Mark Driscoll says God hates me.

[MamaJunebug]

Here I thought he was on this team:

Can't we all get the story straight????? :doh:

[mirele]

What shocks me is that people follow Mark Driscoll. Part of the problem is that some Christians ignore the first four gospels and concentrate too much on Paul. Everything Jesus-the actual founder-wrote can be ignored. That is why you don't see more modern American fundies writing articles on the importance of helping the poor(Unless it is to convert them)

Well, when you tie your orthodoxy to a creed (Nicene) that goes from "born of the Virgin Mary" to "crucified under Pontius Pilate" in the same breath, with no mention of Jesus' teachings, well, it's not a surprise that they're missing out on "love your neighbor, bless them that curse you," etc.

As for Driscoll, I noticed it was all about how God hated YOU, but not him (Driscoll). Ah, the pompous maunderings of the assuredly saved.

[debrand]

Well, when you tie your orthodoxy to a creed (Nicene) that goes from "born of the Virgin Mary" to "crucified under Pontius Pilate" in the same breath, with no mention of Jesus' teachings, well, it's not a surprise that they're missing out on "love your neighbor, bless them that curse you," etc.

As for Driscoll, I noticed it was all about how God hated YOU, but not him (Driscoll). Ah, the pompous maunderings of the assuredly saved.

You know, I never thought about how the Nicene Creed goes from Jesus birth to death without any mention of his teachings.

[Shirley MacLaine]

Mark Driscoll. What a fucking choad. It grosses me out that we share a last name!

[MamaJunebug]

You know, I never thought about how the Nicene Creed goes from Jesus birth to death without any mention of his teachings.

debrand, mirele and others who are ruminating on the above fact: That's not because the writers of the creed wanted to ignore or downplay Christ's teachings. The Council of Nicea was convened to address some heresies that were wreaking havoc in parts of the Church about the nature of Christ, and the creed was written as a statement of orthodox (that is, original, true) beliefs about who Jesus Christ is, as well as who God the Father and the Holy Spirit are.

For the writers it was a foregone conclusion that we knew the teachings of Jesus. The creed was about Who He is. There was no Driscoll-like plan to obfuscate Him, in fact the goals were exactly the opposite: to define Him.

Thanks for letting me try to clarify that. Let me know if I didn't, and I'll try some more! :)

ETA clarification that the heresies the Council of Nicea addressed were heresies about the nature of Christ. Kthx!

[alsio]

Somebody on here wrote that they really should call themselves Paulians. I concurr.

They obviously don´t get on so well with this radical who said that you can´t go to heaven as a rich man.

[bbfreethinker]

Meh, I'm not a big fan of his either.

[Burris]

So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. -- James 2:12-13

Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.†-- Matthew 9:13

Driscoll will be measured against the stick he uses to size up other people (Mark 4:24). He might want to consider that before he continues to flap his gums.

[Angri-la]

I can't stand Mark Driscoll (he hates me too)! or Paul.

I have tons to say about my loathing of Paul. Maybe I will start a thread; I promise not to call it "Paul was Nelly".

[mirele]

debrand, mirele and others who are ruminating on the above fact: That's not because the writers of the creed wanted to ignore or downplay Christ's teachings. The Council of Nicea was convened to address some heresies that were wreaking havoc in parts of the Church about the nature of Christ, and the creed was written as a statement of orthodox (that is, original, true) beliefs about who Jesus Christ is, as well as who God the Father and the Holy Spirit are.

For the writers it was a foregone conclusion that we knew the teachings of Jesus. The creed was about Who He is. There was no Driscoll-like plan to obfuscate Him, in fact the goals were exactly the opposite: to define Him.

Thanks for letting me try to clarify that. Let me know if I didn't, and I'll try some more! :)

ETA clarification that the heresies the Council of Nicea addressed were heresies about the nature of Christ. Kthx!

Blergh. I'm acutely aware of the Nicene Creed's history and issues. There was a time when I could parse every sentence (in English, I am not fluent in ancient Greek or Latin) and explain why it was there and when it was added (not everything is from 325 C.E.--filioque anyone?). That said, I find it more than just curious that the primary creeds used in the liturgical churches all have this same defect, as in they spend their time on (what I consider to be stupid) theological issues as opposed to affirming what Jesus taught.

This is a serious problem for the churches, even the various non-liturgical churches, because while they may not actually recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday, they take that information and turn it into the "Fundamentals" that they expect people to adhere to. Ironically, it's abundantly clear from the Gospels and Acts that Jesus had no such high theological thoughts as the men who came three hundred plus years later and felt like they they could define who God is. If he'd thought it was important, I think we'd have seen it somewhere in the Gospels. However, it's much easier to assent to a set of essentially unprovable propositions than it is to (as I said above) "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you." The latter requires a real change of heart.

I was about to write that this is not my problem anymore, since I bailed on Christianity a few years ago, but it IS my problem when people want to impose their religious beliefs on the larger population. And we see it now in an election year, when people are judging who is the true believer and who is the cultist by what religion they belong to.

So, Mama Junebug, the Nicene creed MAY have been needed in 325 to settle a theological dispute, but to have it turned into the touchstone it is today...to be blunt, Jesus would be saying, "What do you mean, 'God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten not made, of one Being with the Father"? I don't understand this, I'm a Jew, there is only one God." (Of course if you believe Jesus was self-aware of his divinity, that's another thing altogether and opens up an entirely different can of theological worms.)

Of course you could be reciting the amazingly mind-twisting Athanasian Creed, which just goes to show you that no, the Nicene Creed did NOT settle whatever arguments there happened to be.