Google Ads

  • Support This Site


    Use this to buy anything from Amazon.com. It adds nothing to your cost and this site gets a small advertising fee.

  • Google Ads

  • Bible Wheel Book

  • Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Hello to you Richard!

    There are times when your posts seem to imply that the true followers of Christ's teaching are what's wrong with the world today when in reality they make significant contributions to society and science.
    Hello my friend,

    I am very happy with the turn this conversation has taken. You and I share a common background since I once was where you are now (in many respects, not all!). And we seem to have a common interest in being understood and clarifying confusions. This combination is relatively rare on the internet. I think many will benefit from our interaction. I know I find it interesting and satisfying.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Thank-you for your apology. I trust what the Scriptures teach because they instruct us on how to conduct our lives in a peaceful way and they impart the hope of Eternal Life.

    Simply because we do not understand why God gives an instruction in a certain area does not render it unimportant, invalid or inappropriate. Anyone of us could learn something tomorrow that would trigger a paradigm shift in our world view. Could that be the reason why God places an emphasis on obedience? The Scriptures teach that obedience is better than sacrifice. In reality obedience often requires the sacrificing of ideas that are contrary to God's Word.
    The apology was heartfelt, and I rejoice to see the fruit it bears.

    I'm glad you understand that "Anyone of us could learn something tomorrow that would trigger a paradigm shift in our world view." That's what happened to me and Rose. In spades! But I understand you are applying that to the problematic verses. And I agree to a degree. For example, it is possible that Paul was replying to false statements he received in a letter when he said "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." If we had the letter we would have known that he was quoting the false statement in the letter and correcting it. That's one approach folks have taken to resolve the sexism in the Bible. But that approach is a piecemeal approach and so does not convince me because it is trumped by the "Big Picture" of sexism that saturates the Bible from beginning to end. The image of God is fundamentally male - indeed, a Trinity of Males. And this is why the emphasis on obedience is so problematic. Who really has an interest in obedience? RULING MALES. The literal "male kings" which are the basis of the primary Biblical metaphor for God. Christianity hinges on the concept of sin as "disobedience" and that is a concept I categorically reject. It has nothing to do with morality. Obedience to religious dogmas is a primary source of evil in the world. Steven Weinberg put it well when he said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Even the reference to "good people" collides with the Christian dogma that there are none. It is here that Christian dogma collides with reality. We all know that there are good people in the world, and there is no correlation between goodness and religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Does not history bear witness that the true followers of Christ have made significant contributions to the advances listed in your post?
    Yes, there are Christians who have done great good. But there are Hindus, Muslims, and Atheists who have done great good. So the only question of any import is the net effect of Christianity. The jury is still out on that one. There are strong arguments to be made for both sides. Myself, I am uncommitted. I simply don't have sufficient knowledge to make a firm judgment.

    Also, are you aware of the No True Scotsman fallacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Who would disagree with that logic, but I would cut it short when it comes to unnatural lifestyles because it is biblically defined as sin. Is it equal with murder? Is it comparable to lying and thievery? Not to me, but to God, sin is sin. Of course, if there is no such thing as sin, then we are back to man's own version of morality, and we already know the dead end result of that debate. It is worth noting also that those of us who have friendship relations with gays and lesbians do not need to be lectured on our manners, nor the virtues of the lifestyle. It is simply contrary to the Word of God and God is their redeemer as He is mine. I am in no less desperate need of His redemption than they.
    The Biblical abhorrence of homosexuality is just a bit too similar to human bigotry for me, and many modern Christians, to attribute to God. It is clear that the men who wrote the Bible understood sexuality as POWER over another. That's why they told the story of David being humiliated by Absalom publicly raping his wives. In effect, Absalom was raping David. There was no concern for the women - they were just objects used in a brutal power play between two wanna-be kings. This exemplifies the classic pattern of expressing dominance through sex. It is seen in many species such as wolves and apes. It fits a bit too well with the generally primitive morality of the Bible that teaches male dominance over women and "obedience" to the male god - mediated by male priests - as the highest virtue.

    FYI - Even in my most fundamentalist days, I never understood the idea that "sin is sin" with God. That's not how God talks about sin in the Bible. On the contrary, he makes lots of distinctions between different kinds and degrees of sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Can you add to your list the persecution of Christ's followers.
    Of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    The difference is in "knowing Him in whom they have believed".
    That's a difference without a distinction. How does your private knowledge of God differ from a Muslim's private knowledge of Allah? Now don't quote the propaganda that says Allah is not like "father" - if you know anything about Islam, you know that everything begins with the phrase "Bismilah irrachman irrahim" = in the Name of Allah, the Beneficient, the Merciful. They are every bit as much in love with Allah as you are with your God. To deny this would be to dehumanize Muslims. And it's not just Muslims - every devout religious person on this planet would say exactly what you said. That's why it's a difference without a distinction. Those words don't actually contain any meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Different god, different results. To which god do you attribute your fundamental beliefs?
    Ah ... "belief" - I do not attribute my beliefs to any god. I do not believe in any dogmas taught in religious books. I use the word "belief" as roughly synonymous as "to the best of my knowledge." It has nothing to do with asserting certainty. But don't follow the foolish apologist argument that tries to trap people into the equally foolish fallacy of asserting absolutely that there are no absolutes. I know that there are absolutes. And we agree upon the foundation of those absolutes. I call it Reality. You call it God. Further discussion on this would be fascinating, but off-topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Why do you say so? Is there anything wrong with TV?
    Too much TV breeds passivity and sloppy thinking. Folks should be more active, thinking for themselves and engaging the world. We should encourage these things in our children.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    And what are the trending results from public education?
    Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

    Trends go up and down. What are the causes? What might happen next year? What is the influence of the global availability of the sum of human knowledge to each brain? I am exceedingly optimistic about the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    What is wrong with teaching from the bible? Why is it banned from most public schools?
    Nothing! The Koran and the Upanishads should be taught in school too. I want MORE information made freely available. Not less. Then informed folks will make up their own minds rather than obeying the dogmas they were taught as children (before the had the ability to reason for themselves).

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    In one breath you have extolled the virtues of biblical based families and in the next, you sweep it away.
    I just showed both sides of the coin. Your response indicates you think you have a coin with only one side.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    God's plan for the family has not changed and is made perfectly clear in Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:31. Even the church is symbolic of the union between one man and one women. Man is the one who reinvents God's plan.
    Granted, that narrative fits well with the Bible. But so does the Song of Solomon which seemed exceedingly significant to me when I wrote the Bible Wheel book. It is on Spoke 22, the final spoke, and so speaks of Consummation. It fits beautifully with the image of the Union of Christ and His Bride, the consummation of the entire Cosmic Drama. It aligns with Revelation where Christ receives his bride. I could write books on Spoke 22 alone. But one thing I missed when I was blinded by that amazing light - the strange fact that the Song of Solomon is about a woman devoted to a man with a HARAM! Suddenly, my pretty little picture of the 1950s style Middle-American monogamous marriage that I was superimposing over the Biblical reality went "poof!" And now it's gone baby, gone.

    Of course, I can still see the amazing pattern in the Bible Wheel. Nothing about that has changed. All the evidence stands. I just don't know how it got there or what it means.
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Thank-you for the undeserved compliment. Our lives here are really nothing more than a witness and testament to the Grace of God. We are fragmented individuals, capable of accomplishing great feats of courage and self sacrifice, and in the same instant committing the most heinous of crimes, and everything in between. Capable of great pride and ultimate humility. This is the reality of men and thus the necessity for His Grace.
    Every Muslim would say Alhamdulillah. All praise to Allah. That's probably the most common word uttered in Islamic countries, short of the proper name Muhammad, of course. And when they state any plan, the pious always inserts "Inshallah" meaning "If it is Allah's will." To my eye, the essence of their religion is indistinguishable from yours. They too hold faith and obedience to be the highest of all virtues.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Now I'm curious to as what single factor you believe has made the greatest contribution to the freedom and valuation of the common human being?
    Nice question. I'm familiar with that argument. You asked a similar question about the ultimate affect of Christianity. The jury is out in both cases. It would probably make an excellent thread. My brother in law (a Professor of Philosophy and Science at Messiah College) believes Christianity has had a net positive effect, despite the many evils that can be attributed to it. And he thinks that the valuation of individual humans is a prime example. He makes his case by comparing eastern civilizations which value the group over the individual. He's very smart. We talk a lot. But we have not resolved this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Can I quote you on that?
    You can quote anything you want, so long as you give proper context, of course!

    I trust you see I see the coin's got two sides.

    My interest is in true judgment. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the Bible helps people make true judgments. I think it perverts their judgments by causing them to twist their mind to justify the unjustifiable.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Finally, I understand your personal convictions regarding the accounts in the OT. The difference between you and I is that I believe them to be true, because I have accepted the fact that if the Bible is the inspired Word of God, I'm willing to trust that He has founded its origin and maintained its integrity. Who would not get bogged down trying to justify all of those acts, but I find enough trouble in my own life where the Book judges me. Its text assigns sufficient responsibility to my own life and personal behavior, and charges me with no responsibility to sit in judgement over Him. The Book contains more than a lifetime of instruction to guide my personal behavior for the rest of my life.
    I was of a very similar mind when I was a Christian. I believed that God had designed the Bible as a whole so any incidental problems with the content were ultimately irrelevant. You couldn't destroy the whole by picking at nits. They were trumped by the "Big Picture." And as it turns out, I was partially correct. The Bible Wheel remains, but the God taught in the pages is gone. How's that for irony?

    I think the difference between you and me (pet grammatical peeve) is that you were indoctrinated as a child or have chosen to believe the Bible (doesn't matter which, since the effect is the same). If by chance had been born in Turkey, you'd have the same feelings for the Koran. And given your temperament, I would guess you'd be a fundamentalist Muslim. I think that is worthy of much deep meditation and soul searching.

    Like I said, I am delighted with the turn this conversation has taken.

    All the very best to you and yours (the many!),

    Richard
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Should man rule over women for women’s own good? started by Greatest I am View original post
    Comments 22 Comments
    1. David M's Avatar
      David M -
      Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
      The Bible was written by primitive men and so it reflects their primitive morality and social structure.
      Good morning. I know we have had many discussions, but when you say "primitive" exactly how primitive do you think man was when he wrote the Bible? A clarification might be helpful. If man was primitive, I take this that man was not able to write very well. If man's language was so primitive, why is the Bible so rich in language and a rich source of instruction and other sources of information that show the Bible as not a "primitive" book? From reading some of the posts recently on this forum, it seems like we have some primitive minds present. Call me "primitive". I am primitive, compared to God's intelligence.

      If the Bible is the work of "primitive men", this whole Bible Wheel Forum and website is a waste of time and all your work to date which has revealed some wonderful aspects of the Bible has been totally in vain. But hey, you are now fitting in with what the Bible says about men and women's lives in general; "All is vanity and vexation of spirit" (Eccl 1:14)

      I find whatever anyone says on this forum in opposition to God, God has got there before them. God knows exactly how "primitive" brains will think and what they will do, what they will say and how they will respond. This means that God is far wiser than "primitive" brains are able to determine. Herein lies the problem; "pimitive minds" are a attributing to God, man's own primitive ideas and expecting less "primitive" minds than their's to accept what they say. I will base my understanding on that which is the least "primitive" and unfortunately, there are not many non-primitive minds on this forum.

      It does not really matter whether I think anyone is still "primitive" as God is the only one able to judge. I would not take much notice from my fellow "primitive" beings.

      All the best,

      David
    1. Greatest I am's Avatar
      Greatest I am -
      Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
      It's very interesting how frequently Christians judge God. With every act of biblical justification people are judging that God didn't really mean the atrocities that we are told in the Bible about him, but if not what did he mean?

      If the Bible is truly the word of God, he should have been able to say exactly what he meant. We as humans read our own morality into the Bible and then determine that the biblegod must have meant something different than what is written. If that is the case modern man should just write an entirely new Bible with updated moral codes...

      All the best,
      Rose
      + 1

      I have been told that Jesus speaks in coded parables.

      Christians have yet to come up with a decoder ring.

      Regards
      DL
    1. Greatest I am's Avatar
      Greatest I am -
      Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
      That's the key to understanding the absurdity of the complaint that we are "judging God." Every time a person says "God is good" they have judged God. What they are really telling us is that we must always judge God, but that we cannot use our judgment when doing so. We must simply repeat the mantra - everything God does is good by definition, not matter how evil it appears! What they fail to realize is that this divorces the word "good" from its actual meaning, and so the phrase "God is good" is rendered meaningless. How's that for irony?
      That irony makes for interesting but fruitless conversations.

      It is like Christians asking us to look at things and then putting a blindfold on us and expecting us to agree with whatever they see even as the tell us they are looking at invisible entities.

      I cannot understand how that tradition and dogma has lasted so long.
      I know the history but cannot understand how the intelligence of the past has not buried the various Abrahamic cults.
      It had to be the old tribal ways based on fear of the other tribes.

      This clip shows that aspect quite well.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

      I wonder if jce will admit to judging God.

      Regards
      DL
    1. Greatest I am's Avatar
      Greatest I am -
      Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
      [ I am primitive, compared to God's intelligence.



      David
      How can you know this as a fact?
      You cannot unless you believe hearsay.
      Did God not say we are his greatest creation?
      Yet here you are debasing yourself.

      Your bible even tells you that in the important part of religion, morality, man can be as bright as God.

      Did he not say that A & E had become as Gods, knowing good and evil. They developed a moral sense IOW.

      If they could with their primitive minds, why do you think you cannot?

      Regards
      DL
    1. Greatest I am's Avatar
      Greatest I am -
      Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
      [

      It does not really matter whether I think anyone is still "primitive" as God is the only one able to judge. I would not take much notice from my fellow "primitive" beings.

      All the best,

      David
      How did you reach the judgement that God is the only one able to judge?

      Did you not have to judge?
      Or did you judger that the judgement of other men was worthy?

      Regards
      DL
    1. David M's Avatar
      David M -
      Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
      How did you reach the judgement that God is the only one able to judge?

      Did you not have to judge?
      Or did you judger that the judgement of other men was worthy?

      Regards
      DL
      Hello DL

      I realize once again that everything one writes on this forum has to be qualified or else one is left open to be challenged. I have made the mistake of not explaining why I made that statement. I consider God is the only one who can judge us correctly, because God is the Creator and only God can read the mind which He created. Who else do you know who can do this; let alone read the mind perfectly? We can all make a judgment, but how accurate is your judgment or mine of another person?

      On a very simple level, God says He can number the hairs on our head. Unless you are absolutely bald, can you count accurately the number of hairs on your head? That for us should be a relatively simple exercise compared to knowing what is in a person's heart. God can read our minds and knows our thoughts and gets to the core of our being;that is our motives. If you can prove to me that a man or woman can accurately read what is in another person's mind, I will admit that God is not the only perfect judge. As to who will be judged worthy to be in God's Kingdom, God has given all judgement to His Son; (John 5:22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: This does not mean God is not able to judge; it means that God has delegated this task to His Son.

      It is stated by Jeremiah; (Jer 17:9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I challenge you to be able to know what is in a person's heart; someone you have never met and know nothing about.

      Those are my reasons for saying that God it the only one who is able to judge us.

      All the best,

      David
    1. Greatest I am's Avatar
      Greatest I am -
      Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
      Hello DL

      I realize once again that everything one writes on this forum has to be qualified or else one is left open to be challenged. I have made the mistake of not explaining why I made that statement. I consider God is the only one who can judge us correctly, because God is the Creator and only God can read the mind which He created.
      Opinion and not knowledge.

      Who else do you know who can do this; let alone read the mind perfectly? We can all make a judgment, but how accurate is your judgment or mine of another person?
      As accurately as God since we have nothing to show that he does.
      On a very simple level, God says He can number the hairs on our head.
      God has no lips and cannot speak.

      Unless you are absolutely bald, can you count accurately the number of hairs on your head? That for us should be a relatively simple exercise compared to knowing what is in a person's heart. God can read our minds and knows our thoughts and gets to the core of our being;that is our motives. If you can prove to me that a man or woman can accurately read what is in another person's mind, I will admit that God is not the only perfect judge.
      How about you proving that God can do what you claim he can.

      As to who will be judged worthy to be in God's Kingdom, God has given all judgement to His Son; (John 5:22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: This does not mean God is not able to judge; it means that God has delegated this task to His Son.
      Dogma says that God does not change. Are you saying he does and that not all three heads of the Trinity are equal?

      It is stated by Jeremiah; (Jer 17:9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I challenge you to be able to know what is in a person's heart; someone you have never met and know nothing about.
      I accept and offer proof that all are born with a predominantly good character.

      http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...rality-100511/
      Those are my reasons for saying that God it the only one who is able to judge us.

      All the best,

      David
      A judge must have morals.
      Morals are developed from interactions between those of the same species.
      Man developed morals because he had to live with other men.
      Your God was alone, so it is said, before creation and thus could not have developed morals.
      That makes him unfit to judge us.

      Further, the fact that most believe that to him, sin is sin and all have the same penalty, to burn forever in a purposeless hell shows that his morals are not up to the task of judging properly.

      Regards
      DL
    1. Richard Amiel McGough's Avatar
      Richard Amiel McGough -
      Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
      Good morning. I know we have had many discussions, but when you say "primitive" exactly how primitive do you think man was when he wrote the Bible? A clarification might be helpful. If man was primitive, I take this that man was not able to write very well. If man's language was so primitive, why is the Bible so rich in language and a rich source of instruction and other sources of information that show the Bible as not a "primitive" book? From reading some of the posts recently on this forum, it seems like we have some primitive minds present. Call me "primitive". I am primitive, compared to God's intelligence.

      If the Bible is the work of "primitive men", this whole Bible Wheel Forum and website is a waste of time and all your work to date which has revealed some wonderful aspects of the Bible has been totally in vain. But hey, you are now fitting in with what the Bible says about men and women's lives in general; "All is vanity and vexation of spirit" (Eccl 1:14)
      Good morning David,

      I thought the meaning of "primitive" would be self-evident from the context. The Bible was written over a span of roughly a thousand years from around 1000 BC to the first century (or from around 1500 - 1200 BC if you accept the Mosaic authorship of the Torah). This begins near the end of the Bronze age and spans the Iron age. If that's not "primitive" relative to the modern age, I don't know what is.

      I don't understand why you would say that this implies "man was not able to write very well." If you know ancient literature, then you know this is not true. I never said or implied that "man's language was so primitive." I was talking about the social norms and morality - the topic of this thread. They most certainly were primitive by modern standards, wouldn't you say?

      Your assertion that any study of the Bible would be "vain" and a "waste of time" if we admit the truth that it was written by primitive men does not follow at all. On the contrary, the Bible is a primary source book that reveals the hopes, dreams, fears and passions that are were common to people at that time. It reveals the psychology of the human mind. It is exceedingly rich with insights into how people have perceived reality and God. It is like a lens to see into the depths of the psyche. And the Bible Wheel gives evidence that something even deeper is going on. It looks like a mandala of the kind that Carl Jung said marked the process of individuation, which suggests that the Bible as a whole could be a record of a profound psychological process in the global mind. There's really no end to the richness of the Bible no matter how you look at it.

      Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
      I find whatever anyone says on this forum in opposition to God, God has got there before them. God knows exactly how "primitive" brains will think and what they will do, what they will say and how they will respond. This means that God is far wiser than "primitive" brains are able to determine. Herein lies the problem; "pimitive minds" are a attributing to God, man's own primitive ideas and expecting less "primitive" minds than their's to accept what they say. I will base my understanding on that which is the least "primitive" and unfortunately, there are not many non-primitive minds on this forum.

      It does not really matter whether I think anyone is still "primitive" as God is the only one able to judge. I would not take much notice from my fellow "primitive" beings.
      It looks like you are confusing God with the Bible again. Nobody is criticizing God. We are critiquing a book written by men and promoted by other men as the "Word of God." Would I be in "opposition to God" if I did the same thing with the Koran? Of course not. If I said Allah acted like a primitive tribal war god when he commanded his followers to slay all the infidels, would you say that I am in "opposition to God"? Of course not. So lets quit pretending that we are "opposing God" when we are really doing nothing but discussing what a book says.

      Great chatting!

      Richard
    1. gilgal's Avatar
      gilgal -
      Men are in charge as lords over their wives but even God told Abraham in Genesis 21 that he ought to take the advice of Sarah and let Hagar and Ishmael go.
    1. Richard Amiel McGough's Avatar
      Richard Amiel McGough -
      Quote Originally Posted by gilgal View Post
      Men are in charge as lords over their wives but even God told Abraham in Genesis 21 that he ought to take the advice of Sarah and let Hagar and Ishmael go.
      Three points:

      1) You admit that the Bible says men are "lords" over their wives. That is a fundamentally sexist inequality.

      2) God did not tell Abraham to obey Sarah, only to listen to her in that one case when she happened to being saying what God wanted Abraham to do. I don't see how this relates to the systematic and institutional sexism in the Bible.

      3) Abraham did not "let Hagar and Ishmael go." He evicted them into the wilderness where they would have died if God had not made a fountain of water appear. But as a side note, that story gives a striking example of the chapters of Genesis following the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet and the Bible Wheel, as discussed in my article Inner Cycles > Genesis 16 > The God Who Sees.
    1. Richard Amiel McGough's Avatar
      Richard Amiel McGough -
      Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
      A judge must have morals.
      Morals are developed from interactions between those of the same species.
      Man developed morals because he had to live with other men.
      Your God was alone, so it is said, before creation and thus could not have developed morals.
      That makes him unfit to judge us.

      Further, the fact that most believe that to him, sin is sin and all have the same penalty, to burn forever in a purposeless hell shows that his morals are not up to the task of judging properly.

      Regards
      DL
      Actually, you've just presented the traditional Christians explanation of why God must be a Trinity. They argue that such things as love could not exist if God had no "other" to love before he created. It's an interesting argument - I've never applied it to the concept of justice because justice can be stated like a "cold equation" - abstract and impersonal.

      Your description of hell as "purposeless" is right on. Calvinists say it's purpose is to reveal the glory of God's righteous judgment. How crazy is that? There is no justice in sentencing souls to eternal damnation for the "crime" of being born as sinners! The punishment is infinitely worse than any sin a person could commit in their short sojourn on this planet.
    1. Greatest I am's Avatar
      Greatest I am -
      The Trinity is a crock that Constantine forced down Christianity's throat about 300 years after Jesus supposedly died. It looks like he did it to later replace Jesus as God.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD0eSqFJ7J4

      He morphed a decent man and Rabbi of peace and love into a God of war.

      Regards
      DL
    1. David M's Avatar
      David M -
      The truest thing I have heard you say DL. I agree with you for once.

      David
    1. Richard Amiel McGough's Avatar
      Richard Amiel McGough -
      Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
      The Trinity is a crock that Constantine forced down Christianity's throat about 300 years after Jesus supposedly died. It looks like he did it to later replace Jesus as God.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD0eSqFJ7J4

      He morphed a decent man and Rabbi of peace and love into a God of war.

      Regards
      DL
      Actually, the development of the doctrine of the Trinity is a little more complex than you suggest. Constantine called the council of Nicea, but it is not clear that controlled the outcome. The "morphing" of Jesus into the Christ had already been going on for centuries, and it involved a lot of religious and political debate amongst Christian bishops. It centered on debates about the nature of Christ. From the beginning, Christians had been worshiping him as God. But this created profound philosophical difficulties. Different parties arose. Here's a snippet from the wiki article:

      The Nicene Creed was adopted in the face of the Arian controversy. Arius, a Libyan presbyter in Alexandria, had declared that although the Son was divine, he was a created being and therefore not co-essential with the Father, and "there was when he was not,"[10] This made Jesus less than the Father, which posed soteriological challenges for the nascent doctrine of the Trinity.[11] Arius's teaching provoked a serious crisis.


      The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the co-essential divinity of the Son, applying to him the term "consubstantial". The 381 version speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. The Athanasian Creed describes in much greater detail the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles' Creed makes no explicit statements about the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but, in the view of many who use it, the doctrine is implicit in it.
    1. Greatest I am's Avatar
      Greatest I am -
      Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
      The truest thing I have heard you say DL. I agree with you for once.

      David
      I work hard to speak truth.

      If believers worked as hard to hear truth they would learn much.

      Gnostics and Jews have always outthought Christians because dogma is recognized for what it is and so is myth.

      Care to listen to a bright Bishop who is FMPOV turning Gnostic.

      Can you take more truth before you seek our true God and discard the immoral S O B that you have learned to love by calling his evil good?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AfFc...feature=relmfu

      Regards
      DL
    1. Greatest I am's Avatar
      Greatest I am -
      Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
      Actually, the development of the doctrine of the Trinity is a little more complex than you suggest. Constantine called the council of Nicea, but it is not clear that controlled the outcome. The "morphing" of Jesus into the Christ had already been going on for centuries, and it involved a lot of religious and political debate amongst Christian bishops. It centered on debates about the nature of Christ. From the beginning, Christians had been worshiping him as God. But this created profound philosophical difficulties. Different parties arose. Here's a snippet from the wiki article:

      The Nicene Creed was adopted in the face of the Arian controversy. Arius, a Libyan presbyter in Alexandria, had declared that although the Son was divine, he was a created being and therefore not co-essential with the Father, and "there was when he was not,"[10] This made Jesus less than the Father, which posed soteriological challenges for the nascent doctrine of the Trinity.[11] Arius's teaching provoked a serious crisis.


      The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the co-essential divinity of the Son, applying to him the term "consubstantial". The 381 version speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. The Athanasian Creed describes in much greater detail the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles' Creed makes no explicit statements about the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but, in the view of many who use it, the doctrine is implicit in it.
      Originally Posted by animefan48
      Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.





      Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

      But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

      http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx


      Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

      The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

      "It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
      Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

      "In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
      R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

      The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
      New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

      "The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
      New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

      "The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

      "Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

      Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
      (Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

      Regards
      DL
    1. Greatest I am's Avatar
    1. David M's Avatar
      David M -
      Hey DL

      I hope you keep working hard to find the truth, but alas, you will not get it from John Spong. He is right to question traditional Christianity and is right that the veneration of Mary is wrong, but he is off the mark on many other biblical doctrines.

      Jesus was in the tomb 3 full days and nights, no less and no longer. John Spong does not believe in the virgin birth. He might sound very knowledgeable and plausible, but he is quite frankly wrong!!

      Please, I am on your side for wanting to find the truth, but you are not getting it from John Spong.

      I truly hope you also listen to others like you, who are working hard to know the truth and pass it on. I will reason with you from the Bible if you are prepared to reason things out. Have you followed the thread 'Jesus is not God' ? This is the only one point I agree with John Spong, but he is failing to understand the gospel writings and wants to subtract from what is written. It is the written words that have to be correctly understood. I regard the New Testament to be equally inspired from God as the Old Testament scriptures were inspired. There is a consistent and coherent message throughout all the Bible and if people have not found what that coherent message is, they have not found the whole truth of God's revelation to us.

      I will watch for your posts on the forum.

      David
    1. Greatest I am's Avatar
      Greatest I am -
      Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
      Hey DL

      I hope you keep working hard to find the truth, but alas, you will not get it from John Spong. He is right to question traditional Christianity and is right that the veneration of Mary is wrong, but he is off the mark on many other biblical doctrines.

      Jesus was in the tomb 3 full days and nights, no less and no longer. John Spong does not believe in the virgin birth. He might sound very knowledgeable and plausible, but he is quite frankly wrong!!

      Please, I am on your side for wanting to find the truth, but you are not getting it from John Spong.

      I truly hope you also listen to others like you, who are working hard to know the truth and pass it on. I will reason with you from the Bible if you are prepared to reason things out. Have you followed the thread 'Jesus is not God' ? This is the only one point I agree with John Spong, but he is failing to understand the gospel writings and wants to subtract from what is written. It is the written words that have to be correctly understood. I regard the New Testament to be equally inspired from God as the Old Testament scriptures were inspired. There is a consistent and coherent message throughout all the Bible and if people have not found what that coherent message is, they have not found the whole truth of God's revelation to us.

      I will watch for your posts on the forum.

      David
      I am there for finding truth.

      Is this scohlar as wrong as Spong in terms of the bible being inspired?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ

      Regards
      DL
    1. David M's Avatar
      David M -
      Hey DL
      Bart Ehrman talks alot about the Gospel of Peter that is not in the Bible. He is seems to have been a born-again-Christian now turned agnostic. I have not found anything he has said in this video of any value. I think your time would be better studying what the Bible says than listening to these people. Please do not expect me to sit through another hour-long video like this. It is a waste of my time.

      Since I do not agree with Christendom in general and think that many professed Christians do not know who the true God is or who the real Jesus is, so they are misguided on many doctrines. If I understand you correctly, I take it that you accept Jesus is not God. You might be better studying some of the material published on this website: http://www.carelinks.net/litind.htm
      If you have any questions or comments after reading up on the various subjects, then begin a thread on the forum and let's discuss these things from the Bible.
      All the best,
      David
    Comments Leave Comment

    Click here to log in

    Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.