First Council of Nicaea: when Christianity was deformed and Jesus named son of God.

[Brian37]

I’m not sure why you’re dragging the Synod of Hippo into this, but ok.

While heresy is definitional, the application of the term depends on who is doing the applying. So yes, both Catholics and Protestants are heretics in the view of the other franchise, just as Sunnis and Shiites may view each other as heretics (and both may view YOU as a heretic for your rejection of the aHadith). But as I said earlier, a charge of heresy doesn’t - by itself - mean that the heretical view is necessarily wrong. Put another way, you can be declared a heretic and still be right.

Your position that religious conflict leads to bloodshed is roughly on a part with predicting that water is wet.

Boru

To prove that "oppression" and "filtering" of certain information/or adding new data, from and to holy books was present and carried on by the "Christian Religious Institution" with both of its Eastern and Western churches.

How does the charge of heresy "fair" in an environment dictated by the strong? any new opinion that doesn't get approval of the "dogma of priests and the emperor/king" will be "killed and outlawed-butchered".

My position on religious conflict is not built on "religion or even history"; but built on knowledge with the humankind: 2 men that keep arguing will soon explode if the argument is not settled.

"Not settled". 

It never will be "settled". Humans like all other life live in competition for resources. The best humans can do is to realize we are not special, and there is no Jesus/Allah/Yahweh/ABBA magically controlling the universe. 

When you say "not settled", what you really mean is humans should submit to Allah and then everything will be ok. I'll make you a deal Atlass, if you can show me a 13.8 billion year old Koran, physically in real life, scientifically verified, I will concede. 

But I think that is as likely as finding a 13.8 billion year old Bible or 13.8 billion year old copy of ABBA's first album Waterloo.

Maybe if humans want more peace and less violence, maybe the world's population needs to consider that religion is just personal mental masturbation. Maybe if you consider that the person on the other side of the planet, like you, needs food, and doesn't want to die, like you don't want to die?

[Angrboda]

Brian is the sweatpants philosopher. His arguments are all loose-fitting, perhaps a bit too big, are rather drab, and wouldn't look good no matter what you paired them with.

[Brian37]

I’m not sure why you’re dragging the Synod of Hippo into this, but ok.

While heresy is definitional, the application of the term depends on who is doing the applying. So yes, both Catholics and Protestants are heretics in the view of the other franchise, just as Sunnis and Shiites may view each other as heretics (and both may view YOU as a heretic for your rejection of the aHadith). But as I said earlier, a charge of heresy doesn’t - by itself - mean that the heretical view is necessarily wrong. Put another way, you can be declared a heretic and still be right.

Your position that religious conflict leads to bloodshed is roughly on a part with predicting that water is wet.

Boru

To prove that "oppression" and "filtering" of certain information/or adding new data, from and to holy books was present and carried on by the "Christian Religious Institution" with both of its Eastern and Western churches.

How does the charge of heresy "fair" in an environment dictated by the strong? any new opinion that doesn't get approval of the "party of priests and the emperor/king" will be "killed and outlawed-butchered".

My position on religious conflict is not built on "religion or even history"; but built on knowledge with the humankind: 2 men that keep arguing will soon explode if the argument is not settled.

Again, "settled" is a point of view argument. And from your point of view you think you are right.

Well welcome to humanity, there are tons of bullshit gods and religions and politics and economic arguments, and everyone still dies in the end.

Otherwise ABBA is the only solution.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Exactly what was this Council looking at to justify as evidence for the arguments you are making Boru?

In today's courts, the prosecutor and defense lawyer look at what they think is "evidence". They both have to collect that "evidence" which is what I was talking about by "compile".

The writings prior to that Council where what they were arguing. What won out was the vote based on what the council compiled.

Most probably they were looking at the Gospels and the Pauline epistles, but that’s beside the point. You made the claim that the Nicene Council codified what we think of as the Bible, which claim (as Boda ably pointed out) is patently false.

You can try to weasel your way out of this all you like, but wouldn’t it just be easier to admit you made a mistake?

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m not sure why you’re dragging the Synod of Hippo into this, but ok.

While heresy is definitional, the application of the term depends on who is doing the applying. So yes, both Catholics and Protestants are heretics in the view of the other franchise, just as Sunnis and Shiites may view each other as heretics (and both may view YOU as a heretic for your rejection of the aHadith). But as I said earlier, a charge of heresy doesn’t - by itself - mean that the heretical view is necessarily wrong. Put another way, you can be declared a heretic and still be right.

Your position that religious conflict leads to bloodshed is roughly on a part with predicting that water is wet.

Boru

To prove that "oppression" and "filtering" of certain information/or adding new data, from and to holy books was present and carried on by the "Christian Religious Institution" with both of its Eastern and Western churches.

How does the charge of heresy "fair" in an environment dictated by the strong? any new opinion that doesn't get approval of the "party of priests and the emperor/king" will be "killed and outlawed-butchered".

My position on religious conflict is not built on "religion or even history"; but built on knowledge with the humankind: 2 men that keep arguing will soon explode if the argument is not settled.

The charge of heresy fares (note correct spelling) very well in an environment dictated by the strong, because the strong are the only ones who can make it stick.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

To prove that "oppression" and "filtering" of certain information/or adding new data, from and to holy books was present and carried on by the "Christian Religious Institution" with both of its Eastern and Western churches.

How does the charge of heresy "fair" in an environment dictated by the strong? any new opinion that doesn't get approval of the "dogma of priests and the emperor/king" will be "killed and outlawed-butchered".

My position on religious conflict is not built on "religion or even history"; but built on knowledge with the humankind: 2 men that keep arguing will soon explode if the argument is not settled.

"Not settled". 

It never will be "settled". Humans like all other life live in competition for resources. The best humans can do is to realize we are not special, and there is no Jesus/Allah/Yahweh/ABBA magically controlling the universe. 

When you say "not settled", what you really mean is humans should submit to Allah and then everything will be ok. I'll make you a deal Atlass, if you can show me a 13.8 billion year old Koran, physically in real life, scientifically verified, I will concede. 

But I think that is as likely as finding a 13.8 billion year old Bible or 13.8 billion year old copy of ABBA's first album Waterloo.

Maybe if humans want more peace and less violence, maybe the world's population needs to consider that religion is just personal mental masturbation. Maybe if you consider that the person on the other side of the planet, like you, needs food, and doesn't want to die, like you don't want to die?

(Bold mine)

That’s not a fair offer, since the universe is only 51 years, 5 months, 27 days, and some odd number of minutes old.

Boru

[Ahriman]

To prove that "oppression" and "filtering" of certain information/or adding new data, from and to holy books was present and carried on by the "Christian Religious Institution" with both of its Eastern and Western churches.

How does the charge of heresy "fair" in an environment dictated by the strong? any new opinion that doesn't get approval of the "party of priests and the emperor/king" will be "killed and outlawed-butchered".

My position on religious conflict is not built on "religion or even history"; but built on knowledge with the humankind: 2 men that keep arguing will soon explode if the argument is not settled.

The charge of heresy fares (note correct spelling) very well in an environment dictated by the strong, because the strong are the only ones who can make it stick.

Boru

Yes, that's how things should work.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The charge of heresy fares (note correct spelling) very well in an environment dictated by the strong, because the strong are the only ones who can make it stick.

Boru

Yes, that's how things should work.

Not really. It’s how they DO work, though.

Boru

[Ahriman]

Yes, that's how things should work.

Not really. It’s how they DO work, though.

Boru

Who gets charged with heresy, in the Western world?

[Brian37]

I’m not sure why you’re dragging the Synod of Hippo into this, but ok.

While heresy is definitional, the application of the term depends on who is doing the applying. So yes, both Catholics and Protestants are heretics in the view of the other franchise, just as Sunnis and Shiites may view each other as heretics (and both may view YOU as a heretic for your rejection of the aHadith). But as I said earlier, a charge of heresy doesn’t - by itself - mean that the heretical view is necessarily wrong. Put another way, you can be declared a heretic and still be right.

Your position that religious conflict leads to bloodshed is roughly on a part with predicting that water is wet.

Boru

To prove that "oppression" and "filtering" of certain information/or adding new data, from and to holy books was present and carried on by the "Christian Religious Institution" with both of its Eastern and Western churches.

How does the charge of heresy "fair" in an environment dictated by the strong? any new opinion that doesn't get approval of the "party of priests and the emperor/king" will be "killed and outlawed-butchered".

My position on religious conflict is not built on "religion or even history"; but built on knowledge with the humankind: 2 men that keep arguing will soon explode if the argument is not settled.

The fact that Coke and Pepsi, and Ford and Chevy exist, means competition doesn't exist is  to think religion doesn't compete in the same way is absurd.

The Council of Nicaea was an argument over interpretation, and all sides had to look to "evidence" and "compile" that "evidence" to win the argument. 

Pick your side on that debate, but what were both sides of that "Council" basing their arguments on? The same fucking writings and the same fucking religion. One side won, the other side lost. But it was still compiled to a conclusion.