How can any logical person be an atheist?

thanks for informative post.

So the basic father/son/holy ghost foundation of christianity was actually devised by men to unite the church under a single doctrine.

I wonder how this historical fact seems to be perfectly acceptable to christians when the bible is supposedly the repository of recieved wisdom by way of the devine word of god?

Isn't that a fundamental contradiction?

 

No you don't and you're about to demonstrate your ignorance to the rest of us.

Agnosticism is not a fence-sitter position between Theism and Atheism, it is a statement of knowledge, specifically the knowledge that would prove or disprove God's existence. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists whereas the majority of theists are gnostic theists, though you can have gnostic atheists and agnostic theists. Think of it not as a line with Theism-Atheism being by itself but a graph with Theism-Atheism being one axis and Gnosticism-Agnosticism as another.

 

Most Christians do not know much about Church history. They do not teach the Sabellian heresy in Sunday school ;P

When it comes to getting through the pearly gates the Church is divided. Catholic and Orthodox claim that works are required. Protestants believe in Sola Fide (salvation by faith alone).

This is troublesome because if not even the Church can tell you how to get into heaven then what is one to believe ?

 

that religion is man made, its various incarnations are exclusive clubs and heaven is as imaginary as hell.

 

Why are you people so sensitive?

While your definition is covered here, you'll notice that mine is as well. You can get off that high horse now.

 

Because you're trying to use words you don't even understand

All of those are part of my definition, yours of "In between theism and atheism" is not. Again, it's a statement on whether or not someone can have or does have knowledge that can verify the existence of God. The belief of agnostics (etymology 'a-' without 'gnostic' knowledge, without knowledge) is that one can not ultimately know with a 100% certainty that God can't exist. This does not mean they believe that the existence of God is a serious possibility anymore than Santa, the Easter Bunny, or Russel's Teapot.

 

The divinity of Christ is supproted by the accepted gospels and by old testament prophecy and fulfillment in the life of Christ. So the authenticity of the gospels are essential. The gospels that were rejected were rejected because they did not support old testament prophecy and they were not written by eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus. Constantine's role was one of reconciliation and not control of outcome. He did not vote and he seems to have allowed them their own decisions. He was a genuinely converted Christian, not a self serving sicophant seeking empowerment from a previously outlawed religion. As to his role and preferences, there is conflict over the matter that we will not sove here. Outside of form, Zoroastrianism shares nothing with Judeaism or Christianity and its role in Persian politics or social order is irrelevant to Rome and the ultimate politization of Christianity, which, obviously, was a disaster, as all politicized religion is. Always.

 

There are no contradictions in Christianity or Judeaism, the religions of the One True Living God.

 

That's what your led to believe. Or want to believe.

 

...i never get irony...

 

Niether. Because its true.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Where ? There is no place where Jesus claims directly to be God or asks to be worshiped as God.

There are however numerous places where Jesus speaks "directly" of the Father and he is always referred to as someone other than himself. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" "The father is greater than I" are just a few of the many examples. There is no equivalent examples from the side claiming Jesus was God.

This had nothing to do with Nicea.

.

Constantine made it known to all what he wanted as the outcome. He exiled Eusebius for refusing to sign for goodness sakes.

There is no conflict over his role among serious scholars and his conversion to Christianity is seriously contested. Watch the episode of "mankind decoded" on Constantine. Constantine made himself as God after he solidified his power which is hardly in keeping with one who has converted to Christianity.

The sources that you are reading are either horribly ignorant or outright lying if they are claiming that Constantine was a mere observer or bystander.

I shall show this in another post.

 

Constantine was the one controlling the show.

Please note that this is a Christian biased link. Even so they do a great job of posting some of the facts rather than fallacious opinion. http://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/nicea/

One time when Constantine was "deeply upset" he killed his wife and son. This was not a man to be trifled with and he felt that the division in the Church threatened the stability of the Empire.

At the same time he was a shrewd politician who was trying to unite a divided empire. He had a plan and wanted some form of "willing" agreement. He wanted allies not enemies.

The Bishops in attendance also knew what was at stake up to and including their very lives.

It was Constantine that summoned the council.

This next part is a direct quote from Eusebius:

Constantine is obviously very involved and running the show. Notice that he speaks Greek to them ( he is fluent in languages)

The big hoopla was over the term "same substance" or homoousios. This is the phrase that means "Jesus is God" . To the Greeks there were two kinds of substances, one that which God was made of, and another which everything else was made of. (dirt, trees, man, angels, and so on)

When Eusebius agrees to sign onto the creed he writes a letter explaining his objection.

Here are the words of Eusebius after reading what his proposed creed was:

It was Constantine that insisted on the addition of the word homoousios. This is the one and only phrase in the creed that states that Jesus is God.

 

Can't argue with faith.
But you might want to investigate biblical inconsistencies to be better able to respond to the issue, without sounding like a mindless bible thumper.

 

Well said

 

Jesus made many references to being God. Read the Gosple of John and his "I am" statements. And I suspect you do not know, so I say kindly that is a reference back to Exodus when God told Moses to say that "I am that I am sent you".

 

All this is not for political power, but unity in faith.

- - - Updated - - -

He did not address a specific one, so I did not address any.