Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Well let me see, there's Jack Russells, Weiner Dogs, Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, Dalmatians, Beagles, Pit Bulls, etc.

_________________

Humans have a natural instinct towards classification. I remember learning that in school.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

Also, let me say this. My theory is that God created evolution. Yep. God created evolution. Think about it, guys. God has never been a "get-what-you-want-in-an-instant" kind of guy. Err, diety. So, why would he create the Earth in seven days, when he took forever to create everything else? It took -ten billion years- just for our solar system to form.

Now, as to why people are black and white. You see, as man spread throughout the globe, he also developed his own characteristics. Man, as all other creatures do, adapted. A man in Europe would have white skin because he did not need protection from the sun nearly as much as a man in Africa. It is simply science. This all took place over thousands of years.

Now, now, children. Let's not turn this into a creation thread. However, Jesus could not have been black. Jesus lived in Palestine. The only part of Africa that anyone had even -travelled- to was North Africa. And everyone in North Africa was tan/dark white. The farthest south anyone had gone was Nubia, and after Alexander the Great this nation was forgotten.

i dont know about jesus, but god is purple and a he-she.

_________________

YOU ARE A SICK,SICK, SICK! MAN!

_________________

Jesus was not white nor was he black. He was Palestinian. I think Time (currect me if I'm wrong) once did a cover story showing what they believe Jesus really looked like. Wish I could find a picture...

I think this is one of the pictures you're thinking of. I remember that article too, and according to this random site where I found the picture, it was in "Popular Mechanics".

_________________

does it matter what colour he was? i mean, it's what he said that counts.

and he probably was black anyway.

_________________

AND what he Did (i.e., endured the cross and the grave for us).

It is interesting to note that the first person to acknowledge Jesus as the crucified Son of God was a Roman soldier.

_________________

ok, ok, ok, what god really is is like what happend in the awful movie Contact, she went through space and time, and met up with an alien that took the form of her father. so basically, when u die, i think that you meet up with god, and he is in the form that puts you at ease, because god has no true form, just the form of what you think he looks like. as for jesus, he was palestinian, plain and simple.

_________________

I wouldn't agree with that; some people have VERY wrong images of what God looks like. I don't think he's a DJ, or Alanis Morrissette, or Morgan Freeman, or a really hot supermodel, or anything else like that.

_________________

MHDude, God does have a specific form. One that was born of a Virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, descended into hell, and rose again on the third day. It doesn't get much more specific than that.

_________________

so then, ur saying that god; the creator of the heavens and the earth, was jesus? so jesus is our lord? jesus made the heavens and the earth? hrmm... ya know what, i aggree.

_________________

how am i sick? its the battle of the sexes and i dont want the ladies the hate us dudes becasue we think god is a dude. .. god is everything. Combine men and women, black,white,asian (or yellow), and other such as mexican, south american, ect., and you get A he-she and and some random color like purple.

_________________

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.


NICENE CREED'D!!

_________________

I think he looks jewish. That's what most jews loo like

_________________

You forgot some

_________________

I know. I was just focusing on the part that was specifically about Jesus (since he was the topic of discussion). You'll notice I didn't include the article about the Father either:

_________________

I guess my point was that the Nicene Creed is a document produced by uninspired men (they claimed no inspiration, only based on the Bible that they incidently had also compiled) that favors the doctorines of the Holy Catholic Church. I find it odd that the majority of Christians adhere by this creed given these facts. esspecially considering that the creed is not stricly Biblically based. It contains quite a bit of conjecture, and cannot ,imho, be used to define Christ, God The Father or the Holy Ghost.

sorry, didn't mean to hijack this thread...

_________________

The Council of Nicea preceded the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, if you'll check your history, the Christian Faith had only been a legal religion for about 12 years or so prior to the Council of Nicea (that is, prior to that, it was outlawed).

As for your statement that it is not based on the Bible, that is entirely false. Every single statement from this Creed can be supported by Scripture. And the reason that most Christians still adhere to this Creed is because its teachings are a true and accurate summary of what the Scriptures teach about God.

Your remark about the Bible being only recently compiled is a bit misleading. While the manuscripts had not been published in collections by that time, there is very strong evidence that the canon was recognized long before Nicea.

Oh, and did I mention that we have credal formulas, perhaps not as detailed, but outlining the same truths, dating all the way back to the second century?

_________________

Ok, but although it may not have been "legal" Christ set up a Church that had order and definite organization. It had phenominal success in spite of persecution from almost all other faiths and peoples. But because of this persecution, although the church was wide spread, many teachings were varied and much of the organization established by the Apostles of Christ had been lost, or morphed anyway.



I said that it was based on the Bible, but not entirely. there is, along with poetics, statements that are widely debated even among mainstream sects of today. The part that you origionally quoted is by in large doctorinly sound, Biblically speaking, However the later is riddled with conjecture. Speaking of Prophets as a thing of the past, the acceptance of one holy catholic or "universal" church, the doctorine of baptism all could be supported or contradicted based on interpretation of scripture.



True that the majority of the books that now compile the New Testiment were widely accepted as gospel, there were a vast amount of other books of varied distiribution that were thrown out of the so called "cannon". This was all done by an appointed council... I cannot believe this to be inspired.



Maybe so, but as I said there were many sects that were no doubt setting forth rules and creeds of their faith as they saw fit. And although I do believe it well meant, the question comes again, Who has the right or authority to define a "creed" or even appoint others to do so? Certainly not a convert to the church who's prominenece is based on their political stance and military conquests.

EDIT: Sorry about the spelling

_________________

Upon what do you base this conclusion? Do we not have the writings of the apostles themselves recorded in the New Testament?

While it is true that various heretics arose, there was always a consensus among the Christians of what was rightly taught. My concern is that you have confused the fact that there were heretics with a misguided idea that the true teachings of Christ and the apostles was somehow lost. I do not believe this to be the case, as then those who became known as heretics would never have been labeled as such. As someone once put it, the existence of counterfeits does not disprove the existence of the original, but, in fact, serves as evidence for the original.

But in case you weren't aware, many of the writings of the early Christians still survive.


1. While the Creed does use the past tense in relation to the prophets, this does not necessarily mean that the Creed is saying the Spirit speaks no longer. That's reading a little more into the verb tense than what is actually being said. If you were to do the same thing with the Hebrew Psalms, then it would be like saying that God doesn't do anything for his people anymore.

2. But the Scriptures do teach that there is one holy universal and apostolic church. It is the body of Christ, comprised of all believers at all times. This statement is not trying to bind people to the Roman Catholic Church or any other denomination. It is merely a recognition that true believers in Christ are united in faith in him.

3. The Doctrine of Holy Baptism cannot be contradicted by Scripture. Although some of my Baptist friends have made a noble effort to do so, they always end up ignoring what the Bible actually says about Baptism. So my thought is this: if you want to know what the Bible teaches about Baptism, actually read what it says about Baptism.


The books "thrown out" of the canon, as you put it, were those for which the authorship or authority could not be established. In other words, those which could not be established as having been written by an actual apostle, prophet, or evangelist. And, if you actually study the history of the canon, you might observe that there is a very distinct patter in the accepted canons, which centers specifically around those which are accepted as canonical today. In other words, it's not as though there were 50 million books that somehow got narrowed down to 27. Whether or not you can accept the process as inspired is irrelevant: the point is that what we have as canon today are those books for which the divine authority can be established, whereas those not in the canon cannot be established as such.


Again, I think you are confusing the existence of heretics with a misguided notion that there was no consensus. To that I would simply respond, actually try reading some of the writings of the early church some time. The writings of Tertullian, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Oregin, etc.

_________________

You are obviously better read than I, however I have tried to do some significant research on my own, and the things Ive stated are the conclusions I have made. I will try to back up what I can.



The evidence of an apostacy from the teachings of Christ can be seen by the writings of the Apostles to the members of the church. These letters are evidence that there were already many teachings that were not understood and needed clarification on. I think that saying that there were a few heritics grossly underestimates the false teachings that the apostles were fighting against. This makes me think that the false teaching was quite wide spread. True that many of the early epistles and records of early leaders of the Church survive, I just do not believe that those who put them together had the right or authority to do so.



This is true, I may have read into it a bit, however I have discussed with proponnents of the Nicene Creed that have done much more reading in than what I did, but if that is your stance, then I can agree with you.



The Scriptures teach that there is one true Church of God. I do not believe that it ever uses the word universal to define the church. In fact the writers of the New testiment continually denounce those who teach contrary to the word of the Lord. It is my feeling that although differences in the finer points in the gospel doesn't make someone non-Christian, it is important to recognize that Christ and the Apostles stressed definition of beliefs, and layed down doctorine that should be considered grounds for believing that they didn't disagree on a point of doctorine... I hope that wasn't incoherant But the Nicean Creed was meant to bind all believers to one church, controlled by a government not appointed by God. It may not have held the name of The Holy Roman Catholic Church, but it would soon.



I feel the same way, but I do not believe Baptists are ignorant of the Bible, and considering the reverity that they hold the Bible, I have come to the conclusion that they have reconsiled all discrepencies, and although I beleive them to have interpreted the scriture wrong, I have to respect that. Who truely has the right to interpret scripture?



This is for the most part true, although there is and was some question about the authorship of the Book of Hebrews (which is why is is the last book in the epistles of Paul, which are otherwise organized by length.)Which was still included. I believe all the books in the New Testiment are true and are the word of God, but again, I do not think that those that put it together had the authority to do so.



I will try to get my hands on some of these. I have only read a bit on the extra biblical texts, and would find them very interesting. It has been my understanding that their was little consensus, I may have made a....stnank... in that assumption. I appreciate the conversation anyway.

_________________

So your reasoning for disagreeing with the Nicene Creed is actually based on anti-Roman sentiment? If that is the case, then join the club. I am Lutheran, and it was Martin Luther in the 1500's who was responsible for the Reformation that rejected the hierarchical authority of the Roman Church. Yet, interestingly enough, NONE of the Protestant Reformers (Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, etc.) felt obligated to do away with the Creed. This leads me to think that this statement in the Creed has nothing to do with establishing a hierarchy but with establishing the supremacy of the one true faith, which is Jesus Christ.


Well, that’s interesting. Because I am a former Baptist who became Lutheran precisely because I felt that Baptists were not teaching the Scriptures correctly in this particular matter. I personally believe that as Christians, we have an obligation to say what the Scriptures say on any particular topic, and not to rely upon our own understanding. It is an overabundance of interpretation, in my estimation, that led Baptists to reject the doctrine of Baptism; instead, I will simply say what the Scriptures say, which is that there is only one Baptism for remission of sins (Ephesians 4:5, Acts 2:38), that done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:20).

This is not to reject my Baptist friends. It is Christ who makes a person a Christian, not this or that particular theology. But it is precisely because I accept my Baptist friends, despite our differences of opinion on the matter of Baptism, that I AM willing to confess my belief in one holy Christian and Apostolic Church.

As for reconciling all discrepancies of theology, I do not believe that any single church body has ever been able to do that yet.


It is worth checking out. Many of the writings of the early Church are available online. They're also available on CD through Ages Master Christian Library (think I paid like $50 a few years back, but may be available for less). Most of the early Church writings are arguments against skeptics and gnostics who were always trying to persecute the Church.

Anyway, I appreciate the conversaion, too. Thanks.

_________________

No, my reason is not based on ani-Roman sentiment. I do disagree with much of the teachings of the RCC, but it is not because of that that I disagree with the Nicean Creed. Although the NC may have a meaning to you that is different than what I understand to be the origional intent to be, it doesn't change the corruption from which it was wrought. With Luther's 95 thesis, his intent was not to break away from the RCC, it was to reform. Of course the RCC, specifically the Pope, wasn't quite open-minded to the idea. It has been stated by the histories that I have read that Luther never wanted to create a church, but did so under the pressure of the German Aristocraccy. It doesn't comfort me to know that the Reformers did not want to do away with the Nicean Creed, as none of these men ever claimed any inspiration beyond disagreements based on Biblical interprettation.



I have to ask then, why are you then Lutheran (what converted you to their denomonation).



So who is included in this church? And who is excluded? For instance, are the Baptists part of this church? And if they are why would you leave them and go to another? If they are not, why not?



Again, then why should any one of us associate directly with any church if they do not have the doctorines to clarify the Gospel of Christ?

_________________

I think Didymus has finally met his match.

_________________

You are right about Martin Luther's intentions in the beginning, but once you get to his later writings, you can see that he did believe that the hierarchy was wrong, mainly because the hierarchy that was in place was actually contradicting the teachings of Scripture (i.e., the pope was resolutely against the Reformation and relied upon his own authority as a basis against it). It was at this time (around the time of the Augsburg Confession, 1530) that Martin Luther began to reject the papacy entirely.

So why am I Lutheran? Well, it's a very long story, and is actually the result of quite a long spiritual journey. About 12 years ago, I started going back to church. It was a small Baptist church in Buckhead, GA. At about that time, they had just got a new pastor, and he was the first person to ever take a real interest in my spiritual life, so I had an immense respect for him. He encouraged me to get involved in a campus ministry at the Art Institute (where I was going to college at the time), and some friends and I ended up starting one.

After I left AIA, I enrolled in Atlanta Christian College. There, one of my professors, Dr. Robert Woods, took an interest in my education. In his classes, we studied many of the early Christian theologians, as well as some of the better 20th century Christian thinkers. It was mainly because of those studies that I began to question some of the assumptions I had as a Baptist. (Incidentally, ACC is run by the Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, who are pretty much just like the Baptists, except they have a higher view of Baptism and Holy Communion).

Well, anyway, the Baptist church I was a part of started undergoing a controversy: the whole Traditional vs. Contemporary debate, and ultimately, it split over the issue. At one time, I was very sympathetic toward the Contemporary side, but when I began to hear how they talked nastily about the Traditional side, I got really turned off to them. The pastor was asked to resign, and he gathered the Contemporary group around himself and tried to start another church. It failed. But I pretty much decided I couldn't really be a part of either group, so I began looking for a new church home.

I was still at ACC at the time, and I had heard a lot of great things about the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. There was an LCMS church just about a mile from my old Baptist church, so I decided to give it a try.

There were three things that struck me about this church:

(1) There is actually a part of the service where Scripture is read. Usually, three lessons, an Old Testament, an Epistle, and a Gospel. The readings themselves were chosen according to a system that allowed the church to hear almost the entire Bible over a three year period (this is called a Liturgical Calendar, in case you're wondering), and the pastor's sermon most often came from one of these readings. To me, this all showed the primary role of Scripture in the worship of this church, and this very much attracted me.

(2) The worship was very Christocentric. Jesus Christ is at the center of everything that was done in the worship service.

(3) Holy Communion was a vital part of the worship of that church, whereas, I think it had been nearly a year since I had taken Communion at my Baptist church (they kept cancelling it).

I'll confess, worship style played just as much a role as Scripture in my attraction to this church. I found something in the old liturgical style that I felt I had been missing in the contemporary style I had become accustomed to in my Baptist church.

But, as I reflect on it, the one thing that REALLY attracted me to Ascension was that my needs as a person, as a wounded child of God, had not been met in my old Baptist church in a very long time (it was in the beginning, when the pastor took me under his wing, but when things started getting rough there, well, let's just say I wasn't really his star student anymore. But before I started going to Ascension, most of my spiritual needs were met at school rather than church, and that's sad). But when I started going to Ascension, I found people who cared about me, and I found a ministry (I started singing in the choir). I made new friends there, friends who took an interest in my well-being.

So that's pretty much it: I was looking for a worship style that had Scripture at its center. I found it at Ascension. I needed people who cared about my spiritual needs. I found them at Ascension (although there were still a couple of my old friends from my old church that I felt rather close to). All in all, I just found where I belonged.

And keep in mind, the whole time this is going on, I'm still at Atlanta Christian College, earning my degree in Humanities and Biblical Studies. So it's not like I wasn't already thinking about many of the theological issues around a change in denomination. I was already questioning whether what I had been taught about Baptism and Holy Communion were right. It just so happened that Lutheran theology had similar answers to the ones I had already arrived at beforehand.

And after I graduated from ACC, I enrolled in Concordia Seminary, and I am currently pastor of Faith Lutheran Church in Greenville, MS, and Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Cleveland, MS. And the story continues...


Those who believe in and worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and also believe that the Son of God was born a man, suffered and died on a cross, and rose again from the dead. He then ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. (Wait, these words are starting to sound familiar all of a sudden).


Because there is a difference between being perfectly sound and adequately sound. If you had left the word "all" out of your original post, I would not have even bothered to respond. But by including the word "all," you were implying that Baptists have all the answers perfectly right. I was responding, not by trying to diminish the teachings of the church, but by pointing out that, so long as human beings employ their limited reasoning, there are always going to be some flaws. But if a church's teaching points to Jesus Christ as the Lord of Life who died and rose again from the dead, and that he alone has the power to save people from the destructive power of sin, then they are adequate, even if not perfect.

But without the teachings of Scripture as taught by the church, then it isn't adequate. Without Jesus Christ as the beginning and end, without Him being all in all, then there is no salvation.

Now some might argue that you can get that without the church. Except that Christians are warned not to get that cocky. Christians need each other; this is clearly taught by Scripture.

Now, if it were up to me, everyone would be a LCMS Lutheran, and there wouldn't be any other denominations (no other religions, for that matter). But it's not up to me. So, while I would certainly love for everyone to think and act just like me, I prefer to be a little more like Jesus and be able to tolerate those who aren't. Instead, I am content if all Christians strive to think like and be like Christ. And isn't this what the Church should be about? Helping people to learn to trust in Jesus and, in so far as possible (given that we are not almighty), to act like him? After all, if Jesus Christ, the Son of God, can call me "Brother" with all of my faults and shortcomings, then I feel okay calling my Baptist friends "Brother" as well.


Are you referring to a certain Canadienne Pirate Lass? I hope so anyway.

_________________

very familiar. I can agree with the above statements as defining a Christian. I hesitate to mention my faith, because of the prejudice that I receive from most mainstream Christians, however, since you have been very forthcoming in your personal spiritual journey, I think it would be wrong for me not to. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (how’s that for a mouthful ) By knowing this you can probably better understand my questions. We believe that we have the most correct teachings, because we believe that our prophets of today still converse directly with God, and that Christ directs this church personally. We have a very well defined set of doctrines that I feel strongly are Biblically sound.

I would then ask, with this in mind, why should we settle for adequately sound? I don’t think that Our Heavenly Father would accept adequate when he is the embodiment of perfection. I believe that almost all (all that I am aware of) of the Christian denominations do teach righteousness and encourage a spiritual growth toward Jesus Christ, in spite of incorrect teachings. Using those who do not believe baptism necessary for salvation for example, even though I believe that baptism is necessary, I recognize that they, for the most part, are honest and sincere in their faith in Christ, and if they continue to grow spiritually, they will be guided closer and closer to the truth. I hope that my views are being expressed in the way that I mean them. I have the utmost respect for all those in the ministry, be they whatever faith or denomination they practice. At times I wish that we had a paid clergy, as I would then seriously consider the profession of learning and teaching the word of Our Lord.

_________________

Why settle for adequately sound? Well, I do not believe I AM settling for adequately sound. I believe my faith, as expounded by Scripture, the the best I can possibly strive for with my human limitations. However, I am also well aware that the average parishioner sitting in one of my congregations is not going to be nearly as well-educated in the Scriptures as I am (although I know a few who are), yet I am not willing to reject their faith just because it is not as "perfect" as mine is.

You believe that the LDS has the purest teachings for the Christian Church. I, however, do not. If I did, I'd be LDS. But just like with those non-canonical books that were not included in the Bible, I do not believe The Book of Mormon to have established authority equal to Scripture. That, for the most part, is why mainstream Christianity rejects is. Furthermore, what you say about the Creed being a point of contention between the LDS and mainstream Christianity is right on: the LDS has a different understanding of the nature of the Trinity. However, my own study of the writings of Scripture lead me to accept the traditional view (One God in Three Persons), and for that reason, I confess this Creed.

_________________

As it is with many of my faith. Many do not study as we all should, and their faith is as much tradition as it is a personal knowledge of things spiritual. However, I think what your saying is that you will not judge their faith just because they do not know as much as you do, I agree with this.



Fair enough. I grew up in my faith, and so I have never really understood the traditional view of the Trinity, and since as you stated we do not believe that they are the same personage, I have not spent much time trying to rectify the scriptual discrepancys, or rather I have spent my study with the intent of rectifying the discrepancies with my views.

Anywho, thanks again for the conversation... maybe we can get into one of these other topics sometime, I enjoy very much discussing them.

Side note, your screenname is obviously a reference to Thomas... are you a twin (my understanding of the Greek name Didymus is that it means twin), or just identified well with Thomas? Just curious.

_________________