Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christian is a word derived from the bible so that is where you also find the definition
What others claim as the definition matters not. Go to the source
The bible says that "Christian" is a word derived from Roman derigation of the political nature of a "new and superticious faith." What they meant by "new" was that it was a recently madeup cult that was a bastardization of the "historically accurate" and Rome-Accepted Judaism.
The Nazerenes denied that Jesus-based Messianic Jews and the Gentile converts they were raking money from in exchange for promises should call themselves after them.
Paul thought, hey, you know what, we are "of the political party of the Christ" so it doesn't matter if they call us Christian.
Which I'm told back then didn't mean "little Christ" as my Sunday School "teachers" would lie about likely unknowingly, but instead it meant something more akin to Oiledocrat, Oiledican, or Oiledist. Because the ancient Jews thought their leaders should be oiled on their head (not completedly basted) in order to ritually signify Heaven's grace, while Roman Empire accepted no coronation rituals and only had the ruler wear a special purple military shoulder cloak and sometimes a luarel wreath, until the 200AD where they uptook to wearing special diadems, and by around 285AD's they were wearing Bejeweled Gold Crowns and forbiding anyone from wearing Royal Purple. Then Constantine the Christian convert in 306AD went back to a diadem. By this time, Jewish "corination" ritual custom started to gain hold, with the last non-Christian emperor being hoisted upon a shield and crowned with a gold necklace provided by one of his standard-bearers. He later wore a jewel-studded diadem. By 473 AD, the wholly anti-polytheist Christians were being Crowned in Ceremonies by respective religious patriarchs (arch-bishops and later Popes).
It is difficult to explain, I have found. What I meant by my question, though, is I thought that was pretty foundational to being a Christian.
An aside: I asked a Muslim how we 'infidels' and he said because we are not monotheistic. We believe in more than one God, is how some see the Trinity belief. Doesn't totally made sense as Infidel means unbeliever, so I would not say all Muslims agree with that statement.
The trinity is only "foundational" to being a "historically Catholic" or "Fundamentalist Protestant" Christian. Becuase they both base themselves on thinking the "true early Christians" were the Trinitarian ones. The KJV Bible and Catholic doctrines makes most under the idea that there is a mysterious trinity in the one single God.
Some Muslims are told the truth, which is that Muhammad knew about Trinitarian Christians as still saw them as "People of the Book" and thus "not infidels" yet still "heavily errering by associating God with multiple personalities or with prophet Jesus." Which is why Muhammad outlined against "associating other with Allah" not many polytheists at the time viewed the gods as merely avatars of Allah, but Christians clearly had Jesus as an eternal Avatar/Personality(1/3) of Allah.
Other Muslims are probably told lies about how only Unitarian Christians are "not infidels" and that Muhammad only knew about such Unitarian sects as "People of the Book."
Quote:
Most nontrinitarians take the position that the doctrine of the earliest form of Christianity was nontrinitarian, but that early Christianity was either strictly Unitarian or Binitarian, or Modalist as in the case of the Montanists, Marcionites, and Christian Gnostics. For them, early Christianity eventually changed after the edicts of Emperor Constantine I and his sentence pronounced on Arius, which was later followed by the declaration by Emperor Theodosius I in the Edict of Thessalonica, cunctos populos of February 380 that Christianity as defined in the Nicene Creed was the official religion of the Roman Empire. A year later, the Second Ecumenical Council confirmed this in a revised Creed. Nontrinitarians dispute the veracity of the Nicene Creed based on its adoption nearly 300 years after the life of Jesus as a result of conflict within pre-Nicene early Christianity during a dramatic shift in Christianity's status.
[...snip...]
Negative writings describe Arius' theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, when only God the Father existed. Despite concerted opposition, "Arian" Christian churches persisted throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa and also in various Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.
If you can convince people to say they believe crazy ridiculous concepts, those people will be more manipulatable and useful in conquest of others, obviously.
Often times, there is no self-awareness in the religous.
Truly, they know not what they do.
I had a very good example of that just today. On Facebook, a woman whom I used to date when I was around 30 years old (I am now 69) for some reason went on a rant about atheists and how cruel they were to attempt to disillusion good religious people. I laughed out loud. That good religious person was a bit of a heller back in her twenties and thirties, totally irresponsible with money, always out partying at clubs, and just to give you an idea of how irresponsible she was...one night she got a police ticket for speeding while driving backwards the wrong way on a one street and going though a stop sign. She's apparently a lapsed catholic of some sort...since she's divorced. But she's gotten very good at wagging her finger at atheists. Damn I'm glad I didn't marry her.
You dressed that up well, dude. Unfortunately, you are like a politician standing up and talking about reforming wasteful expenditure, and letting people reap the reward of their own hard work, and they know what is being said is "Screw the poor and let the Ruling bods stuff their pockets".
Perhaps the same way that you can assume that one can (say) "strive their best" against, or even for, their very destiny.
By mistake. Human, thus human error.
Humor me as to the update: You can strive your worst, and you still would land right in the clutches of and not "escape" or "correct" destiny, if it was an actual destiny.
If you think that’s logical and sits well with your common sense, intelligence and day to day life experiences, then you are free to follow this philosophy.
If you think that’s logical and sits well with your common sense, intelligence and day to day life experiences, then you are free to follow this philosophy.
No, it's not just about what I think. Please do not ignore it, and do not forget.
So, is there a way in which I am wrong about the qualities of "destiny" and implications of "striving," then?
I'd love to hear the possible rationalizations. I can't think of any of the top of my head myself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately, you are like a politician standing up and talking about reforming wasteful expenditure, and letting people reap the reward of their own hard work, and they know what is being said is "Screw the poor and let the Ruling bods stuff their pockets".
