I know very little about the Council of Nice. What Chris Garrett has posted seems to be a very plausible suggestion that Christianity is more of a political organization created by man than it is a divine organization created by God.

Only now, close to 400 years after Christ, did the church formally exist and a Credo of belief formed. All by democratic vote. Theoligically scary if you ask me.

I have to agree that that is theologically scary.

Now, emotionally, I am in a quandary. Chris has suggested that something which I know to be true, isn’t. It is as if we are sitting at a table and you suddenly present me with some information that plausibly denies the table’s existence.
In this case, you don’t see the table. I do. You might think I’m crazy because I see it. And, by the same token, I would think you were just as crazy because you don’t. {The final novel in the Chronicles of Narnia has a situation similar to this.}
So, now, I’m inclined to get some background knowledge around a statement that says the table doesn’t exist. That seems like lunacy.

Yet, if I don’t get some background information in order to set the historical tone and how this council truly impacts the structure of the church, the idea will eat at me. I might one day seriously question the existence of the table. And, that’s just nuts.

…like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. ~Morpheus

I’m beside myself.

I feel like I need to re-state something for those that might not know me. For me, this isn’t a ‘Christians are right and Islam is wrong’ battle. From a great movie: “I am presently unaffiliated” (or something like that).

When one examines the bulk of Christian and Islamic history and writings, both are peppered with a sufficient number of examples to cast them in a bad light. Both had plenty of experience in killing the other, or sections of their holy books that can literally be interpreted in appalling ways.

The difference, to me as an observer, is how Christianity overcame this past and truly is a peaceful faith. While you have the abortion slaying outliers, I rarely see mass celebrations at the local church when that happens. I usually see a great many church figures condemning the murders. The fringe is truly a fringe in these cases.

Now when I look at Islam, I am seeing quite a different picture. If you stack up the Allah inspired murders, it makes one pause. Why do so many self-identified Muslims take the path of civilian slaughter, or even killing other Muslims in a Shia-Sunni feud? And why do these killers always seem to cite a Holy Duty and expect Allah to reward them for their deeds?

Certainly a misreading of the Bible could send one off to kill an abortion doctor, but that isn’t happening very often.

In the Islamic world, murder seems to be a sacrament for a very large collection of individuals. If the fanatical outlier is as rare as the term ‘outlier’ suggests, why do they seem to replenish their numbers so quickly after many of them are killed?

One could argue the production of fanatics is driven more by war than faith. If they were not constantly obsessed with fighting the West, would we be having these problems? Is the fanaticism in faith co-mingled with a fanaticism in regionalism? That’s a fair topic of debate, and I’m unsure of the answer.

However, it seems to me that regionalism is certainly being exacerbated by theological pressures. Middle Eastern Muslims self-identify as Muslim first, all other labels come a distant second. A Jordanian Muslim and a Syrian Muslim (assuming they are both Shia or Sunni) are going to be ‘brothers’ in a larger sense that you would ever see in a Christian American and a Christian Canadian. To a Muslim ‘fanatic’, anyone outside of the Muslim world (again, assuming the Shia/Sunni thing is in play), is not only an outsider, but a threat – as preached today from a great many Mosques in the region every Friday.

While individuals wage war against the West, I’m still forced to question how their numbers grow, and why the average Muslim takes to the street and celebrates horrible things. Why does a taxi-driver in Indonesia have a picture of Bin Laden on his dashboard and praise him as a great man? There is a peculiar perception of ‘great’ in the Islamic World.

I understand why people don’t like to generalize an entire people. I don’t really like it either. But just because it is distasteful to us, the possibility of a truthful generalization remains. Is every Muslim on the hair-trigger of murder? Of course not. Have most (50%+1) Muslims in the Middle East been infected by a virulent, hateful vision of Islam (that might not be in line with what Mohammad intended)?

I have to say ‘maybe’. If the answer is ‘no’, then why does it seem to be the case? Am I a hateful bigot? Some would say yes, and that saddens me. Prior to 1991, I thought Israel was a nest of evil and the Palestinian people were the ultimate victims. I thought Islam was indeed a fascinating faith and I wanted to learn about it. I had no animosity for anyone in the region (except for the whole Khomeini-US Embassy thing).

Education and inquiry brought me to this point. This is why I am so convinced of the problems in our future. Their own words have brought me here.

Anyway, I’m rambling into a Long Post, and this is just a comment. Thanks for the debate. I think this might be the longest comment string on the blog without invective or invoking Godwin’s Law.

Link here: http://www.rickross.com/reference/mcveigh/mcveigh6.html

Is there something I’m missing?

How familiar are you with the Council of Nice? You might be surprized at how the Creed and the New Testemant evolved. The readers digest version: King Charlemaign of France around 360AD defeated the last of the “pagan” Roman Emperors (Maximillious?)and established the Christian (Holy) Roman Empire. Wanting to spread the word of Christianity through the empire – he needed to codify what was a very regional and disjunct faith; each community having their own stories, letters, and pieces of the big picture. Remember, this is pre-New Testament. Charlamaign gathered the leading Bishops of the day in Nice, Italy and formed the Council of Trent with the intention of codifying a Creed for the faith (which at up till then hadn’t existed) and codifying all the letters and writings (focusing on the apostles of course) that had been copied through the centuries (this is now 300+ years after the original apostles – think 1700′s compared to today). It turned out that the various Bishops had very differing opinions on what the core belief was. Somethings were simply voted on – majority rule! – often politically motivated and not always theologically supported. A significant portion of the Bishopric felt (at that time) that Christ was not God, but rather a divine human. This particular belief was voted down. The end result was the Nicean Creed “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth….” Only now, close to 400 years after Christ, did the church formally exist and a Credo of belief formed. All by democratic vote. Theoligically scary if you ask me.

The formation of the new testament is even scarier – it happened at the same time. But I’ll leave that for now as I’ve eaten up enough space – but one interesting point is that a lot of texts/letters were left out because they didn’t fit the chronological format the Bishops wanted to use!

“The behavior of Christians did not invoke the creation of the Homeland (in)Security Act.”

Not directly, but the actions of McVay (spelling?) et al in Oklahoma were also considered when the HSA went into effect. We realized that terrorism could strike from within and many aspects of the Act are not only limited to specifically foreign terrorist acts, but also internal terrorism. So, in essence, the behaviour of Christians did indeed influence the HSA.

Chris

I’m concerned about the implication that the Council of Nice was some sort of creative writing session where the church made up new rules about Christianity. Oh, I know it doesn’t say that, but I think the implication is that they somehow decided that it wasn’t working so they needed to change something. If a group cannot examine its faith and make changes based on a new understanding of the “sacred texts” or based on the discovery of new information, what do we have but unsubstantiated dogma? I am suspicious of religions that disallow investigation and stand only on mantra.

Regardless of how different or alike Christianity and Islam were, it comes down to the behavior of the majority of these people today. Christians aren’t burning embassies. Christians aren’t chanting Death to anybody. Christians are dancing in the streets when buildings collapse in Oklahoma or anywhere else.

The behavior of Christians did not invoke the creation of the Homeland (in)Security Act.

When reading these passages, many are professed as the words of Allah. Some might be the words of mortals. But either way, my earlier point remains. The original intent of the Koran and Haddith might be lost – hijacked by a clergy that seeks elevation of Islam in a wave of blood. There is little doubt that medieval Christianity had the same problem with the Bible being contorted into a tool of persecution and bloodshed for the political gain of Monarchs and the Church. Christianity of the era was a problem.

Thus Islam today. One can argue about what true Islam should be. I think it is a good argument to have. When I decry the corrosive nature of Islam, I am speaking about Islam as it is practiced today in large sections of the world. I don’t think that Muslims are beyond secular redemption (remember, I’m a secularist, so the status of their souls don’t factor into this for me – redemption is lower case). I think Islam needs to be torn down, reformed, rebuilt, and reconciled with the modern world.

Fortunately for all of us, Christianity went through this process a long time ago. Islam has yet to go there.

The Koran might really be full of peace and love, but it isn’t being taught that way in most of the world today.

Koran quotes:
[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

[49.15] The believers are only those who believe in Allah and His Apostle then they doubt not and struggle hard with their wealth and their lives in the way of Allah; they are the truthful ones.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

Just a portion of what is in there. And it isn’t just the Koran. You also have to look at the Hadith and Sunna, which are supplements to the core Koranic sources. These are considered to be quite important to contextualize Koran verses, and are seldom quoted in public by Islamic apologists.

For example:

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 427:

Narrated ‘Aisha and ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas:

When the last moment of the life of Allah’s Apostle came he started putting his ‘Khamisa’ on his face and when he felt hot and short of breath he took it off his face and said, “May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” The Prophet was warning (Muslims) of what those had done.

Book 041, Number 6981:

Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him.

Book 041, Number 6985:

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

I would encourage everyone to read both the Koran and spend some time with the Haddiths. While one may argue that these sources may not INTEND to incite hatred, I have little doubt that many of those who shape Islam today are using them to set an entire people against those who aren’t Muslim.

Because it leaves me absolutely nothing to add. (Stay away from that Delete button.)