By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 30 August 2011
Edit Thread
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

What he's saying isn't really wrong.  Except possibly the whole anticrist thing.

Afterall if China got ahold of the Dhali Llama and all his followers, killed the Dhali Llama, insitutes yellow hat buddism as the national compulsitory religion... found the "new llama" and then used the new Llama to go on a rampage....

would you really blame Yellow Hat Buddism for that?

 

The Niceans he is talking about is of course the Nicean council which transformed Christianity into what it is today... getting rid of teaching they didn't like such as

1) Everyone gets into heaven... hell isn't a fiery pit so much as a being sad that you've failed your creator and being forced to share eternity with all those you've wronged and everyone knowing you've wronged them.

2)  Christ may not have actually been god himself.

3)  If God and Christ were the same person. (IE ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.")

4) Removal of various other books because they didn't fit with Roman ideals... even though some of the other principal books that couldn't be replaced referenced these books,(Aka the important gospels) instead of the ones that replaced them.

 

Really the number of Christians that exists generally depends on where he considers Niceans going "too far".  He could simply be a Coptic.  There are a decent number of Coptics out there.

Or he could be a more traditional Christian, though such a group I'd think would have to be built out of long painstaking research... unless there is a branch i'm missing, which is possible.

I knew he was referencing the Nicean council. As you said, they determined what christianity is today. And  your Yellow Hat Buddhsit analogy isn't quite appropriate. Weren't the people who took part in the Nicean council christians themselves? (people who held high positians in the Church actually).

In a related not, I'm quite annoyed by this part of what he wrote:

The Nicenes (Catholics and the faiths descended from Catholics)

Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't 'descend' from Catholicism, and Niceea was actually located in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (the part which has never been Catholic).  It's quite ridiculous that people from the West pretend like those from the East don't even exist.

Oh, and O can't believe you used the word 'possibly' instead of 'probably', or better yet 'most definately'. (see bolded part in italics)

Well firstly.  Pretty much all outside historical scholars suggest that Rome is the city written about in revelations, and that who it is written about is inconclusive, everyone has their own idea.

Secondly, there originally were no "high ranking" christians, outside of like... the apostales.

It only evolved poistions of "ranking" after it found it's way to the Roman Empire... and immediatly the Roman Bishop ended up being the highest ranking.