermore, since the Bible can be interpreted to say almost anything at all, according to the desires of the person reading it (from "don't use technology" to "kill all liberals" to "the end has already come and gone and I'm Jesus" to "be peaceful to everybody" to ...), it's pretty absurd to say that those who look at it differently aren't followers of the Bible or Christ (even if it's "supposed" to mean just one set of things). While the concept of the trinity has been around for a long time, it's not necessarily as old as Christianity.
Christianity "started" after the crucifixion. Again if you read the 4 Gospels and the Book of Acts you would be able to see that there are 3 distinct persons.

There is an issue with interpretation I agree but it is also, and the RC had a big hand in this, an issue of education and control. If you can read the books in the original languages and/or a good translation (I'm not talking about the GNB either) you can see what is meant. Back in ancient days the majority of the Roman Empire could speak and/or read Koine Greek because it was the Lingua Franca. After this the Latin version was written and Latin was the language of power and control so only educated people, or native speakers/readers could read it. Some Kings, notably Charlamagne and Alfred of Wessex (Alfred the Great) had the original texts translated but for political purposes. Then in 1199 new non-Latin versions were banned by Pope Innocent III (tell me that wasn't a political move to keep the masses blind). From then on until late in the early modern period after the Reformation all non-Latin translations (apart from the original texts)were considered heretical because they allowed the masses to read for themselves. After this it was dumbed down, no offence intended to anyone, and then everything was open to interpretation.

I'll be honest with you, I have extensive experience with JWs and if you would like to know it all send me a PM and I'll go through it with you. I'm not willing to get into an argument here over them.

As for how the bible is interpreted, read the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek and tell me how things should be interpreted.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 05:49 AM   #1225
DaneM
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Chico, CA, USA
Distribution: Linux Mint
Posts: 731

Rep: Reputation: 77
k3lt01, I absolutely want an open and frank discussion (so long as it doesn't degenerate into nastiness--which it hasn't so far).

Below is a link to a Wikipedia article about the history of the Trinity. If you don't like Wikipedia for whatever reason, there are other resources you can look into, including (but not limited to) those referenced at the bottom of that page. Doctrines contrary to and incompatible with those now held about the Trinity were, indeed taught and believed in the first 4 centuries A.D. I'm as sure about this as anybody can be about history and historical documents, the originals of which were destroyed long before the Bible was first translated into English. Incidentally, the entire King James Version of the Bible is in English, so if they wanted to include mention of the English word, "Trinity" in there, they could have done so...but it would seem that the original records (that is, the most original ones available--each dated several hundred years after the later books in the Bible were written) left out any such (direct) mention, so it is absent in this English translation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#History

Likewise, you may be interested in the history of the many versions of the Nicene Creed, many of which have since been declared heresy by various churches and organizations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_creed

It's worth noting at this point that the one of the events that played a major role in holding this congregation of bishops are the teachings of those who did not believe in the Trinity--who were conspicuously not invited, and some of whom mysteriously died shortly thereafter.

Also, I've been reading a bit about textual criticism in a book called "Misquoting Jesus" by Bard D. Ehrman. It's extremely enlightening with regard to the process whereby the books of the Bible are chosen, translated, dated, and critiqued for accuracy and originality. The discussion on the topic of what constitutes an "original" document is especially enlightening, as are the mentions of which book or parts of books are included in the Bible despite being almost universally believed by textual critics and biblical scholars to be additions made much later to original books, or otherwise not what they claim to be. Mark's account of Christ's resurrection, though the story itself may be true, is one of those that are almost definitely not part of the rest of the original book, and regarded by almost all textual critics as such.

My understanding of Islam is that they revere Jesus as a prophet and great teacher, but not as their God. They specifically denounce worshiping him as a God; as such, no, they're not Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses absolutely do worship Jesus as a God, so they are Christians. The question of whether these religions are Christian is only similar in that they both believe differently than mainstream Christians, but is otherwise not a valid comparison.

My sentence about those who claim that Christians who don't believe as they do is intended as a universal statement, and may not apply to you. What you said in your previous post about JWs not being Christians is a reflection of that sentiment, so that's why I mentioned it at all. I respect you not saying what you believe, and I'm not trying to put words into your mouth.

My statement about how easy it is to make the Bible "say" whatever you want it to applies to those who claim that believing in the Trinity is the only "true" way to believe if you follow the teachings of the Bible. Many people who are quite concerned with what the Bible says do not believe in God as a Trinity. Some of them also say that those who do aren't true Christians. It's a matter of perspective, and I dare say that telling a person who worships Christ and reveres him as a Savior that he isn't a Christian is both belligerent and false, and could also be considered a troll on such a forum as this (although thankfully the folks on this forum aren't seeing it as such or responding with nasty posts of their own.) I'm not saying that you're trying to be belligerent, or that you necessarily were being so at all; just that you should be careful about how people are likely to react to such statements about their religions.

I agree that debating about the JWs isn't really something I care enough about to continue here. I'm mainly objecting to the mindset that those who don't believe in the Trinity are therefore not Christian, regardless of what else they may believe.

As for reading the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek versions, it does interest me, but I don't expect to have a lot of opportunity to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek in the forseable future. I might do it at some point, though. In any case, the versions of the Bible we have today, even in their original languages, aren't "original" in any real sense. The original documents have been copied/miscopied, altered, abridged, expanded, and eventually destroyed long, long ago. What we have now is a (reasonably close) approximation to those originals. I don't doubt that reading the Bible in its original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) will shed some light on matters that would otherwise go unnoticed, but to call them "original" is uninformed, depending on how you mean it. (If you meant to read the non-original, modern transcripts in their original language, this is very different than calling the Bible in any way an "original" copy of the texts. This perspective isn't uninformed, and I don't mean to apply that term unjustly.)

I hope you don't take any offense at the above; a reasonable, frank discussion must be so, even for those who adamantly disagree with a point that's been presented. I hope those participating can also continue this discussion (if desired) in a frank, polite, and reasonable manner.

Have a good day.

--Dane

Last edited by DaneM; 04-26-2011 at 05:55 AM.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 07:43 AM   #1226
k3lt01
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Distribution: Debian Wheezy, Jessie, Sid/Experimental, playing with LFS.
Posts: 2,747

Rep: Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570Reputation: 570
Hi Dane.

Where would you like to start? How about instead of pulling quotes from others lets start with our own understandings. What do you think?

As I said in my previous post even though the word trinity, even in a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek form isn't written in any biblical text the concept is still there and plain to see. Well it is to me anyway. The initial chapters of Genesis clearly mention Man (humanity) being made in "our" image. So this indicates more than one "person" pretty much from the very beginning wouldn't you agree? We know from reading the Bible that God (the father) is eternal so there is 1. We also know from reading the Bible that the "spirit" of God hovered over the fermament ( he was also sent to be with mankind after the ascension), so there's 2. Here's the tricky bit that I think many people don't either see or agree with, God said "let us make man in our image". So what image are we talking about? maybe a physical one? God the father has no image and specifically instructs mankind not to make images of anything in heaven or earth, God the spirit has no image, so if this is the case we have our 3rd person. 3 people make a "Tri"nity. This is within the first couple of chapters in the first book of the bible.

I don't mean to sound like I am bad mouthing JWs but I just don't see the link you are making. They do not, and I have been told as much by them when they are sitting in my loungeroom, acknowledge Jesus as God eternal. He is, to them, a Created Being and like us and the angels cannot be God. Muslims on the other hand afford him a great amount of respect as a prophet (they call him Isa) and believe he will come back in the end days to help finish saving mankind. They acknowledge his divine birth and at no stage (afaik) do they say he is a creation. I acknowledge they say he is not God. While there is a huge mixing of theologies it is my belief that Islam (and I am not supporting Islam in my statements) gives the personage of Jesus more respect for what they interpret he is compared to what JWs give. Christianity is based on the premise that Jesus is God. John 1:1-5 indicates the JWs are wrong in their interpretation and I am yet to see one be able to justify their belief when this passage is brought up.

JWs also take words way out of context and use certain passages on people who do not know alot about biblical texts to justify their beliefs. When it comes to closer scrutiny and explanation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek they go silent or all of a sudden have to rush to a very important appointment. Please note I am not saying nobody else takes words out of context.

With regards to the Nicene Creed I am aware of the original and the subsequent variations. I fail to see the significance of this as a whole to this topic. People disagreed on different points, they convened a number of times over the years to modify the creed and today there are a few variations of the theme used by various sections of what some would call the Christian church. I do not understand how the initial, I assume that is what you were referring to in your initial mention of it, was heavily stacked. Could you give me some pointers as to why you believe this to be the case. As far as I am aware Constantine was trying to pull various factions into line and get them to talk about their differences prompted by Arius of Libya's denial of the fullness of the Christ. Instead of watching the church he adopted fracture under its own weight he decided to get them all talking about it. This POV may be naive I know but until I understand yours more I cannot respond much better than that.

It's past my bed time

Cheers.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:20 AM   #1227
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,718

Rep: Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904Reputation: 904
I really should stay out of this, but sometimes I'm just to pigheaded....

BTW, I am not a Christian. Never have been, never will be, the only types of Christianity I have any real intrest in would make me technically a heretic. Which is amusing, when you read the definition of a heretic-

Quote:
Definition of HERETIC
1
: a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2
: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine :
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heretic

Why would that be amusing? Because s a lot of the k3lt01/DaneM discussion about the JWs and Christianity in general is reolving around "established religious dogma".

Quote:
Originally Posted by k3lt01 View Post
As for how the bible is interpreted, read the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek and tell me how things should be interpreted.
Which original text?

Its not like Jesus wrote the book before he died (either time, if you want to belive that), and its not even a single book in the early years, its a collection of books. Different areas/belief systems that would have called themselves 'Christain' could have very different collections of accepted/worthwhile books.

Up until Nicea, there was no single 'orthodox' collection, and its very, very likely that there has been at least some editing (as opposed to typos/mistakes) in the books accepted in the orthodox version of the bible. Some of the deleted/unacceptable books have versions around that predate the Nicean council, and make VERY interesting reading. Which is part of why they dont exist in the bible.

*BTW, I'm not using 'orthodox' to imply the orthodox Church.

With such an edited book, I dont belive that it is logical in any way to use the "the bible says "X" so therefore that is Christianity, "Y" is not mentioned so it is not" arguement.

I disagree with the view that the JWs are not Christains simply because of the bible as it exists now (or even as it has ever existed for that matter). Then again, I'm quite happy calling Arians Christains (no, not the idiots with swatikas and a fondness for a austrain painter), I'm also quite happy calling some Gnostics Christians as well.

If you choose to believe that the JWs arent Christian, thats your right to do so k3lt01. I really dont care, its not my religion, I've got nothing invested in it.

Last edited by cascade9; 04-26-2011 at 09:41 AM.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:54 AM   #1228
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz View Post
I tried that, but that unfortunately backfired.
I wonder how much JWs know about satanism. There are/were several belief systems(at least 5, I think) under that name, they could've at least asked which one you pretended to be.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:12 AM   #1229
Jeebizz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64-bit with multilib
Posts: 2,075

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post
I wonder how much JWs know about satanism. There are/were several belief systems(at least 5, I think) under that name, they could've at least asked which one you pretended to be.
Never bothered to ask me anything.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 10:51 AM   #1230
DaneM
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Chico, CA, USA
Distribution: Linux Mint
Posts: 731

Rep: Reputation: 77
cascade9, I agree with you more than you might imagine, coming from a Christian. For several years after reading significant portions of the Bible and deciding I believe them, I couldn't find a "Christian" church (using the definition I'd created for my own use back then) that made a whole lot of sense in relation to how I interpreted the Bible, having not been raised in a particular way with regard to religion. I viewed all the versions of Christianity I knew of at the time as essentially backward and (with relation to how I saw the writings in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) basically heretical. I think that Christianity has come a long way AWAY from what Christ envisioned when he said the things that are written therein (temporarily putting aside the debate over which things he actually said, and which were added later).

k3lt01, all of the JWs I've talked to (granted, not a lot of them, but the discussions I had were usually lengthy) have expressed their views of Christ as divine. If you have more in-depth experience with that religion than I do, I'll defer to your judgment. (After all, I'm not actually very fond of that religion--no offense to anybody here who adheres to it--so I care very little about "defending" it.)

I'm not really sure what you mean by the bits about "pulling quotes from others/our own understandings." As I understand things, on the topics upon which we, ourselves aren't absolute experts (such as the Bible--despite having read it, we're not scriptorians or textual critics--at least I'm not), it's best to refer to the writings of those who ARE experts--or at least closer to it than us. Hence the links and the statements relating to them.

Please note that I didn't indicate a disbelief in God as three persons. I disbelieve in the Trinity and the process whereby it was made into "orthodox" doctrine (not referring to the Orthodox Church). The views of Arius and those preaching similarly at the time were reflections of the beliefs of many people of lower profile than themselves. (This is discussed in the Wikipedia article, which is why I linked it.) The view of Jesus as the Son of God, but not literally his own father (i.e. God the Father), among other related topics is what Arius and those of like minds were preaching at the time. Those in the higher levels of the Church at that time--namely (St.) Alexander of Alexandria, who took the matter very personally, and whose own sermon had prompted Arius to start preaching, originally to expound upon that sermon--didn't like this, and so, with the blessing and encouragement of the Roman Emperor at the time, they commissioned a council to decide once-and-for-all Christianity's stance on these matters. Only bishops of the Church were invited or allowed to attend. Arius and most others of his understanding were not bishops. The bishops present were overwhelmingly of the same basic opinion about the nature of God--and eventually agreed to the terms of the Trinity. One has to wonder how many dissenting persons were even allowed to become bishops in the Roman Church. It is recorded that several such dissenting bishops were condemned (sometimes to death or exile) for teaching differently than the rest, both before and after the Creed was created. One must also wonder about the godliness of those who would condemn a person to death or exile over such matters.

It's worth noting at this point that Arius was never actually accused of teaching "Arianism," but of promoting and expounding upon the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr, who had been teaching years before Arius began to do so. It is also noted among scholars that Arius' teachings were heavily influenced by Origen, who lived a hundred years before Arius, and who is called the First Great Theologian of Christianity. Origen taught that the Father and Jesus were separate and distinct persons, but persons who are unified in the way that the mind tells the leg to move. Origen wrote about much of this in response to the Gnostic Christians at the time, which indicates that there were different schools of thought during the years of 185-254AD, when Origen was alive. The first Nicene meeting (called an ecumenical council) took place in 325AD.

My point in pointing all this out, as well as the fact that there have been fully 21 ecumenical councils--each supposedly having authority over the Nicene Creed--is that: if God is, indeed unchanging, and if the authoritative body that created these councils actually has any kind of authoritative revelation from God or otherwise absolute knowledge on this matter, including how to interpret the Bible as relates to it, then, given how the creed has changed so many times, as well as the dubious nature of the motives for having it in the first place (particularly on the part of those who would kill over the matter), how can we be expected to believe that a governing body (the ecumenical council) that continually changes its mind about the nature of an unchanging being can have ever gotten it right? If they ever did, then which of the 21 councils are we to believe? Depending on church and branch of Christianity, as well as the part of the world where that church or branch is stationed, either the first 4, or the first 7, or any number thereafter--not generally consecutive--are to be considered authoritative, and the rest are not. But even the first 4 had major and important differences in how they viewed and explained the Trinity and the other (generally related) matters related to the Creed. So, again, how can we really trust a body that changes its mind over the nature of a constant Being to be in any way authoritative on the matter?

This relates to my point about how easy it is to make the Bible say whatever you want. If you are conditioned (taught) to expect to see the Trinity in it, then you will until you decide otherwise. If you're conditioned (taught) to see the Godhead (3 separate beings who are united in purpose, and thus called one God) in it, then so you will until you decide otherwise. Usually, deciding otherwise has much more to do with other beliefs related to a certain faith, rather than study on the issue of the Trinity. Essentially, the way the Bible is written promotes seeing exactly what you want it to say, within a few loose restrictions. (Even murder of civilians and rape--both of "heretics" and otherwise--have been found to be "justified" in the Bible by those who wanted to see it.) Thus, the matter of "Trinity or no Trinity" comes down to what you already believe or are conditioned to believe; a simple appeal to the Bible simply CANNOT decisively verify or disprove one side of the issue or the other. Personally, I think that the Bible is written this way for good reason: only those who are actively listening for inspiration from God--even if it contradicts their own notions--are allowed to get any real understanding from the Bible. Given how many contradicting sects there are who all claim to follow "what the Bible says," I'm inclined to believe that this is an exceedingly rare gift.

For this reason, I'm heavily inclined to believe that one is a lot more likely to find truth in the Bible by completely avoiding organized religions, then reading it and praying on one's own before deciding to adopt a faith, than is likely or even possible to gain by starting from a "pre-packaged" perspective, such as one finds in a church or by listening to a preacher, friend, parent, scholar, etc. Of course, that makes it difficult for parents who have done this and are trying to teach their kids how to go about it. I'll make no suggestions there...

I know this has been a long post, and I'll appreciate it if you've taken time to read it all before responding; otherwise, I expect the discussion to continue in circles over misunderstandings about what's actually being said. Still, if you don't want to spend the time on it, I won't blame you. I hope I've made myself more clear than I have in previous posts.

--Dane

P.S. Coresay, for the record, I'm Mormon, but my beliefs are somewhat atypical for that group. I thought you might find that amusing. :-)

Last edited by DaneM; 04-26-2011 at 11:02 AM.
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 06:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 01:28 PM
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 9 02-13-2003 02:37 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration