|
|
|
 |
"King Progdor" "Intelligentactile 101" politically correct, I'm saying you're trying to avoid offending someone at all costs, even your own dignity and self-respect to fight for what the f**k you believe in and not give into the belief that everyone has the right to go unoffended.
I have the right to state my beliefs with expectation of not being attacked for it.
You're the one in the wrong here, David.
Actually no you do not. You have the right to express your opinion, but you do NOT have the right to be free from it being criticized.
Quote: That pretty much screams the Da Vinci Code, which was utter s**t, and you obviously don't know enough history to know that Constantine was a politician, not religious by any means. The Edict of Milan was issued because he wanted stability in the empire (I don't remember exactly what, but I think it was for some coup or uprising planned agianst him), not because he was "enlightened" or some s**t like that. Recall the widely known fact that he didn't even convert until he was at his deathbed.
Your argument makes it sound like the Council of Nicea fucking wrote the Bible, and there is strong archeological proof to the contrary. I consider myself an agnostic leaning towards atheist for the sole fact that I am a flexible person who should not be leaning towards any one philosophy or school of thought, and let me tell you that the New Testament is one of the most significant books of our time, the best preserved text of antiquity. To put this into perspective, there are surviving fragments of the New Testament that were copied within one generation of their authorship, and the complete text found within two. The next best is Homer's Iliad, with the earliest surviving fragments.....hundreds of years after its supposed authorship.
Your last sentence is thrown out the window if you ever took the chance and you know, fucking read the Bible to see what is actually contrary to your ludicrous statement. Quote: The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius[2]).
It had to be decided whether or not Jesus was the same as God, or whether they were the same in goals only.
Quote: For Bishop Alexander and others, however, greater clarity was required. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added.
1. Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," confirming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation.
3. Finally, he is said to be "from the substance of the Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Some ascribe the term Consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.
Early Christians DID NOT believe in the divinity of Jesus and watching any documentary on the history of the religion from an unbiased source would give you this information.
EDIT: Err, nevermind.
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/ground_breaking_dig_backs_jesus_divinity/
|
|
| |
|
|
