Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Right. And to a complete violation of the authorization of Jesus Christ, who said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36) The Romanish world went on a furious project of empire building, the detriment of the reputation of Christianity and in defiance of the explicit teaching of Messiah.

Yes but you accept only the biblical view not the actual historical one in spite of you perennially claiming there's no difference.

You're mixing issues, I think. You've got "history" confused with "theology." The former is about what simply happened, the latter defines what it meant in light of the belief system.

Nobody denies that Catholicism was formed as a point of historical fact, and that Constantine started it. What's in dispute is whether that move is "Christian" or not.

And how do we decide? Theologically. For there is no other way possible.

Put it this way: what if I said to you, "I am an Alexisite (a follower of Alexis Jacobi), but I do not do anything Alexis Jacobi says." Would you not instantly ask me, "Why do you call yourself an Alexisite, then?" For it would be perfectly obvious that I was simply confused or lying about that.

Likewise, if somebody says, "I am a Christian," that means "a follower of Jesus Christ." And it's perfectly reasonable for you to then ask, "Do you follow the teachings of Christ, then?"

If they don't, as Constantine did not, and in fact, flatly disobey and even countermand the things Christ said, and invent new things He never said, and treat them as if they were His instructions, why can we not legitimately doubt the credentials of the person who then claims to be a "Christian"?

I think we can. And in any other parallel situation in life, I'm sure you would, too.

Jesus wasn't exactly an ecumenical thinker but one who accepted only Jews in his circle.

You are right to think that Jesus Christ came first to the Jews. That title means Yeshua Ha Meschiach, or Jesus, the Anointed One, the Messiah of the Jews. But from the start, Jesus admitted Gentiles, too: consider the Samaritan woman of John 4, the Canaanite woman of Matthew 15, or the Greeks who sought Jesus in John 12, among how many others, we are not told. And Jesus' own matrilineage was partly Gentile, if you'll note, including Ruth the Moabitess. And after His death, it wasn't long before all his followers were commissioned to take the faith to all the Gentiles in all nations. But what is true is that he started from Judea, then Samaria, then the rest of the whole earth, as you now see.

So was he ecumenical? Not in the frivolous way we use the word. But he was open to all, and had a definite plan for the salvation of all. And with that, even the OT agrees: for the promise to Abraham was, that in his child, "all the nations of the earth will be blessed."

[Alexis Jacobi]

Did Constatine start the Catholic Church?

The people who say, “No” are quite right. In fact, it goes a little further than they indicate.

When Constantine became Emperor in 306AD, the Christian Church had existed for around 275 years. It had major centres in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Byzantium and Rome, but also existed in most cities of the Roman Empire.

The church represented by the bishops of these centres could have described itself as Orthodox (teaching the right doctrine) and Catholic (universal, or accepted by everyone). So, in one sense, the entire church has always seen itself as Catholic.

However, when a split occurred between the Roman and the Eastern churches in 1054, the Roman side of the split generally described itself as Catholic and the Eastern side described itself as Orthodox. Of course, the Roman church still considers its teachings to be orthodox, and the Eastern churches still describe themselves as catholic in their scope.

And, in fact, we Protestants also describe ourselves as catholic, in the sense that we are part of the universal church built on faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, Saviour and King. We also describe ourselves as orthodox because we hold to the same faith determined by the truly ecumenical councils.

But the idea of a Catholic Church in Rome, comprised of black-gowned old men, making up doctrines under the direction of Constantine is laughably false.

However, in one respect only it can be argued that Constantine “created” the Catholic church.

Constantine legalised Christianity in 313 AD. It didn’t become the official religion of the Empire until 380 AD under Emperor Theodosius, some 43 years after Constantine’s death, and 55 years after the Council of Nicaea. At the time Christianity was legalised the Arian controversy had been raging for some years. and all the evidence suggests that Constantine had no clear position as long as the church could resolve the issue and settle into a uniform belief.

Constantine took the unprecedented step of ordering that an ecumenical Council be held (the famous Council of Nicaea) and it ended with a resounding decision for the trinitarian side and only two votes for the party of Arius, an elder from Alexandria.

Because the “whole lot” (except for the two who stood out) voted for the full trinitarian position, it has come to be known as “the Catholic” position. As it was decided by a Council which Constantine called, though in which he could not participate, not being baptised at that point, you can say that, in a very restricted sense, he “created” the Catholic church.

[Alexis Jacobi]

"I am an Alexisite (a follower of Alexis Jacobi), but I do not do anything Alexis Jacobi says."

Boy, you nailed Harbal spot on.

[Harbal]

"I am an Alexisite (a follower of Alexis Jacobi), but I do not do anything Alexis Jacobi says."

Boy, you nailed Harbal spot on.

It's not like I didn't tell you I would be following you.

[Immanuel Can]

Did Constatine start the Catholic Church? The people who say, “No” are quite right.

Your source played a trick of amphiboly. "Christianity" and "Roman Catholicism are not equivalent terms. To mix them is to make an error, or to make a deliberately deceptive conflation.

Christianity of any kind was neither "Roman" nor "catholic" (meaning "universal [in the Roman world]) until Constantine. No historian even doubts that. But that there was a better and more real Christianity earlier, along with some other offshoots, nobody denies either. But Constantine is the Romanizer, the syncretist that brought together Roman paganism with nominal "Christianity," and created thereby the RC's.

[Immanuel Can]

"I am an Alexisite (a follower of Alexis Jacobi), but I do not do anything Alexis Jacobi says."

Boy, you nailed Harbal spot on.

And you avoided the point.

Can one be an Alexisite, while doing things that are not what Alexis ever taught, and doing things contrary to what he taught, and adding ones own things to what he taught, and then claiming he taught them?

Answer: No. That's silly. One cannot call oneself an Alexisite unless one makes at least a reasonable effort to be disciplined and informed by Alexis. Barring that, one is simply a fraud.

[Gary Childress]

"I am an Alexisite (a follower of Alexis Jacobi), but I do not do anything Alexis Jacobi says."

Boy, you nailed Harbal spot on.

And you avoided the point.

Can one be an Alexisite, while doing things that are not what Alexis ever taught, and doing things contrary to what he taught, and adding ones own things to what he taught, and then claiming he taught them?

Answer: No. That's silly. One cannot call oneself an Alexisite unless one makes at least a reasonable effort to be disciplined and informed by Alexis. Barring that, one is simply a fraud.

Please don't upset Alexis. He might decide to declare a 'holy' inquisition on all his enemies (or else declare "war" on them). You know, in the name of the spirit of holiness. The rest of us are just here to do what he wants us to. On the bright side, you could be a "lunatic" like me and just be ignored.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel, you are amazing & wonderful in your own right. You lost on every point. Every one! I trounced you. On every point.

And yet you will not recognize this. How you pull this off is simply extraordinary.

I stand in mild awe. On a 1-10 scale I’d say 3.9-4.0.

But these numbers could go up .

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, you are amazing & wonderful in your own right. You lost on every point. Every one! I trounced you. On every point.

You're so funny! You think that unilaterally declaring "victory" is the same thing as having won something?

I honestly don't know what to say AJ. I guess we'll see if anybody thinks you're right about that.

And you still avoided the point. We didn't forget. Sorry.

[Gary Childress]

Immanuel, you are amazing & wonderful in your own right. You lost on every point. Every one! I trounced you. On every point.

You're so funny! You think that unilaterally declaring "victory" is the same thing as having won something?

I honestly don't know what to say AJ. I guess we'll see if anybody thinks you're right about that.

And you still avoided the point. We didn't forget. Sorry.

Maybe we could come up with some sort of prize or honor for him? Maybe the "Philosophy Now Award of Excellence"? I have a printer and some white letter-size paper. I could mail it if he gives us his address. Or if anyone wants to add their signature on the "awarded by" line, we can start a chain letter mailed around to forum participants. It might make it more special for him?

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Alexis Jacobi]

I honestly don't know what to say AJ.

Of course not! Just be silent then.

[iambiguous]

Gee, harbal, it's almost like you're sayin' we have no right to disagree with misguided fools, or that we ought to keep our opinions to ourselves while misguided fools vomit up whatever manure they like, unchallenged.

Come on, henry, what does it mean to call those who don't thnk exactly as you do a misguided fool louder, more viciously than they call you one?

On this side of the grave?

Meanwhile, IC zeros in on what really counts...the fate of your very soul for all the rest of eternity. 16 really, really short YouTube videos.

Think about it...

Sharing political convictions on this side of the grave surely won't mean squat on Judgment Day. Not if your very soul itself is out of whack with Juesus Christ.

Watch the videos, okay?

I told IC that I will watch all of them myself. In the order that he deems most relevant.

His response?

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, of course.

[Harbal]

I told IC that I will watch all of them myself. In the order that he deems most relevant.

I'm intrigued by these videos, but I can't find the link. Do you have it?

[Lacewing]

No, I'm not saying that, I'm just saying it seems pointless for you to argue that your nutty ideas are somehow better than anyone else's nutty ideas.

In certain senses I think I agree with this. When one gets into it with ideologically- and theologically-driven people the battles can get really weird.

But we have to sort through these things in order to get to the essence: it is not about the Story or the Picture, it is about the ideas that are expressed in them. We have to transcend the Picture for the understanding that operates, in us, on a different level.

The stage is full of actors who don't want to transcend their favored position/role. The story and picture are what their identity and ego are linked to and defined by. For many, their willfulness maintains it and excuses whatever is required to do so. For them, considering the 'essence' beyond the story is seen as a threat to themselves. So there probably is no 'sorting through' such stories that would be meaningful for them in any way. They are willfully serving their agenda... even if they call it by another name.

[iambiguous]

Reasons to Abandon Christianity
Chaz Bufe

Christianity is based on dishonesty.

The Christian appeal to fear, to cowardice, is an admission that the evidence supporting Christian beliefs is far from compelling. If the evidence were such that Christianity's truth was immediately apparent to anyone who considered it, Christians—including those who wrote the Gospels—would feel no need to resort to the cheap tactic of using fear-inducing threats to inspire "belief."

Again, however, not all Christians are cowards who appeal to fear. I have met any number of actual flesh and blood Christians myself who were anything but that. Some in all sincerity had simply found a way to make their own existential "leap of faith" to the Christian God. And for any number of personal reasons that they were only more or less able to communicate to others.

Still, it is true that if Christians were able to go beyond a leap of faith and produce more substantive evidence that their God did in fact exist -- even with the fire and the brimstone in the narrative -- it would certainly be likely that many more people would flock to Christianity.

Instead, it continues to revolve basically around leaps of faith. And how, given the complex nature of human psychology itself, cannot that not often become a very mysterious thing. A deeply intuitive frame of mind rooted in your own individual life and experiences.

So, in that regard, I myself always respect those like Kierkegaard and others who think and feel what they do -- what "somehow" they were able to -- about God and religion.

That the Christian clergy have been more than willing to accept such lip service (plus the dollars and obedience that go with it) in place of genuine belief, is an additional indictment of the basic dishonesty of Christianity.

Same thing. Yes, there have been any number flimflam artists...TV evangelists...who have scammed millions in the name of Christ. Those who have flipped Jesus Christ upside down and made him an advocate for actually accumulating riches on this side of the grave. The wealthier and more prosperous you are the more God approves. The greater the likelihood that your soul will be saved.

Capitalism and God: "we be mates".

Then this part:

How deep dishonesty runs in Christianity can be gauged by one of the most popular Christian arguments for belief in God: Pascal's wager. This "wager" holds that it's safer to "believe" in God (as if belief were volitional!) than not to believe, because God might exist, and if it does, it will save "believers" and condemn nonbelievers to hell after death.

Unlike in regard to a leap of faith, I've never been able to "get" this myself. Really, imagine God at the Pearly Gates on Judgment Day. Would He admit someone into Paradise because he or she made a "wager" that He might exist? Like betting on a horse because it might win?