The Greatest Threat to the Church Today...

No they dont ? There was a time when the majority of folks thought Black people and Jews were subhuman.

The Constitution sets out rights and freedoms that are to be protected regardless of what people think and its purpose is to prevent the majority making laws based on Religious moral high ground.

 

Your whole argument is summed up in that phrase that I have highlighted. You are seemingly desiring to rid the MAJORITY from making laws and only desire the MINORITY to enact laws which would reflect an imposition on the MAJORITY.

In other words, you don't like the secular form of government that is exercised in the United States.

 

Yes, we know they were a minority. If they weren't a minority then they would have won their case. The vote was something like 316 to 2. Spare me your whining about how everyone was afraid of the emperor. Christians will suffer persecution from anyone if it means standing for the truth.

History is already told. You just need to read it. The Orthodox won the day because they were right, and right with Scripture and God.

Quantrill

 

Nope. The majority is free to make laws. Just not laws based on Religious belief.

 

Then you admit that the MAJORITY does have the right to make laws? Cool. Then if the MAJORITY makes a law and that law even remotely reflects upon a religious belief, then is that law still valid?

 

I read your post. I don't believe you. That is why I am arguing with you.

As I said, Constantine did not sway the Church into Orthodoxy. Constantine didn't know what orthodoxy was. He definitely made it known he wanted peace in the empire.

Well, concerning the constant claim of an Arian majority. You have made it. Post #412. You said, " Who cares...this has nothing to do with what the majority of Christians believe 300 years prior." You always place the Arians view as the majority and accepted view of Christianity. And it wasn't. It is a lie and a heresy.

And, concerning your comment about Origen, your post #438, you said the Church didn't believe Jesus and God were of one substance. And you cite Origen and Dionysius as saying this also. That is the claim of Arius. That is saying Origen is an Arian. Yet now you change your tune. Now your saying Origen said Jesus was subordinate. Big difference.

So, you don't have any proof that Origen or Dionysius were Arian in their beliefs? There is the danger of your reading just biased links.

I notice you change quite often as arguments progress. I guess its your 'evolution'.

Quantrill

 

I think the greatest threat to the Church today is fundamentalism... with Hagee being the worst and most extreme example.. followed by Jerry Falwell (deceased) and Pat Roberton..

 

One of the threats are people who are muslim but pretend to be Christian. And then set about to water down the Scriptures as if they as 'christian' should believe the water down version.

Quantrill

 

Christian Zionism and fundamentalism should be considered the two biggest threats to the Church...

(Luke 21:20-24).

Throughout most of church history, this prophecy was interpreted as having been fulfilled by the Roman siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.

With the rise of dispensationalism, however, the fulfillment of this passage was moved into the future.

 

According to the Dallas Theological Seminary (founded, 1924), the Christian Zionist movement’s main seminary...

At the second coming of Christ nothing can or will be done by Christians to save Israel’s Jews from this disaster, for all of the Christians will have been removed (raptured) from this world three and a half years prior to the beginning of this 42-month period of tribulation.

 

It is not an argument with me. You are arguing with the book "Eusebius and Constantine".

Perhaps the author is a wing-nut. I doubt it but you have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Your quote from Durant was certainly not support for your claim.

Get a grip .. I say no such thing. Just because folks did not believe Jesus was God does not make them Arian.

I did not claim that Origen and Dionysis were Arian. Quit talking nonsense that they shared some of Arius's beliefs is irrelevent to the central theme.

The heresy of Arius was over whether or not Jesus and God were coexistent.

Do you claim that Origin and Dionysius believed that Jesus and God were not coexistent ? because if they did believe this then they were not Arian.

Who cares ??

My point from day one has always been in relation to the homoousios... not of Arius's beliefs on coexistence.

I never claimed this .. you are adding nonsense into my posts.

I have noticed that you are really trying hard to avoid the obvious truth that the early Christian Church did not believe that Jesus was God.

 

Cheap. It is an argument with you. You are providing 'sources' that support what you believe. Im not arguing with your source. Im arguing with you. And I don't believe you. And so I question your sources. They are no doubt just as biased as you.

Why didn't Durants quote support my claim?

Sorry, but you did say such a thing and always want to indicate that Arianism was the majority belief of the Christians. Which is a lie on your part. The fact is the Church did not believe as Arius did and that is why he was an heretic and treated as such.

And, I know your very ignorant in theology, and your only method of arguing is finding links that believe as you. But you must realize that Arainism was saying just that; that Jesus was not God. That Jesus was not equal with God. That Jesus was not of the same substance. And that is what we are talking about here. Though you don't know what you are talking about, I understand.

Sorry, but your lying again. See your post #438. You said, "This does not change the fact that the Church at large did not accept that Jesus and God were one substance" That is the Arian doctrine. You then cite Origen and Dionysius as support for this Arian believe.

And I asked you, where did Origen or Dionysius say this. Give a quote from them and not your 'source' which is apparently as ignorant as you. But, you don't give a source. Instead you just come back and say, I never said that.

So, I ask you again. Where does Origen or Dionysius say Christ and God are not of the same substance, as you have claimed.

I don't have to add nonsense to your posts.

Quantrill

 

If course Im providing sources that support what I believe. If the evidence were contrary to what I believe I would change my beliefs.

Either you believe my sources or you dont.

Because your source did not give any details .. like mine does.

Check your reading comprehension. I never said that the majority of Christians were Arians .. because I have no idea whether or not they were.

What I have claimed is that the majority of Christians did not believe that Jesus and God were of the same substance.

Arius did not exist in Origen and Dionysius's time. You seem to forget that the heresy of Arius was in claiming that Jesus and God were not Coeternal among other things.

Origin believed Jesus was subordinate to the father as did many of the early church fathers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism

.

You have given zero sources. If you do not believe the book then come up with your own source that shows what Origen and Dionysius believed.

Can you not even do a wiki search ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

So, I ask you again. Where does Origen or Dionysius say Christ and God are not of the same substance, as you have claimed.

Not that I have not done this before but here you are:

This belief of Origin I thought you might be interested in:

 

Gifted, you are doint it again.

There are several points that are made that you are simply not addressing.

Arianism was never the majority.

Origien, etc., once again as we see above, are not saying what you are claiming what they are saying. When you quote Origien stating something about historicity of teh Bible - what does that have to with arianism?

And yes, there is plenty of evidence that contradicts YOUR beliefs. That is why the Trinity is TODAY, as it was then, part of Christian doctrine. To say there is no evidence of this, and that no one has presented it is to be deliberately obtuse.

It goes right to what I think this is and is always about, its about you doing minimal research and then thinking you are smarter than everyone .... apparently because you read a single wikipedia article.

Historians read as many view points as they can, not just one - and then say you either believe me or you don't - because I refuse to acknowledge any other view point! Which is why we have the Trinity today, and arians are considered heretics.

 

Mehmet said…..

I reject Allah and he is not my god. I believe in the God of Abraham…which is not Allah. Their characters are opposite.

WEll as I said Jesus never mentioned the word rape…did not say anything bad against child pornography, abortion or pedophelia….but do you think Christ would have condoned any of them?

I gave many verses that speak to this issue. Jesus said….He and the Father are ONE.

It has not been changed. You know…the Bible is the best selling book of all time. No other book had captured humanity like the bible. Why do you think that is? You might think its changed but it has not. I won't even get into the Koran or Hadiths…that show that Muhammed did not even abide by the laws in those books. How many wives did he take?

And I would ask you to explain many things as well…that don't add up.

And you are right…….in the end we would part each believing in our own faiths.

May the God of Abraham….guide you.

 

All those around the world will be raptured. There are Jews who believe in Christ that will go as well.

 

Good grief......... back to the Scofield heresy.

 

No it isn't. The first threat is the secular humanist that wants to make Christianity illegal…that wants to eradicate God from the earth. They not only reject God but want to make it impossible and illegal for anyone else to follow their faith in God.

One day worshipping will again be done underground….and people will have to hide and face persecution if caught.

The second danger….the Christian community itself. We can not be passive about this attack and think there is no one out to get us..we must stand our ground…like what must happen with this new attack from Obama about forcing CAtholic institutions into doing something that they do not see as moral.

I see Joel Osteen as a greater threat…he does not even preach the gospel…….but more of a self help philosophy of how God wants us all to be rich.

 

Let's start with the positive.
I totally agree with you regarding Joel. Pure snake oil.

However, your paranoia about the criminalization of Christianity is just that. You are creating an irrational fear so you feel justified as a persecuted Christian, when the truth is you are undeniably free to believe as you like. You have protection under the COTUS and without an amendment that will never be trumped.
Christ said the believers will live a life of persecution, and without that experience in your life, you are desperate to create that fiction so you can feel justified as a faithful follower.
Unfortunately, you just don't have anyone forcing you to close your church doors or forbidding you to engage in prayer at your school desk.

 

That is funny, because the atheists on this forum say the same thing about their faith. That there is a giant Christian conspiracy to foust Christianity on them ... and nary a word of complaint.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-26/...theist-group-american-atheists-cross?_s=PM:US

http://atheists.org/law/ground_zero

http://www.chron.com/life/houston-b...y-appeal-ruling-tossing-suit-over-2081469.php

http://www.chron.com/life/houston-b...y-appeal-ruling-tossing-suit-over-2081469.php

Yet when we point to things like this? Granted there are some instances where religious people push to far - unlike the atheist community, there are plenty of Christians who, being secular, will concur with that assesment.

The danger here is not just reaching to far, but the fact that no one wants to admit that many atheist organizations are stepping out too far and being needlessly acrimonious.

Indeed, its no conspiracy, there are clearly atheists whose intent it is to eliminate God:

"American Atheists is not afraid to point out that which is true: religion is ridiculous. Mythology and religion are synonymous, and none is better than another. Religion is malicious, malevolent, and unworthy of respect.

You probably knew that already.

We're respectful of the American people's individual rights to practice as they see fit (equal to our rights to do the same), but this does not mean we have to respect the decision. If you choose to ignore logic and knowledge in order to believe in an invisible magic man in the sky, or Santa Claus for that matter, you've made a ridiculous decision and we're not going to pretend it's "just another way of looking at things."


We challenge the ethics of the professional liars who claim to speak for gods to bilk parishioners into giving away their money in exchange for an immortality that will never be granted. We also challenge the ethics of the politicians who use government to further their religious agenda, and vice versa. We will not let anyone's religion infiltrate our schools, our government, or our pockets, at least not without a good fight."

http://www.atheists.org/religion

Do you really think that when you form an organization that is dedicated to calling other people morons ... that there will be no push back?

The real question isn't whether this is real, but whether its actually a threat vs. an annoyance. I think such antics invariably breed a backlash, as indeed, when pressed to support such antics ... I have watched more than a few atheists simply blow thier stack rather than offer something calm and insightful.

Its not really a threat to the church ... but it is out there.

 

I am getting up there in years and I have never known anyone who wants to make Christianity illegal..

As for Olsteen.. its just a variant on the prosperity gospel.

 

Not sure of what your point is.
I was responding to a poster who was saying that Christianity was in danger of becoming illegal.
You are bringing up the issue of First Amendment rights of free speech. Atheists can say what they like as can Christians. Like you say, it isn't really a threat to the church, so what is your point?
Reading the entirety of your post, it seems like you are agreeing with me in a very disagreeable way.

 

I never said Arianism was ?

Nothing, I never said it did. This is Quants claim and as you can see by my previous post he is wrong.

It is not "my beliefs" you can read Origins beliefs in my previous post and see for your self that Origin believed that the Son was not God. If you have evidence that claims otherwise then present it.

In the last number of posts I have linked to a book, referenced other source material, and yes given a general synopsis from wiki.

You have given zero to support your claims.

Improve your reading comprehension so you are not making stuff up all the time, find some valid suppor for your claims, get grip in general, and get back to me.

 

Sorry mouse but Islam believes in the God of Ishmaels Father. That would be Abraham.

 

Well, sticking to the main topic of this thread, a great threat to the Church, or say the Catholic Church today may be Hollywood which tries to discourage its members from procreating, while the Hollywood may consider the Church a threat to its liberal values. For example, there was that recent movie with Anthony Hopkins "The Rite" (2011) which used horror imagery to encourage impressionable Catholic women to use contraceptives despite their Church's teachings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rite_(2011_film)