Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Constantine was so ignorant of Christianity that he was clueless as to the importance of the issue at hand and was arguing for the Arian position in trying to get the other factions to accept language that would allow for the Arian view to be accepted along with the opposite view. IE, it would simultaneously allow for teaching that Christ and God were both of different nature and of the same nature. Sit and ponder this for a moment, then continue.
Constantine's own direction on the matter was simply to attempt to unify the empire by stopping the wrangling between warring sects of the dominant religion against the backdrop of an empire struggling to survive under attack from it's enemies. The Old religions lost confidence of the people when the empire was attacked and suffered losses - which in turn fed the growth of 'Christian sects'. One can see the problem caused by religious infighting in a crumbling empire by turning on the news right now regarding post war Iraq. The different groups have to come together and learn to deal with one another or the country can't move on. This is the identical same situation Constantine was in. The factual record fails to mention a sect called 'Catholic'. A glaring abstention that had not escaped me before; but, it becomes all the more relevant when we realize that again, constantine is pulling a large group of different sects together to try and get them to cooperate and get along for the sake of the empire. And this is later punctuated by Theodosius who once and for all states there will be ONE sect called Catholic and all others thereafter will be heretics to be put down.. The price of political unity to drive out religious unrest was the creation of a common religion to the detriment of anyone who would disagree.
So, it is your (as usual) conflicting contention that Constantine simultaneously was the absolute ruler of this gathering, had Arian views, and yet they failed to prevail.
Pretty weak emperor you've got there.
This veyr fact shows that there was some other authority in the Church that was able to determine what was orthodox.
After reading the laws that were written by Constantine to deal with this stuff and putting it into context against what was supposed to already exist according to the popular myths. One wonders why it would be necessary for Constantine to impose laws on a body that already had such laws in place of their own.
Duh. It's about enforcement. Constantine, for good or bad, established the authority of the orthodox Catholic church to enforce orthodoxy.
That you confuse this with the establishment of the Church itself is akin to thinking that on July 4th, 1776 Thomas Jefferson established the idea of men being created equal.
The rest of your screeds are just as fanatical, and just as fantastically ill-reasoned.
SD
No. You may get a pass, if you are extraordinarily worthy and utterly, helplessly ignorant.
Do you not see the contradictions here? Are there any absolutes in RCC beliefs? Isn't this judging? Can you not see that the RCC is working from a lets all get together and be happy, rather then following scripture?
There are no contradictions, only the recognition that God is merciful and soveregien and that different circumstances may apply in emergency situations.
SD
Allow me to clarify. Beliefs that were later termed "orthodox" did exist prior to Constantine. They were one thread of many Christianities. Only in retrospect can these beliefs -- as they existed pre-Nicea -- be called "orthodox".
that one needs to similarly point to 325 as the year that Jesus became God.
Which is precisely the assertion -- somewhat tongue in cheek -- I made last week. Before 325, some Christians believed that Jesus was God, but many did not. It was Nicea that established this belief as orthodox doctrine.
Hey I'm trying to be a kindler, gentler poster. I need encouragement. :-)
The moment she stated that she needed a savior. But then you already know this from time immemorial. Can't get around it. One who is utterly without sin does not need a savior to save them from their sin. One cannot be saved from that which does not exist. But that's not the only absurd paradox your faulty logic renders.
You are the only one with faulty logic. The rational world recognizes that one can be saved from error before such error is committed.
If I double check your prescription and find that it would have reacted to an allergy and killed you, I have certainly "saved" you just as much as if I had to perform an emergency procedure to "save" you had you ingested the wrong medicine.
Mary was saved from the pit of sin by never falling in, instead of being lifted out. The effect is the same -- she was saved. But she did not sin, though she would have sinned, had she not been saved first.
This is so elementary it is a wonder anyone even questions it.
sD
mother of all sought after posts. After 50,000 they'll all be anti-climatic. Better get some rest. :-)
Jesus' final words are captured in Aramaic.
SD
You tell me. You are the one who says you pray to her. I'm not the one who worships, er I mean "venerates" her.
I find it interesting that, even while you are in the midst of a discussion with others about whether the "saved" are "perfect" or not (and coming to the conclusion that they are, but shouldn't mention it cause it might confuse people) you insist on equating a sinless human with divinity.
I did this? :')Hmmm, and I thought I was still undecided. You gonna back this up with scripture or not. When you throw my posts back to me, you seem to miss that part. Do I need to put it in big letters? Maybe color it? Oops. forget the coloring for now. I'm still trying to figure that one out too.
I think we understand each other.
At Niceae these orthodox things were defined. And, afterward, the Emperor put the muscle behind these teachings. (Whether this is good or bad if another subject.)
To see this as the beginning of something new is to hold a view that the Catholic Church is not the bishops who got together and hammered out what was orthodox, but rather the force of the state in eliminating heterodoxy.
The latter started after Nicea. I don't see how one can say the former did.
And they are not, by necessity, one and the same.
SD
We posted almost simultaneously. Scary, huh? ;o)
You tell me. You are the one who says you pray to her. I'm not the one who worships, er I mean "venerates" her.
So, your definition of divinity is anyone to whom prayer is directed?
I find it interesting that, even while you are in the midst of a discussion with others about whether the "saved" are "perfect" or not (and coming to the conclusion that they are, but shouldn't mention it cause it might confuse people) you insist on equating a sinless human with divinity.
I did this? :')Hmmm, and I thought I was still undecided.
It is not I or any Cahtolic who brings up "divinity" or "part of the Trinity" when mentioning Mary being without sin.
So it must be you.
You gonna back this up with scripture or not. When you throw my posts back to me, you seem to miss that part. Do I need to put it in big letters? Maybe color it? Oops. forget the coloring for now. I'm still trying to figure that one out too.
I have already done so, but you reject the interpretations given. All of which is a red herring.
Address the idea. why do you and others insist that a human being who is without sin is "divine?"
SD
Indeed scary. Only yours is bettter cuz you know how to do that link stuff. Hey I meant to ping you to #47,597.
You've got it all wrong. Obviously Constantine established the Catholic church.... just like Nebuchadnezzar established the Judaism.
Hi conservonator, good to see you!
If you read the article I linked, it all depends upon the criteria chosen. Catholics who use the 30,000 figure to criticize Protestants use the loosest definition of "denomination" possible, in order to exaggerate the results. If I wanted to, I could come up with some sort of criteria to give me several, or dozens, or hundreds of "denominations" within the Catholic church.
Doesn't really matter much to me. But the 30,000 figure is simply dishonest.
2Kings 2:
[1] Now when the LORD was about to take Eli'jah up to heaven by a whirlwind, Eli'jah and Eli'sha were on their way from Gilgal.
I was actually responding to the statement by tHe AnTiLiB that "there was no heaven . . .".
A good Catholic would know that the RCC teaches there was a heaven. ;-)
1 Maccabees
[58] Elijah because of great zeal for the law was taken up into heaven.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.