History Main / ArtisticLicenseTraditionalChristianity

7th Jun '17 9:20:15 AM DracoKanji
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* People who claim that Christianity is based on earlier religions are, unless they mean Judaism, very ''sorely'' mistaken. There is no actual historic proof that this is the case. Indeed, there is nothing in what we know of the original Pagan beliefs that we can even draw a respectable parallel with. This, however, has not prevented bunkum, such as Christianity supposedly being based on the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems#Mithraism_and_Christian_Theology Mithraic Mystery Cult]], appearing from the mouths of respected and intelligent people, such as the ones who run the ''[[Series/{{QI}} QI panel game]]''. Quite apart from the fact that we know almost nothing about the Mithraic Mystery Cult, ''everything we do know'' contradicts all of the claims made. This is merely the very tip, ''[[UpToEleven of the very tip]]'', of the colossal iceberg of earlier beliefs that people regularly claim Christianity is based on. One of the more amusing being the supposed 'virgin birth' of Horus. Long story short: Isis gathered the various parts of Osiris and rebuilt him, she then brought him back from the dead for a single day so that she could, er, ''conceive'' with him. Yes, creepy undead whatnots are still whatnots.

to:

* People who claim that Christianity is based on earlier religions are, unless they mean Judaism, very ''sorely'' mistaken. There is no actual historic proof that this is the case. Indeed, there is nothing in what we know of the original Pagan beliefs that we can even draw a respectable parallel with. This, however, has not prevented bunkum, such as Christianity supposedly being based on the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems#Mithraism_and_Christian_Theology Mithraic Mystery Cult]], appearing from the mouths of respected and intelligent people, such as the ones who run the ''[[Series/{{QI}} QI panel game]]''. Quite apart from the fact that we know almost nothing about the Mithraic Mystery Cult, ''everything we do know'' contradicts all of the claims made. This is merely the very tip, ''[[UpToEleven of the very tip]]'', of the colossal iceberg of earlier beliefs that people regularly claim Christianity is based on. One of the more amusing being the supposed 'virgin birth' of Horus. Long story short: Isis gathered the various parts of Osiris and rebuilt him, she then brought him back from the dead for a single day so that she could, er, ''conceive'' with him. Yes, creepy undead whatnots are still whatnots. The ancient Egyptians also didn't have a single, dedicated word in their language that easily translates to "virgin", as it wasn't considered a terribly important thing.
20th May '17 3:35:30 PM deadguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[folder:Charity Work and Philanthropy]]

* The Catholic Church gets a bad and rather undeserved rap for being ''uncharitable''. The argument usually goes that since the Church has a lot of really nice buildings they must be sucking up money that could be used to feed Romanian Orphans. Of course this is very politically naïve; countries aren't poor for no reason, mostly it is because governments have been sacking places in Africa, Asia, and South America for ''centuries''. Western powers will actually step in to replace democratically-elected leaders with puppets who are subservient to them in order to make the sacking easier. Want an example? How about Brazil, Guyana, Guatemala, Iran, India, and half of Africa? And here's the thing: throwing aid money at a region can actually destabilize it because, as it turns out, dictators tend to take that free money and turn it into guns or supplies - and that's if the food doesn't get left to rot on the docks. What has this got to do with the Catholic Church? Well, it turns out they ARE helping people, and they are doing a damn sight more than the people who accuse it of being greedy. [[http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/catholic-church-and-healthcare-in.html Have a look at this]].
--> "The Catholic Church is very visible in healthcare services in Africa. She, of all religious groups and private agencies working in the healthcare industry in Africa, has the largest number of private hospitals and clinics providing Medicare and, in some cases, free medical treatment for HIV/AIDS, pregnant women, and people suffering from malaria. This happens even in those African countries where the Catholic Church is not a majority. In Ghana for instance, Catholics make up about 30 percent of the population but control more hospitals than any other private agency in the country. In Africa, the Church works in 16,178 health centers, including 1,074 hospitals, 5,373 out-patient clinics, 186 leper colonies, 753 homes for the elderly and physically and mentally less able brothers and sisters, 979 orphanages, 1,997 kindergartens, 1,590 marriage counselings centers, 2,947 social re-education centers and 1,279 other various centers. There are 12,496 nursery schools with 1,266,444 registered children; 33,263 primary schools with 14,061,000 pupils, and 9,838 high schools with 3,738,238 students. Some 54,362 students are enrolled in higher institutes, of which 11,011 are pursuing ecclesiastical studies. There are in Africa, fifty-three national chapters of Caritas, thirty-four national commissions of justice and peace and twelve institutes and centers promoting the Social Doctrine of the Church." -- ''Aid and Development in Africa'', Stan Chu Ilo, (Pickwick).
** Note: These naive/idiotic arguments should be distinguished from the principled debate over the Church's stance on condoms in HIV-ridden sub-Saharan Africa. On the one hand, you have genuinely concerned Catholics who think the Church is doing everyone--including itself--a disservice by remaining staunchly opposed to condom use, which might be affecting HIV infection rates for the worse, the effect of non-use on family size (which is negatively correlated with prosperity) aside. On the other hand, you have concerned Catholics who think the other concerned Catholics are abandoning deeply-held Church doctrine without any justification in Scripture or Tradition and essentially advocating an acquiescence to modern (im)morality. Both sides here have points that must be taken seriously if one is a serious Catholic, but there is a tendency among outsiders and less-serious Catholics to conflate this debate with the more foolish points. Additional note here: we take pains to point out that the countries in which AIDS is most widespread are not typically Catholic-majority (not for any fundamental reason, simply that the hardest-hit countries are in Southern Africa, which was historically under British rule),[[note]]These countries were among the ''more'' developed in sub-Saharan Africa, with well-connected trade links between them, built by the British and improved upon by the later post-colonial governments. That's why the disease could spread: where there's a halfway decent road network, there will be truckers, and where there are truckers, there will be lot lizards, and where there are truckers and lot lizards, [=STDs=] will spread. It also didn't help that despite the embargo/boycott, South Africa was quite well tied into the world economy, and lots of trade came in by air and by sea, as well--and the air and sea networks linked with road and rail to provide a perfect route for the disease into the interior; it ''especially'' didn't help that Zambia, the northernmost part of the region, shares a border with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where HIV first began to spread. Between the modern (ish) trade networks that allowed the epidemic to spread and the lack of public health facilities (either because of corrupt government or war or--in the case of South Africa--indifferent government), you can see how Southern Africa got it so bad.[[/note]] and of course, people who actively ignore the Church's doctrines against fornication/adultery are unlikely to heed its doctrine ''vis-a-vis'' condoms, either. That said, the Church is a powerful moral voice that influences both public opinion (affecting how willing merchants are to sell condoms and how willing people are to try to buy them)[[note]]Even in a place where they're completely mainstream, it's hard--''you'' try buying a pack of condoms ''and only a pack of condoms'' at the nearest store. You can't, can you? Bought a tube of toothpaste and some shampoo didn't you? Now imagine that every single moral authority in your society, ''especially'' the Church which ran your school, is telling you it's bad to use condoms. See what we mean?[[/note]] and public policy (affecting whether governments look favorably or unfavorably on programs to get condoms to people more cheaply and efficiently).
[[/folder]]
20th May '17 3:15:24 PM deadguy
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* On the subject of slavery, another thing people forget is that it was a very common practice ''throughout'' the ancient world; it was the way prisoners of war and peoples of defeated nations were treated. That's why it's not condemned in the Bible. [[SocietyMarchesOn Only later]] (when people were enslaved and mistreated on the basis of race) did the practice become seen as "Why doesn't the Bible condemn this?" In fact, as noted above, it does...[[FairForItsDay just not the kind that the ancients were familiar with]].
** A case ''could'' be made that slavery is largely incompatible with New Testament doctrine. Despite the fact that it was condoned, it would have conflicted with the "reversal of roles" theme that made Christianity popular among women and lower classes at the time.
** The problem is that these verses refer only to ''Israelite'' slaves, and even their share isn’t all that great, as socioeconomic conditions would generally leave them no option but to return to their owner and undergo a very humiliating ceremony on the way, becoming an ''‘eved nirtza‘'', or ‘pierced slave’. They, along with non-Israelite slaves, or ‘Canaanite slaves’ (''‘Eved Kna‘ani''), are much worse off, as the text allows their Israelite owners to treat them like scum, and they ''were'' chattel that could be sold or inherited freely.
*** "Pierced" slaves mentioned above were also bound for life. The rules that protected Jewish slaves also only applied to men. Fathers were allowed to sell their daughters as wives.
** Paul points out in Philippians that owning a 'brother' in Christ is rather against the spirit of following Jesus. And as shown across the New Testament, a brother (or sister) in Christ could be of ''any'' race. [[UsefulNotes/TheRomanEmpire At the time,]] this was a [[FairForItsDay massive leap]] in thinking about [[ValuesDissonance slavery.]]
** Still, it could be argued that even if slavery were a common thing at the time, it still doesn't justify God's lack of condemnation of it in The Bible. If we're looking at the book from a mythological perspective, it makes sense, but from a holy or "the right thing" view, it's not a very valid argument.
*** Of course that can also be argued. Just because God doesn't directly condemn something doesn't necessarily means he is in favor of it. He didn't seem be very keen on it when it's the Israelites that are the ones enslaved.
*** This suggests that the silence is telling, given the concern for the Jewish slaves.
11th May '17 11:32:46 PM Ikkin
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Interestingly enough, placing Christianity in the context of comparative religion shows that it might very well have chosen to resolve the double bind by [[TakeAThirdOption Taking A Third Option.]] Rather than plagiarize from any specific myth or ritual, it appropriates the tropes of as many of them as possible into a DeconReconSwitch that lays bare the dynamic from which they arose, fatally depreciating that dynamic before offering a better solution. It's neither "stolen" nor "unnatural" -- instead, it's simultaneously familiar and unique (...and maybe more than a millennium ahead of its time). Sound outlandish? Consider this: the cyclical sacrifice and/or symbolic consumption of reincarnating gods/spirits in the form of kings, kings' sons, mock kings (who were sometimes criminals), priests, outsiders, enemies, human beings in general, animals, food products (generally grain or grape products), or some combination of the above as a means by which to avert disaster can be seen in the rituals of a broad cross-section of primitive and ancient societies worldwide, and shadows of such traditions remained within folk traditions into the 20th century. Other relevant rituals and myths include sacrifices for sin, sacrifices on trees, and mythic deaths upon which civilizations are founded. (Sir James Frazer's [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough The Golden Bough]] collects many such traditions in exhaustive detail.) Jesus' various appellations allow him to embody ''all'' of these traditions simultaneously. And, as argued by [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rene_Girard Rene Girard]], Jesus' submission in those roles to a brutal and undeserved judicial (i.e. non-cultic) execution exposes the true nature of all such traditions as reenactments of the same glorified murder through which human societies have universally discharged the violence that would otherwise tear them apart, simultaneously robbing that dynamic of its power and forcing humanity to choose between accepting his challenge to avoid defining ourselves over against others and complete societal annihilation. If Girard is right, denying resemblances doesn't just imply that all other religions are completely false -- it strips Christianity itself of its true brilliance.
1st May '17 12:05:08 PM tentakkelbj0rn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler was a Catholic…or not. The entire issue is very unclear, but that doesn't stop people on both sides invoking [[GodwinsLaw the Hitler Card]] in intense flame wars. Though Hitler claimed to be Christian and to be doing the Lord's work, some research doesn't show Hitler to be entirely Catholic. The Other Wiki has [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler a page on his religious beliefs.]] Basically Hitler certainly wasn't atheist but his actual religious beliefs remain unclear. He didn't like some elements of Christianity, and supported ideas of other religions.
** But in any regard, Hitler enforced a version of the Bible on Germany that had the entire Old Testament torn out of it (since it was Jewish), so his ''claim'' to be a Christian is no more valid than if he had clipped the Bill of rights out of the US constitution and then ''claimed'' to be a "true American patriot". And even if he ''had'' been a Christian, Hitler also wore pants. Does that make wearing pants evil?
** [[InItForLife Semel Catholicus, Semper Catholicus]] - unless excommunicated, of course.
*** And on that note, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, still in effect throughout the remainder of Hitler's life, imposed the penalty of latae sententiae (i.e. automatic) excommunication on any Catholic who joins a secret society (e.g. the Thule Society, which Hitler was claimed to be a member of).
*** Also, there is a claim that Hitler and Goebbels incurred latae sententiae excommunication (under the current canon law) by taking part in a Protestant wedding. They then sued to get out of paying their church tax (collected by the state), and were refused on the principal that a man is not allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing.
** Also there was a significant amount of Catholic opposition to the Nazis. Though there were Catholics who supported Hitler, there were many Catholics who openly condemned Nazism on various issues. Many Catholics opposed the killing of disabled people, (called Aktion T4) by the Nazis and the Bishop of Munster even preached against it. Hitler finally cancelled Aktion T4 due to this opposition. Though the killing of the disabled continued in a less systematic manner, it hardly seems that the Catholic Church was fully behind Hitler. Also the Nazis engaged in a lot of persecution of German Catholics and there are many Catholics who were killed by Nazis and are considered martyrs.
** It should be noted that Hitler privately espoused anti-Christian sentiments, reportedly telling Ludendorf that, once he finished killing all the Jews, he would do the same to the Christians.
*** It should also be noted that those quotes should be taken with a grain of salt. It must be remembered that, at least when referring to Hitler's Table Talks, there is reason to believe that many of the anti-christian quotes were either added in by translators or taken out of context. It is agreed upon that Hitler made anti-clerical statements in private, but anti-CHRISTIAN... that's a bit more up for debate.

to:

* UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler was considered himself a Catholic…or not. The entire issue is very unclear, but that doesn't stop people on both sides invoking [[GodwinsLaw the Hitler Card]] in intense flame wars. Though Hitler claimed to be Christian and to be doing the Lord's work, some research doesn't show Hitler to be entirely Catholic. The Other Wiki has [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler a page on Catholic, although his religious beliefs.]] Basically Hitler certainly wasn't atheist but his actual precise religious beliefs remain unclear. He didn't like some elements of Christianity, and supported ideas of other religions.
** But in any regard, Hitler enforced a version of the Bible on Germany that had the entire Old Testament torn out of it (since it was Jewish), so his ''claim'' to be a Christian is no more valid than if he had clipped the Bill of rights out of the US constitution and then ''claimed'' to be a "true American patriot". And even if he ''had'' been a Christian, Hitler also wore pants. Does that make wearing pants evil?
** [[InItForLife Semel Catholicus, Semper Catholicus]] - unless excommunicated, of course.
*** And on that note, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, still in effect throughout the remainder of Hitler's life, imposed the penalty of latae sententiae (i.e. automatic) excommunication on any Catholic who joins a secret society (e.g. the Thule Society, which Hitler was claimed to be a member of).
*** Also, there is a claim that Hitler and Goebbels incurred latae sententiae excommunication (under the current canon law) by taking part in a Protestant wedding. They then sued to get out of paying their church tax (collected by the state), and were refused on the principal that a man is not allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing.
** Also there was a significant amount of Catholic opposition to the Nazis. Though there were Catholics who supported Hitler, there were many Catholics who openly condemned Nazism on various issues. Many Catholics opposed the killing of disabled people, (called Aktion T4) by the Nazis and the Bishop of Munster even preached against it. Hitler finally cancelled Aktion T4 due to this opposition. Though the killing of the disabled continued in a less systematic manner, it hardly seems that the Catholic Church was fully behind Hitler. Also the Nazis engaged in a lot of persecution of German Catholics and there are many Catholics who were killed by Nazis and are considered martyrs.
** It should be noted that Hitler privately espoused anti-Christian sentiments, reportedly telling Ludendorf that, once he finished killing all the Jews, he would do the same to the Christians.
*** It should also be noted that those quotes should be taken with a grain of salt. It must be remembered that, at least when referring to Hitler's Table Talks, there is reason to believe that many of the anti-christian quotes were either added in by translators or taken out of context. It is agreed upon that Hitler made anti-clerical statements in private, but anti-CHRISTIAN... that's a bit more up for debate.
unclear.
1st May '17 11:58:07 AM tentakkelbj0rn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Question: Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? If you answered ''only'' rampant homosexuality, you answered wrongly. [[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekial%2016:49&version=NIV See Ezekiel 16:49 for more details.]] The short answer is that they were destroyed for a number of crimes, most importantly [[RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil rape]] and failure to observe SacredHospitality (which in that hostile world was critical for a newcomer's very survival). And as for any innocent women and children in those cities, considering that the cities had ''that many'' gang rapists, don't you think death was an act of mercy? Oh, and Lot wasn't actually offering his daughters for sex. It was actually a calculated insult to the mob. As everyone knows, rapists do what they do to prove that they are the more powerful person "I'm the boss, and you're my b*tch.", and lot's daughters were unmarried girls, and remember, in that culture people were married off at the age of ''thirteen'', so these girls couldn't have been older than twelve. All in all, this would've been equivalent to the mob demanding to fight Chuck Norris, only for Lot to tell them "Nah, you don't wanna do that, here, fight these two prepubescent girls instead, they're more your speed."

to:

* Question: Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? If you answered ''only'' rampant homosexuality, you answered wrongly. [[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekial%2016:49&version=NIV See Ezekiel 16:49 for more details.]] The short answer is that they were destroyed for a number of crimes, most importantly [[RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil rape]] and failure to observe SacredHospitality (which in that hostile world was critical for a newcomer's very survival). And as for any innocent women and children in those cities, considering that the cities had ''that many'' gang rapists, don't you think death was an act of mercy? Oh, and Lot wasn't actually offering his daughters for sex. It was actually a calculated insult to the mob. As everyone knows, rapists do what they do to prove that they are the more powerful person "I'm the boss, and you're my b*tch.", and lot's daughters were unmarried girls, and remember, in that culture people were married off at the age of ''thirteen'', so these girls couldn't have been older than twelve. All in all, this would've been equivalent to the mob demanding to fight Chuck Norris, only for Lot to tell them "Nah, you don't wanna do that, here, fight these two prepubescent girls instead, they're more your speed."
1st May '17 11:00:03 AM tentakkelbj0rn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The various atrocities committed by the Israelites under Moses in the book of Deuteronomy are often presented as actual Christian teachings to deal with non-believers, and contrasted with the teachings of Christ as the true meaning of Christianity. The thing is Deuteronomy is a collection of historical records (what's left of them anyway) and not actual teachings, additionally suffer from ValuesDissonance (the Israelite conquests described are not likely to be more cruel and barbaric than the acts of any other people in that era, plus the Israelites, as the 'chosen people' felt fully justified). Also, Deuteronomy came long before Jesus, and if his teachings are of any indication, he clearly disapproved of returning to those times. Seeing how 'Christian' literally means 'follower of Christ', it's not hard to guess why such arguments are ridiculous.
** And as for God's personally ordering the Canaanite's obliteration, please read this commentary from the Zondervan NRSV student study Bible:

-->"The Israelites' fighting style fit the harsh pattern of warfare in that day. Contemporary Egyptian and Assyrian reports boasted of mass executions, torture, and the systematic razing of cities. But God's involvement raises unique questions. He personally ordered the destruction of seven Canaanite nations, with no survivors. Why?The Old Testament makes clear that the Canaanites were not being uprooted on a sudden whim. God had promised the land to the Israelites over 400 years before Joshua. He had called one man, Abraham, to found a nation of chosen people. He repeated those promises often (genesis 12.1-3; 15.5-18; 17.2-8; 26.3,23-24; 28.13-14) and finnaly called the Israelites out of Egypt to take over the promised land. Almost from the beginning Canaan was a vital part of god's plan. Israel's inheritance, however, meant kicking out the Canaanites. How could innocent people simply be pushed aside, or killed? In answer to this question, the Bible makes clear that the Canaanites were not 'innocent.' Through their long history of sin, they had forfeited their right to the land. Four hundred years before Joshua, God had told Abraham that his descendants would not occupy the land until the sin of it's inhabitants 'is not yet complete' (Genesis 15.16). later, just days before the onset of Joshua's campaign, Moses stated, 'It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to occupy their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your god is dispossessing them before you' (Deuteronomy 9.5). Historians have uncovered plenty of evidence of this wickedness. Canaanite temples featured prostitutes, orgies, and human sacrifice. Relics and plaques of exaggerated sex organs hint at the morality that characterized Canaan.Canaanite gods, such as Baal and his wife Anath, delighted in butchery and sadism. Archeologists have found great numbers of jars containing the tiny bones of children sacrificed to Baal. families seeking good luck in a new home practiced "foundation sacrifice." They would kill one of their children and seal the body in the mortar of the wall. In many ways, Canaan had become like Sodom and Gomorrah. The bible records that God has patience with decadent societies for a time, but judgment inevitably follows. For Sodom and Gomorrah it took the form of fire and brimstone. For Canaan it came through Joshua's conquering armies."
* The Book of Leviticus suffers from the same treatment, and many bring up its use as a justification for homophobia ("if a man lieth with a man as with a woman"), completely ignoring the fact that it's ancient legislation, and as such, ''it was already rendered entirely obsolete by later laws, by the time the Bible was first compiled''. While the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, Leviticus is, in fact, the laws administered by the priests of the time and many were purposely disregarded by Jesus.\\\
The objections are usually that God commanded or allowed this to begin with, viewed as contradicting omnibenevolence. Regarding the conquests, it's safe to say every conqueror has felt justified in their acts, otherwise they wouldn't have done them. One might also argue that God's chosen people should be held to higher standards by the same reasoning.
1st May '17 10:45:54 AM tentakkelbj0rn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The New Testament canon was not decided at the Council of Nicaea, and it certainly wasn't decided by placing all the books on a pedestal and keeping those that didn't fall off; that was a myth made up by [[Creator/{{Voltaire}} Voltaire]]. The books themselves had been in common use throughout the Church since the first century and were chosen because they were written by either the Apostles, Paul, or scribes close to them (Mark and Luke-Acts). "Gnostic" gospels, such as those bearing the names of Thomas, Mary, or Judas, were known even at the time to be late forgeries; on the other hand, epistles such as 2 and 3 John, whose true authorship is often disputed, tend not to affect doctrine much. The exception is the book of Hebrews, which is anonymous, but whose candidates include Paul, Luke, Apollos, and Priscilla.

to:

* The New Testament canon was not decided at the Council of Nicaea, and it certainly wasn't decided by placing all the books on a pedestal and keeping those that didn't fall off; that was a myth made up by [[Creator/{{Voltaire}} Voltaire]]. The books themselves had been in common use throughout the Church since the first century and were chosen because they were written by either the Apostles, Paul, or scribes close to them (Mark and Luke-Acts). "Gnostic" gospels, such as those bearing the names of Thomas, Mary, or Judas, were known even at the time to be late forgeries; on the other hand, epistles such as 2 and 3 John, whose true authorship is often disputed, tend not to affect doctrine much. The exception is the book of Hebrews, which is anonymous, but whose candidates include Paul, Luke, Apollos, and Priscilla.
1st May '17 10:30:57 AM tentakkelbj0rn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Another misconception is that Christianity (or occasionally just Catholicism) is polytheistic by virtue of the Holy Trinity (itself occasionally mistaken for God, Jesus, and ''Mary'' as opposed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit). The Trinity are three aspects of the same godhead, not separate beings.
** Actually, that itself is a misconception (or, more technically, a long-ago-rejected heterodox belief) known as "modalism". The vast majority of Christians (or at least the vast majority of those denominations which ''have'' well-developed theology of the nature of God) hold what even though it is a contradiction in human terms, the three Persons of the Trinity are fully One and fully Three. One common way of depicting this is a three-spoked mandala with the word "God" at the center, and the word "Is" on all three spokes, with the words "Father," Son," and "Holy Spirit" where the spokes join the circle and the words "Is Not" repeated on each of the connecting arcs. So, "The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father, but the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God" (where "God" here is used as the name or title of a single divine being, not merely as a designation of the property of divinity).
** If you need more info on this, please look up the Athanasian Creed. It is the clearest confession about the Holy Trinity in the church.
1st May '17 10:04:04 AM tentakkelbj0rn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[folder:Logical Fallacies]]
* Christians do in fact "pick and choose" which parts of Literature/TheBible are more authoritative than others, but not randomly. There are theological systems for it. In Scripture it would be called "rightly dividing the Word of truth". ''Individual'' Christians may implement this ''poorly'', but it's not necessarily a systemic problem any more inherent to Christianity than any other belief system.
[[/folder]]


to:

[[folder:Logical Fallacies]]
* Christians do in fact "pick and choose" which parts of Literature/TheBible are more authoritative than others, but not randomly. There are theological systems for it. In Scripture it would be called "rightly dividing the Word of truth". ''Individual'' Christians may implement this ''poorly'', but it's not necessarily a systemic problem any more inherent to Christianity than any other belief system.
[[/folder]]

This list shows the last 10 events of 440. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ArtisticLicenseTraditionalChristianity