I don’t see where you’re going. In polytheistic religions, there are gods/superhumans that were created by other gods.
But in monotheistic religions, like Judaism and Christianity, there aren’t.
It comes down to what you think the word “god” refers to. If you think every posited supernatural entity is a “god”, then you would class Christianity and Judaism as polytheistic. But if you define “god” as uncreated, then posited created supernatural entities are not “god”; they are just created beings, albeit supernatural.
See, the translation is faulty. At that time, the great one was distressed about his muffin top and wanted food that was not so rich, so he cried out, “Let there be lite!” The universe misheard, but he was kind of stuck and had to go with it.
Hence why the Creed includes the line
begotten, not created
referring to JC.
Does “the Creed” mean John 3:16?
No, it means the Nicean or Nicene Creed, in this case translated to English and as found here. Paragraph 2, first half of verse 6.
I have no idea how did you confuse that very-specific line with John 3:16.
Because John 3:16 contains the word “begotten” and you seem to be vastly overestimating the familiarity of the Nicene Creed.
John 3:16 does not contain the part about “not created”, and the Nicene Creed does.
The Nicene Creed is one of the three foundational confessions of the Christian church (the others are the Apostle’s Creed and the Athanasian Creed). It’s pretty familiar to mainstream Christianity. Those who are familiar with that and with John 3:16 would probably recognize the reference and its source.
Regards,
Shodan
I recognized the term “Nicene Creed” once it was mentioned, but the use of “the Creed” wasn’t enough to trigger that memory. And I thought that Nava was saying that “the Creed” included the word “begotten” but not the word “created”, not that Nava was saying that "the Creed included an explicit statement of “begotten, not created.”
(The branch of Christianity–which you may or may not conciser mainstream-- that is in my background, is clearly derived from the Nicene Creed, but isn’t called that, and I’d guess that a good 95% or more of even devout Southern Baptists wouldn’t recognize the term.)
As said many times, a part of God’s creation and plan. Sun govern’s the day, and the moon the night (but under God’s authority). Also there is a interesting passage in Revelation:
But I have not heard much in terms of christian adhering to the passage. Part of the reason is understandably that Revelation is cryptic and hard to fit into context, and to me much of Christianity seems to involve either living to a moral code, or a personal relationship with God through Jesus - neither versions really seem to fit with church doctrine and tend to introduce a pagan aspect which churches appear to oppose the idea of a space dwelling female being that justifies the concept of mother earth.
Are you saying that you can’t distinguish between italicized and not italicized text? Would quote marks have helped? It’s a genuine question, I was trying to make the quote more visible by putting it in its own line and italicized than by putting it in quote marks, but apparently in this case it didn’t work.
The woman in Revelation is usually interpreted as being Mary. Mother, but not Earth.
Can you distinguish between being conversational and being hostile? Because you have been unduly so, IMHO, in your last two replies to me.
Yeah, Evangelicals don’t particularly focus on the creeds. When they do it’s usually the Apostle’s Creed-which is a fine creed in its own right, but not quite as theologically rich as the Nicene. Nonetheless, the Nicene Creed is the basis for pretty much every Christian denomination. With the exception of the Mormons I don’t think there’s any large group using the Christian label that has a problem with any of it. It’s pretty basic stuff. It’s actually what I use when people ask me to define Christian. If you believe it, you probably fit in the Christian box, if you don’t, you’re probably something else that may be close to Christian, but your own thing.
Well, that’s one way out! 
Well, there’s some quibbling about the details: Most of the Orthodox sects reject the filioque clause, for example.
That’s true, but I think that we mostly all agree on the 381 formulation prior to the addition of the filioque. Not that people would say that they agree with it. My own church actually rejected it as an article of faith, but nonetheless, it pretty succinctly sums up the beliefs.