Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

All these splits and factions within the church came about after 1500 years of dominance from Rome and 1200 years after the first formation of the holy tinity as a concept. Aside from the East/West split of the 11th century, (800 years after the concept of trinity became doctrine), the church was pretty stable so that cannot cited for a reason why it took 300 years to reach agreement

OK, talking about the first 300 years.

The first 300 years of Christianity are chaotic.

Small groups of Christians persecuted, arrested and executed,. despite this, the movement grew. But it grew in an un organized way, being that some Christians received some documents and others different ones, or didn't accepted others, without a visible head or organization, it was logical that different groups had different ideas, as a fact early Christianity was based in several different sects (Novatians, Donatists, Marcionites, Ebionites, etc),

For God's sake, there was not an official version of he Bible yet...How can anybody expect that this separate groups could agree if they were illegal and being a Christian was a risk?

It's only in 313 AD that Christianity was adopted by Rome and the executions ceased when Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Empire.

By that point, there were more than 300 versions of the Proto New Testament floating and only in this Council the Christians agreed in which where the ones to be accepted.

So Mike and Dean, we must understand why early Christians didn't agree in many things.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 12 2010 at 21:06

Equality 7-2521 wrote: We should start another thread to figure it out.

JJLehto wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: We should start another thread to figure it out.

We should merge this and the libertarian thread into the new "what the hell is wrong with you people" thread...

JJLehto wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: We should start another thread to figure it out.

About them noodles?

The T wrote: JJLehto wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: We should start another thread to figure it out. We should merge this and the libertarian thread into the new "what the hell is wrong with you people" thread...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Who says that you can only baptize in the name of God?   Please Mike, you are not an ignorant, don't pretend to tell us you don't know that any religious Baptism is purifivcation made in the name of God or by God.

In Christianity today - sure. In the Jewish tradition - maybe, I guess. In other polytheistic religions - I'm much less sure that it's always "in the name of a God". It's usually meant to symbolize some form of cleansing - that doesn't imply that it's done in the name of something that is always a deity.

Iván wrote:   Mr ProgFreak wrote: These are all circular references to scripture.   Of course Mike, YOU ARE THE ONE SAYING THAT THE TRINITY IS POSTERIOR TO THE NEW TESTAMENT...I HAVE TO SEARCH THE BIBLE AND FIND IF YOU ARE SAYING YHJE TRUTH

I agree that the circularity of your arguments is beside the point here. But still, the concept of the trinity - which is a little bit more elaborate than just grouping these three entities together - is not mentioned in the new testament. What you are doing is presenting verses that formed the basis for the 300+ years process that led to Trinitarianism.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: And again: If it's all so clear, why did it take 300 years until some form of agreement could be reached among Christians?   Please Mike, you are an expert making "Reductio ad Absurdum", the differences between Churvhes are for many terrestrial or interpretion reasons.   Just remember that England made their own Christian religion because the King wanted to divorce, and he turned into the head of the new Church"

Well, isn't it interesting to hear such an argument from you. I could present similar argument about Catholicism, or the early forms of the "proto-orthodox" Church (a term first used by Ehrman).

Iván wrote: Mormons for example believe in other sources as The Book of Mormon.   Most Protestant Churches don't believe in the divinty of the Virgin or the authority of the Pope (If you check the origins, many of them will have political roots).   So don't blame the  Bible, for the incapacity of the people to understand it.   Iván

If anything, I blame the Bible for not being precise and up to the point. For a document that is supposed to be the inerrant word of God by some people or at least to be divinely inspired, I expect it to offer a bit more definitive guidance. The Qu'ran is much better in that regard - meaning that those who compiled the verses did a better job at disposing of contradictory verses and concepts.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Dean wrote: ^ That's better - at least now you are talking about factions (and persecutions) that at least pre-dated the formation of the concept and not stuff that happened hundreds of years later.   My mistake, I thought he was talking about the post Lutheran schisms, because lets be honest, Mike jumps from one era to another, he was talking about the many Christian Churches a few posts ago.   Iván

You brought Protestants into our discussion. I was talking about the different early forms of Christianity - and those existed for centuries after the books of the new testament were written and were in circulation. It took hundreds of years for one of the factions to grow big enough to win over the others. And as was - and still is - customary in these situations, the winner gets to re-write history (and to decide which 27 out of who knows how many to call the "new testament"). From then on the church was indeed stable until the reformatory processes began more than 1200 years later.

^ Yes - I'm really spamming the place with like half a dozen religion-related threads in about a year.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - August 13 2010 at 09:11

That's is not even possible, but if this thread pass the Official PT Thread in number of posts, then we can change the name of the site...

Mr ProgFreak wrote:   In Christianity today - sure. In the Jewish tradition - maybe, I guess. In other polytheistic religions - I'm much less sure that it's always "in the name of a God". It's usually meant to symbolize some form of cleansing - that doesn't imply that it's done in the name of something that is always a deity.