No. Nicaea resolved the issue of the manner in which the divine Jesus was viewed in relation to the divine Father. To get to that point, large numbers of people in early Christianity had to have already come to the conclusion that Jesus was divine.
I will try to be more clear in the future so as to avoid these sorts of misunderstandings.
As far as “other Christians have to accept things on faith as well”…
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. It is required that Christians accept certain things based on faith alone. One of those things is the idea of the Holy Trinity (the example I used originally). It does not make logical sense. It cannot be explained. Yet it is one of the central tenets of the faith. Therefore it must be believed on faith alone.
Of course, Christianity is not alone in this; every religion requires a “leap of faith”. The very concept of a Supreme Being is illogical, and must be believed based upon faith.
If you don’t want to believe in anything that does not make logical sense, then you shouldn’t believe them. But how that gives you the right to tell me what I should and should not believe I don’t understand. That does not make logical sense to me, so I refuse to believe it.
Yes. I am really unaware. I know of some things that are controversial, that make some people uncomfortable, but I think that “hateful” is just a wee bit strong.
The other option would be not believing. If it seems unbelievable and no one has proved anything in support of the existence of god, why would you have to adopt a faith-based approach to the issue? Couldn’t you simply say, “I don’t know what the origins of the universe are but I’m continuing an intellectual assessment of the evidence in my quest for that knowledge.”?
You make it sound as though belief in a supreme being is mandatory. There are other options.
I don’t think he’s telling you what you can or can’t believe. Just what is illogical or illogical.
If you scan through some of the threads around here, there are many examples of hate in the bible. I’m not a bible scholar, so I won’t be able to point any out myself, but they’re there.
But the point was not raised regarding any tabula rasa human. The point was raised in the context of a person who had already accepted Christian belief. If one has already made that leap of faith, to accept the ideas handed down through the last couple of millennia and to continue to participate in that belief system, then it is incumbent on that person to accept that there are aspects of belief which are not provable.
Had Suburban Plankton asserted that all people must believe in (a) god or the particular version(s) of God promoted in the Christian tradition, I could see your objection, but Plankton made no such claim. Certainly a person may choose to accept only those ideas that are demonstrable in the physical world. Such a person, however, is not likely to be Christian.
I was just offering another viewpoint.
tomndebb has already addressed this, but I’ll respond anyway. I did not say that belief in a supreme being (or anything else) was mandatory. I said that “It is required that Christians” believe certain things. One of the things that *Christians *must believe in is a Supreme Being. Specifically, the Christian God. It is one of the things that defines one as a Christian. If you are not Christian, then it is certainly not mandatory that you believe in the Christian god.
If you claim to follow any religion, then you must believe in the god or gods of that religion. If you do not espouse any religion, then you are perfectly free to believe in some, all, or none of the various gods that “exist”. In the absence of religion, you are free to believe or disbelieve anything you want, for any reason.
In his last post, badchad said (underlining mine)
I think it is crystal clear that he is telling me and everyone what we should and should not believe. How else do you interpret that sentence?
If I scan the threads around here, I am quite certain that I will find no examples of “hateful” speech attributed to Jesus in the Bible. But this may be only because as a Christian I am biased in my interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps your interpretation of the same words would be different. Which is precisely the reason that I asked for examples of “hateful stuff”. Can you provide some?
Not at all. Please don’t confuse Dan Brown with anyone who knows what he’s talking about.
Emotionally driven and illogical things are frequently wrong. They should not be believed (if we hold truth dear) when they come into conflict with intellectually derived and objectively verified beliefs.
Because of so much error it is not just difficult to know for sure what Jesus taught, it is impossible to know for sure what Jesus taught. Regardless I don’t think there is any reason to hold what he taught as all that important anyway as none of it rings as particularly wise. Certainly not so wise that we should assume it is of divine origin from a loving god.
Cosmosdan you have already admitted to me that you think Jesus was just a man, no more divine than anyone else.
Jesus might have known that if he had rattled off about the big bang and had it recorded thousands of years before scientists discovered it, then we might actually have a reason to believe him special. But he didn’t, and we have no reason to think that he could.
What they will do, and what they should do are two different things.
Now you are waffling. I asked you very specifically, before, if you thought Jesus was no more divine that you, I and everyone else, and you answered an affirmative. Now you are arguing that Jesus was in some way special, but his words as recorded in the gospels points to a man who had shortcomings a plenty.
And I’m saying accepting things based on faith is stupid. You are not a child, you do not need to believe things that seem wrong to you, simply because you were told to do so.
I agree that other religions that make use of faith to support otherwise unsupportable beliefs are equally contemptible.
It does make logical sense to you. You know your beliefs are unsupportable. If someone with conflicting ideals (a Muslim for example) were to tell you that he intended to kill you and your family for your heresy you would probably have a lot to say about telling him what he should or should not believe based on faith. You would probably even think him hateful, but I’m sure he would invoke your murder as falling under the greater good and the love of god.
This isn’t exactly my list, but it should get you started.
It is often wrong, and frequently dangerous, to accept beliefs simply because they have been handed down through the years, no matter how many years it has been, from the get go. It is really wrong, when you continue to hold these beliefs even when your own reason and experience would tell us they are wrong.
I have not problem telling you that you should not believe in things that even you find illogical. What I don’t get is why you would think I shouldn’t.
Imagine you were Jewish and I were Hitler and I said I intended to torture and/or murder you and every last one of your people. Would you think my intentions hateful?
If yes, good, now you know how I feel about your Jesus, who made it quite clear that he intends to torture/murder me and all of my kind of people.
Which is utterly irrelevant to this thread. If you wish to have a big thread decrying the nature of belief, open one up.
This thread asked a pretty specific question. There are several ways that it may be answered. None of those ways include simply inserting your belief that believing things is dumb. If you do not have a specific response to the question “When did Jesus become God?” (either in terms of when it “really” happened (if it ever did) or in terms of when the group of people who eventually coalesced into Christianity came to believe it), then stop hijacking the thread with the wholly separate question “Why should anyone actually believe anything and who should be allowed to exercise belief?”
When did I say that I believed something that seemed wrong to me? What I said was that I believe something that does not make logical sense. That does not equate to “seems wrong”. It means that I am willing to accept something as truth even though it cannot be logically proven. Note that it cannot be logically disproven either, nor can any competing viewpoint be proven.
I fail to see what your example has to do with the argument at hand. I fail to see how you, on the one hand, berate me for ostensibly telling you that you must believe in god, and then on the other hand think you are justified in telling me that I must not believe in god. The nature of the beliefs has nothing to do with it.
That site seems to be filled with a bunch of “quotes” taken completely out of context. I don’t have the time to read through the entire site in order to try to see what point you are trying to make. You were the one who brought up the “hateful stuff” that Jesus’ said. I have asked three times for examples of “hateful stuff” So far, all I have been offered is a web site that “isn’t exactly my list”. Do you, in fact, have a list? Or are you merely repeating something that was told to you without understanding what it is you are saying?
Last time I looked, you were not my father or my boss. Therefore I think you have absolutely no right to tell me what I should or should not do. Please explain to me why I am mistaken in this belief.
Again, please explain specifically what you mean by this statement. Please provide quotes from the Bible that support your position. If and when you do so, then we can have a discussion regarding the “true meaning” behind Jesus’ words. Until then, you are just blowing smoke.
I have just now noticed tomndebb’s latest post. I have to agree that we have now completely hijacked this thread, and I apologize to BarnOwl fo my part in it.
badchad, if you wish to continue this discussion, please open up a new thread here in GD, and I will be more than happy to debate you there. I will speak no more on the subject here.
That’s a pretty good policy. I’m with ya on the stuff that can be objectively verified. Some things are subjective.
IYHO Mine is a little different.
Which actually means I think we all have that divine spark and the same potential as Jesus in that regard.
and no reason to care. evidently you missed the part of that quote you left out which is the more relevant issue.
Actually neither you or I know what someone else should do.
My point was that Christians struggle in their quest to live a Christ like life {the ones that actually care and try} We all have room to grow don’t we?
You have misunderstood my point now and previously.
We all have the same connection as Jesus . The difference is he was aware and lived the truth of that connection in his physical body That’s what made him a “high spiritual being” The spiritual journey is surrendering our illusions and living according to that connection. That’s the meaning of
'You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free"
Me too. I wanna play.
in fact something along this line with fewer words would be a good thread title. It is well expressed.
In case you missed it Tom, I did have a specific response to the OP, and the OP thanked me for it. You others gave different answers. We all gave out supporting reasons and since the answers have varied from Jesus always was god to Jesus never was, with various inbetweens. As such it is probably best to explore whose supporting evidence has the most merit.
My attack on faith, in direct opposition to reason, is only to show that those using it to bolster their beliefs are executing the weakest form of thinking known to man, decidedly worse than flipping a coin. Or in other words we probably shouldn’t accept what faith proponents say, which includes you, as having any connect with reality regarding the divinity of Christ.
Done.
I did not miss it. Your first response, although burdened by your usual polemics, was fine. Folowing that post, however, you went off on your standard tirade, challenging other posters about a different issue than the one is this thread. Your later off-topic posts prompted me to tell you to stop the hijack.