By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - You are forced to change your religious beliefs - pick a new religion

 

What religion would you choose if you had to change?

Atheist/Agnostic/Pastafarian/Jedi 39 20.31%
 
Christianity 15 7.81%
 
Islam 25 13.02%
 
Judaism 8 4.17%
 
Hinduism 5 2.60%
 
Buddhism 66 34.38%
 
Scientology 1 0.52%
 
Wicca 6 3.13%
 
Norse 6 3.13%
 
Roman/Greek 21 10.94%
 
Total:192
sapphi_snake on 30 August 2011
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:

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 I 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.

What I was saying was that there were already 'high ranking christians' when the council of Nicaea took place, and they were the ones who made the decisions. It wasn't an outside force that 'corrupted' christianity.

And after the apostoles were gone, someone had to take over, no? If there was a Church, then there had to be someone ruling the Church. The bishops weren't invented by the Romans, the position was established by early Christians, because logically someone needed to take the apostole's place after they were gone. "High ranking' christians have always existed, ever since Christianity has existed as a religion.

I don't really see the point of your first paragraph.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
binary solo on 30 August 2011
GuiltySpartan77 said:
Lol, i would die than give up on my belief in Christianity.

So pick Islam. It's the only one of the options which formally (i.e. in the Quran) recognises the divinity of Christ. Sunni Islam is awaiting the Return of Christ just the same as Christians.

Islam for me. Though in truth no one could force me to recant my faith and take up one of the obsolete models contained in that list. It'd be like throwing out my PS3 and replacing it with a PS2. Though my religion is fully backwards compatible, so it's better than a PS3.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

hentai_11 on 30 August 2011
Mummelmann said:
Forced? Isn't the whole idea of belief kind of rendered irrelevant at that point?

History is full of forcing religion on other people. (Crusades, French Wars of Religion, Thirty Years War, Taiping Rebellion, Jihad, North Ireland Conflict ...) 



Mummelmann on 30 August 2011
hentai_11 said:
Mummelmann said:
Forced? Isn't the whole idea of belief kind of rendered irrelevant at that point?

History is full of forcing religion on other people. (Crusades, French Wars of Religion, Thirty Years War, Taiping Rebellion, Jihad, North Ireland Conflict ...) 


I know. Norway was forcefully christianed around year 1000.

My point though, was; no one can force you to believe anything. Your ideology, philosophy and general view on things can't be changed overnight simply because someone orders you to. You may adopt an outward demeanor that shows that you've "changed" to please those around you but you won't truly believe it and as long as your heart is not in it, it doesn't really matter which faith one "follows" imo.



RageBot on 30 August 2011

Currently an Atheist, picked Greek.



Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 30 August 2011
padib said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:

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 I 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.

What I was saying was that there were already 'high ranking christians' when the council of Nicaea took place, and they were the ones who made the decisions. It wasn't an outside force that 'corrupted' christianity.

And after the apostoles were gone, someone had to take over, no? If there was a Church, then there had to be someone ruling the Church. The bishops weren't invented by the Romans, the position was established by early Christians, because logically someone needed to take the apostole's place after they were gone. "High ranking' christians have always existed, ever since Christianity has existed as a religion.

I don't really see the point of your first paragraph.

I don't intend on intruding the nice convo here, I just wanted to add some info:

I believe that, theologically speaking, the introduction of positional structure in the church came from late Pauline letters as a result of disorder in the church. The establishment of the role of bishops, elders and deacons are mentioned in those texts (60AD?). But, then again, those may not have been understood the same way as they were understood at the time of the niceans (350AD?).

Extremely diffenet.  At the time they had bishops only for cities, and they didn't have any overarching control and one wasn't more popular then another.

The point though is that the "nicean council" was just the end of such a plan.

It took a long way to get to a strict unification like that.

By niceans he was no doubt he means in general the effect the romans had on Christianity.  Which was quite a bit.

By  the time of the Nicean council the Catholic CHurch was practically a mimicry of the Roman Empire.



sapphi_snake on 30 August 2011
Kasz216 said:
padib said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:

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 I 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.

What I was saying was that there were already 'high ranking christians' when the council of Nicaea took place, and they were the ones who made the decisions. It wasn't an outside force that 'corrupted' christianity.

And after the apostoles were gone, someone had to take over, no? If there was a Church, then there had to be someone ruling the Church. The bishops weren't invented by the Romans, the position was established by early Christians, because logically someone needed to take the apostole's place after they were gone. "High ranking' christians have always existed, ever since Christianity has existed as a religion.

I don't really see the point of your first paragraph.

I don't intend on intruding the nice convo here, I just wanted to add some info:

I believe that, theologically speaking, the introduction of positional structure in the church came from late Pauline letters as a result of disorder in the church. The establishment of the role of bishops, elders and deacons are mentioned in those texts (60AD?). But, then again, those may not have been understood the same way as they were understood at the time of the niceans (350AD?).

Extremely diffenet.  At the time they had bishops only for cities, and they didn't have any overarching control and one wasn't more popular then another.

The point though is that the "nicean council" was just the end of such a plan.

It took a long way to get to a strict unification like that.

By niceans he was no doubt he means in general the effect the romans had on Christianity.  Which was quite a bit.

By  the time of the Nicean council the Catholic CHurch was practically a mimicry of the Roman Empire.

By the time of the Nicaean Council there was no Catholic Church.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Kasz216 on 30 August 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
padib said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:

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 I 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.

What I was saying was that there were already 'high ranking christians' when the council of Nicaea took place, and they were the ones who made the decisions. It wasn't an outside force that 'corrupted' christianity.

And after the apostoles were gone, someone had to take over, no? If there was a Church, then there had to be someone ruling the Church. The bishops weren't invented by the Romans, the position was established by early Christians, because logically someone needed to take the apostole's place after they were gone. "High ranking' christians have always existed, ever since Christianity has existed as a religion.

I don't really see the point of your first paragraph.

I don't intend on intruding the nice convo here, I just wanted to add some info:

I believe that, theologically speaking, the introduction of positional structure in the church came from late Pauline letters as a result of disorder in the church. The establishment of the role of bishops, elders and deacons are mentioned in those texts (60AD?). But, then again, those may not have been understood the same way as they were understood at the time of the niceans (350AD?).

Extremely diffenet.  At the time they had bishops only for cities, and they didn't have any overarching control and one wasn't more popular then another.

The point though is that the "nicean council" was just the end of such a plan.

It took a long way to get to a strict unification like that.

By niceans he was no doubt he means in general the effect the romans had on Christianity.  Which was quite a bit.

By  the time of the Nicean council the Catholic CHurch was practically a mimicry of the Roman Empire.

By the time of the Nicaean Council there was no Catholic Church.


Er.. yes there was?

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

The Catholic Church/Church of the West was the original church, you can argue "who stayed more true" or whatever... but the Catholic Church was the original.



sapphi_snake on 30 August 2011
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
padib said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:

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 I 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.

What I was saying was that there were already 'high ranking christians' when the council of Nicaea took place, and they were the ones who made the decisions. It wasn't an outside force that 'corrupted' christianity.

And after the apostoles were gone, someone had to take over, no? If there was a Church, then there had to be someone ruling the Church. The bishops weren't invented by the Romans, the position was established by early Christians, because logically someone needed to take the apostole's place after they were gone. "High ranking' christians have always existed, ever since Christianity has existed as a religion.

I don't really see the point of your first paragraph.

I don't intend on intruding the nice convo here, I just wanted to add some info:

I believe that, theologically speaking, the introduction of positional structure in the church came from late Pauline letters as a result of disorder in the church. The establishment of the role of bishops, elders and deacons are mentioned in those texts (60AD?). But, then again, those may not have been understood the same way as they were understood at the time of the niceans (350AD?).

Extremely diffenet.  At the time they had bishops only for cities, and they didn't have any overarching control and one wasn't more popular then another.

The point though is that the "nicean council" was just the end of such a plan.

It took a long way to get to a strict unification like that.

By niceans he was no doubt he means in general the effect the romans had on Christianity.  Which was quite a bit.

By  the time of the Nicean council the Catholic CHurch was practically a mimicry of the Roman Empire.

By the time of the Nicaean Council there was no Catholic Church.


Er.. yes there was?

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

The Catholic Church/Church of the West was the original church, you can argue "who stayed more true" or whatever... but the Catholic Church was the original.

The link you provided doesn't support your claim. Youcan't even say there was a 'Church of the West' at that time.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Kasz216 on 30 August 2011
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
padib said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:

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 I 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.

What I was saying was that there were already 'high ranking christians' when the council of Nicaea took place, and they were the ones who made the decisions. It wasn't an outside force that 'corrupted' christianity.

And after the apostoles were gone, someone had to take over, no? If there was a Church, then there had to be someone ruling the Church. The bishops weren't invented by the Romans, the position was established by early Christians, because logically someone needed to take the apostole's place after they were gone. "High ranking' christians have always existed, ever since Christianity has existed as a religion.

I don't really see the point of your first paragraph.

I don't intend on intruding the nice convo here, I just wanted to add some info:

I believe that, theologically speaking, the introduction of positional structure in the church came from late Pauline letters as a result of disorder in the church. The establishment of the role of bishops, elders and deacons are mentioned in those texts (60AD?). But, then again, those may not have been understood the same way as they were understood at the time of the niceans (350AD?).

Extremely diffenet.  At the time they had bishops only for cities, and they didn't have any overarching control and one wasn't more popular then another.

The point though is that the "nicean council" was just the end of such a plan.

It took a long way to get to a strict unification like that.

By niceans he was no doubt he means in general the effect the romans had on Christianity.  Which was quite a bit.

By  the time of the Nicean council the Catholic CHurch was practically a mimicry of the Roman Empire.

By the time of the Nicaean Council there was no Catholic Church.


Er.. yes there was?

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

The Catholic Church/Church of the West was the original church, you can argue "who stayed more true" or whatever... but the Catholic Church was the original.

The link you provided doesn't support your claim. Youcan't even say there was a 'Church of the West' at that time.

Well

A) It does.  Note how it mentions "Catholic" Claims having been settled.  The term Catholic was used to refer to the Church as early as like, the year 100 something.

B) Those are just titles for the Catholic Church... The Bishop of Rome... aka The Pope, was considered the "head" of Christianity before the First council of Nicaea.  He worked as the "head" of the three main Bishops of Rome, Antioch... and Alexandria I want to say.

C) The Bishop of Rome is also known as the Pope.