Indoctrination & Mental Gymnastics

[The Grand Nudger]

You're turning me into a communist sympathizer, Lek. Poor bastards, oh well, at least they'll still have good food.

[Lek]

I can substantiate all of my claims...can you my dear friend?

Maybe you should because I've yet to find anything to substantiate your claims about Philo and Constantine. We know extremely little of Philo's life and certainly not that he was living in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death. The only support I found for that contention was from an atheist web site trying to disprove christianity. Everything I find says that though he called the Council or Nicea and presided over it, he left the decisions up to the bishops - nothing about him forcing any kind of results. He was more concerned with unity than doctrine. Please give me your sources so that I can research them. By the way, my doctrine of the Trinity comes from the bible, not from church councils. I think that the bible as a whole upholds it.

---

You're turning me into a communist sympathizer, Lek. Poor bastards, oh well, at least they'll still have good food.

Maybe if I start slamming christianity that will make you become a christian.

[goodwithoutgod]

I can substantiate all of my claims...can you my dear friend?

Maybe you should because I've yet to find anything to substantiate your claims about Philo and Constantine. We know extremely little of Philo's life and certainly not that he was living in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death. The only support I found for that contention was from an atheist web site trying to disprove christianity. Everything I find says that though he called the Council or Nicea and presided over it, he left the decisions up to the bishops - nothing about him forcing any kind of results. He was more concerned with unity than doctrine. Please give me your sources so that I can research them. By the way, my doctrine of the Trinity comes from the bible, not from church councils. I think that the bible as a whole upholds it.

---

You're turning me into a communist sympathizer, Lek. Poor bastards, oh well, at least they'll still have good food.

Maybe if I start slamming christianity that will make you become a christian.

My paper on constantine had the sources cited at the bottom. Dr carrier's "The historicity of jesus, why we might have reason to doubt" has over 86 pages of citations, in his peer reviewed book....easy to validate. This is the beauty of research in biblical historicity, you find things, like the shocking LACK of evidence for a alleged prophet who was healing the sick and walking on water like Benny Hinn on a world tour. If these things had happened, someone AT THE TIME would have written them down, not after the "period of silence" then write under pseudepigraphical authors names 60-110 years later, like for example the gospels.

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

Since I like sharing relevant information, here is my paper on the development of the trinity..

The development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity

For a church to be considered a New Testament church it shall accept the biblical New Testament as its sole authority for all matters of faith. A “true” biblical church shall not accept any authority for its faith and daily practice, outside of the New Testament Scriptures. This does not discard the importance of the Old Testament Scriptures by any means. The church is not based on the biblical Old Testament because that is a record of God’s dealing with Israel. In the New Testament, you will find a specific pattern and instructions from God concerning the church. The followers of the New Testament church model believe in the irrefutable word of God, that the Bible is complete as written, and it is, “… Given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
New Testament church parishioners believe that any hierarchy outside of the local church is unsupported by Scripture. They think that Christ is the head and that the New Testament Scriptures are the “true” churches only sole authority. I always find it amusing that with all the religions in the world, multiple versions of God or gods, and various holy books and ideologies of creation, that the believer of each religion thinks the believers of other religions are wrong, and that their own belief is the truth, the will and the way of the one “true” God. Even within Christianity, if every Christian who ever called another Christian, not a “true” Christian was removed from the earth, there would be no Christians.

The Congregational style of a New Testament church is a biblical form of church government. Final authority in the New Testament church rests with the delegation. Each member has an equal democratic vote. They believe that the Bible, specifically the New Testament teaches that churches are to be governed by their congregation following strict biblical guidelines.

In Trinitarian theology, the father gives everything he has, his very being, as a gift to his son. Since the Son has everything that the father has. Then they are, in fact, equal (Albl 139). In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit is closely associated with God’s gift of prophesy. For example, “the Lord took some of the spirit from Moses and gave it to the elders, and they were able to prophesy also (Num 11:25). In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is closely associated with the creation of God’s son in human form. For example, Mary conceived Jesus not through ordinary human means, but “through the Holy Spirit” (Matt1:20). In essence, just as Jesus comes in the father’s name, so the Holy Spirit comes in Jesus’ name (Albl 150). I define the Holy Spirit as God’s breath, his very soul, that of which he can giveth away to create life itself.

The church understands such self-emptying on the part of God as simultaneously the fulfillment of human existence, whose transformative effects are extended in the church in the world through the work of the Holy Spirit (Mueller 44). As such, parishioners of the New Testament church believe that they can follow this example by sharing the Holy Spirit with others. This is “living through Christ” by spreading the good word, in line with a strict interpretation of biblical reference.

In the New Testament, outside of the story of Christ in his teachings, is the insistent belief through Scripture that the end times or transition into the new world in the second coming of Christ to take his place as king of the world would occur at any moment. “That Christ would come soon is an expectation that appears even in the latter writings of the New Testament. It is present in almost every stratum” (Moule 141).

A rationalist may posit that today things are going on exactly as they were before, and thus there will never be an end to the world. Believers in the New Testament think that the real mistake here is to make time the determining standard at all. A good analogy of this is that the Christian hope is not measured in terms of time, but in terms of the journey continuing to its completion; the incarnation. The question should not be when is the end of the world, but what can I do to be ready for it? (Moule 148).

Now let’s go back in time to the very formation, fabrication of the Christian faith, the Trinity concept and successful establishment of the Christian religion. We must begin with the immeasurable impact that Emperor Constantine had on the spread of Christianity and successful suppression of incumbent Roman pagan beliefs. Legend has it that Emperor Constantine saw two stars cross in the sky, in which he took to be a sign from God that Christianity was the only true faith. While his conversion to Christianity in 312 was not truly the moment Christianity came to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, it was one of the major contributing factors for its subsequent acceptance.

Emperor Constantine conducted a religious-based crusade against Licinius in a war to rescue Christians on the east from further persecution. In the years 312 to 313 Emperor Constantine began a systematic policy in which he gave honors, privileges and financial donations to the Christian church and their clergy. In 324, as the unchallenged controller of the East, he prohibited by Royal decree any cultic activities which until then fell under the traditional religions of the Roman Empire, and this is when the status of Christianity as the official religion of the state and its rulers was affirmed (Lieu 7).

Religious scholars concede that Emperor Constantine not only convened important council’s sessions, but also either presided over them or appointed a Royal official to preside in his place. This reduced the very role of bishops and councils such as Nicaea and Tyre to utter insignificance by assimilating them to members of the Imperial consilium, whose advice was not binding on the Emperor. All decisions taken at the Nicene Council were made by Emperor Constantine alone, since he could completely disregard the advisory opinions of the bishops whom he had summoned to the Council (Lieu 8).

Some scholars contend that Emperor Constantine’s influence was minimal, and merely sat in on the councils out of personal interest. However, when we look at the Council of Nicaea of 359, we see that Emperor Constantine again took a prominent role of control in the theological debate. Once the foundation of Christianity as a predominant religion of the Empire had been successfully established, Emperor Constantine later relinquished some of his control and influence by putting a seal of approval on the rulings of bishops declared at councils. The governors of provinces were not even allowed to rescind what they had decided, for he said the priests of God were more trustworthy than any magistrate (Lieu 10).

We can trace back the very beginning of the entitlement mentality by church hierarchy to Emperor Constantine and his enabling policies. No matter what his crime, a bishop could only be deposed and exiled, not legally tortured and executed (Lieu 17). I am sure this was fundamental in developing a culture within the church of dealing with any indiscretions internally, and not invoking the authority of the legal system. This, of course, has led to much abuse throughout history. One has only to watch the news these days to see on a routine basis, some priest or other has been exposed for having performed a plethora of transgressions, hidden by the church by simply moving the clergy member to a new area. This mentality just exposes more people to being victimized.

On the basis of Christian faith and the Trinity concept; the father, the son and the Holy Spirit, the first Council of Nicaea in 325 called together by Emperor Constantine, worked to establish a settlement of the issue of the relationship between father and the son. The focus primarily was on defining Jesus Christ as a deity. Establishment of the Holy Spirit was largely unaddressed until after the father and son relationship was settled in 362. After Nicaea, some bishops continued to prefer a term that had been discussed and rejected by the Council: homoiousios, in the sense of the son ‘being of like substance’ with the father. There were other bishops who were antagonistic to the term homoiousios because it was not biblical (O’Collins 184). Seven years later, the Trinitarian terminology was officially adopted after first Council Constantinople.

In its letter to Pope Damascus, a post conciliar synod confessed ‘one divinity, power or substance’ in ‘three most perfect hypostasesin’ (O’Collins 185). At the Trinitarian level, Constantinople I reaffirmed the Nicene Council confession of faith that the son was ’of one substance’ with the father, as well as teaching the divinity of the Holy Spirit (O’Collins 186). Thus, the official establishment of Christian doctrine regarding the Trinity of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit was initiated.

Works Cited:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

[RobbyPants]

They have the second fastest growing christain population in the world. Estimates are that within 10-15 years, they will have the largest christian population of any country in the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22...91910.html

The estimates are that they'll have the largest nominal Christian population, not proportional. That's the thing about having a population of well over a billion people. If you're just counting raw numbers and not rates, China tends to lead the world in a lot of things.

[Full Circle]

You still haven't shown how Jesus' saving act doesn't apply to those who have never heard of him. I wrote of a person who has not heard of Jesus, but understands that he is a sinner and is reliant on God for salvation. He strives to do God's will and asks for forgiveness. Does he not believe in Jesus? He is saved through Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.

The Bible is replete with verses and passages such as:

Mark 16:16 ESV
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Romans 10:9-10 ESV
Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

and of course

John 3:16 ESV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

So the answer to your question, as per these verses, is no, unless you believe in Jesus (and how can you believe in Jesus if you’ve not heard of Him) you won’t be saved. His sacrifice opens the door, but unless accompanied by baptism and belief in Him there is no salvation.

Okay. And you're entitled to hold that opinion, even though it's not the consensus of historians and bible scholars.

"Many of the Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr, Athanasius and Augustine incorporate a theory of substitutionary atonement into their writings. However, the specific interpretation as to what this suffering for sinners meant differed to some extent. It is widely held that the early Church Fathers, including Athanasius and Augustine, taught that through Christ’s vicarious suffering in humanity’s place, he overcame and liberated humanity from sin, death, and the devil.” ~ "Doctrine of the Atonement." Catholic Encyclopedia.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

The idea of substitutionary atonement or vicarious redemption was accepted by the Church Fathers and history clearly shows that this practice precedes Christianity. From here it is logical to make the connection between the tradition of “scapegoating” and Chrsitian scripture.

So what we have here are two separate but related points. An ancient tradition co-opted by Christianity and the salvation it offers but only to those who know of and accept Jesus as Savior.

[Lek]

You still haven't shown how Jesus' saving act doesn't apply to those who have never heard of him. I wrote of a person who has not heard of Jesus, but understands that he is a sinner and is reliant on God for salvation. He strives to do God's will and asks for forgiveness. Does he not believe in Jesus? He is saved through Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.

The Bible is replete with verses and passages such as:

Mark 16:16 ESV
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Romans 10:9-10 ESV
Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

and of course

John 3:16 ESV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

So the answer to your question, as per these verses, is no, unless you believe in Jesus (and how can you believe in Jesus if you’ve not heard of Him) you won’t be saved. His sacrifice opens the door, but unless accompanied by baptism and belief in Him there is no salvation.

The thief on the cross wasn't baptized and didn't even know about baptism, but I'm sure that he would have been baptized, given the opportunity. The same would apply to the person in my example. I agree we interpret the bible differently concerning the salvation of those who haven't heard the word.

[Lek]

The estimates are that they'll have the largest nominal Christian population, not proportional. That's the thing about having a population of well over a billion people. If you're just counting raw numbers and not rates, China tends to lead the world in a lot of things.

You're right, but it doesn't nullify the fact that christianity is growing quickly in China.

[goodwithoutgod]

Religions are losing members - "The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling. The challenge to Christianity in the U.S. does not come from other religions but rather from a rejection of all forms of organized religion. The “Nones” (no stated religious preference, atheist, or agnostic) continue to grow, from 8.2% in 1990, to 14.1% in 2001, to 15.0% in 2008, to over 21% in 2012. 34% off all US adults under 30 are unaffiliated."

University of Arizona and Northwestern University recent study projects the extinction of religion in Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Canada, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Switzerland. They will be entirely comprised of non-believers. The study also found that "Americans without affiliation comprise the only religious group growing in all 50 states." Religions is declining because of the increase in choice, education, information, bad press, the idea that it is useless or counterproductive and the idea that its fundamental principles are illogical."

Is religion dying? By Diana Butler Bass - “In the last dozen years, American religious institutions have undergone a myriad of crises--abuse scandals, conflicts, schism, and partisan political entanglement, to name a few--resulting in a great religious recession. Poll after poll reveals that organized religions --mainline Protestant, evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Jewish --are in varying states of disarray and decline. Sadness, even doom, has gripped many congregations, as the formerly faithful disaffiliate, and those who remain struggle to pay clergy and fix leaky roofs. The unaffiliated and atheists have been rising for thirty years.”

Atheism on the rise around the globe - "According to a new poll, religiosity worldwide is declining while more people say they are atheists. In the United States, a growing number consider themselves non-believers.
Atheism is on the rise in the United States and elsewhere while religiosity is declining, according to a new worldwide poll. “The Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism,” conducted by WIN-Gallup International headquartered in Switzerland, found that the number of Americans who say they are “religious” dropped from 73 percent in 2005 – when the poll was last conducted – to 60 percent. And 33 percent of the people polled said that they don’t consider themselves as a “religious person."

Only 1 in 3 Americans under the age of 30 believe in a god, we are literally watching religion circle the drain...thankfully. As the older generations pass away, and the younger generations fail to drink the kool aid of mythology, it will continue to dwindle until someday soon when someone says out loud they believe in a god, people will look shocked at such a statement...the way they do now in Scandinavian countries.

Do you know what the fastest growing religion in America is? It isn’t Christianity. According to the latest U.S. Religion Census that was just released on May 1, 2012, the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The data for the census was compiled by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, and the results were released by the Association of Religion Data Archives. From the year 2000 to the year 2010, the census found that the number of Muslims living inside the United States increased by about 1 million to 2.6 million – a stunning increase of 66.7 percent. That is an astounding rate of growth. Meanwhile, most Christian denominations had rates of growth that were far below the overall rate of population growth in the United States, and some Christian denominations actually lost members.

Second fastest growing group in US? Non religious/atheist.

One of the books I have in my rather large personal library is "Society without God" by Phil Zuckerman......intriguing book filled with data, and a long personal study he did as a sociological analysis of irreligion. I highly recommend it to all.

[Full Circle]

The thief on the cross wasn't baptized and didn't even know about baptism, but I'm sure that he would have been baptized, given the opportunity. The same would apply to the person in my example. I agree we interpret the bible differently concerning the salvation of those who haven't heard the word.

lek, your fallback position on “different interpretation” of Scripture is a perfect example of why I think the Christian Bible is but a compendium of contradictory, self-refuting, incomprehensible, unverifiable, pseudepigrapha and co-opted scrambled mish-mash of human imagination that can be interpreted, understood and misunderstood differently by every single person who has ever read it, and keep in mind that this is the “inspired” work of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, just God that loves you but created an eternal Hell.

This issue of “different interpretations” of Scripture is why there are some 43,000 Christian sects. Made me think of this:

[robvalue]

Is that really the best God could do? A 5 year old could write a book more comprehensible than that. It wouldn't need teams of people desperately trying to figure out hidden messages, and people forming thousands of sects over which contradictory parts they chose.

God clearly enjoys watching christians laying into each other over how to understand his pig shit of a book. He could simply come down and tell everyone exactly what it means. Hell, just beam the new bible direct into everyone's brains. Including atheists. That would be quite good evidence God!

It's the most popular book ever, the most incomprehensible and confusing book ever, and the most evil book ever. Burn it.