Pelagic

[Apoclima]

Here you go, portokalos, some support for your hypothesis:

It is unknown how long this belief persisted into the Muslim period, but some Christian historians believe the Donatist schism and the discord it caused in the Christian community made the takeover of the region by Islam easier.2

Donatist

Apo

[gailr]

Of course, the RC and EO persist in their position that there is no salvation outside the (visible) Church, as if one's salvation could be secured (as Luther noted) by some third party intervention on one's behalf.

There are some Protestant Denominations that have the Only True Church Syndrome, but they are rather small in number.

Why the differences? An easy answer is that Group X is correct and all else are heretics--

The answer is only easy when someone starts to play around with the essential doctrines that define Christianity, doctrines that have been held an accepted (though perhaps clarified over time) position within the Church. These are not always the most "popular" doctrines. The Nicene Creed is an example of the retention and affirmation of a received doctrine, over an alien doctrine (Arianism).

Heresies do give the chance to clarify and reiterate doctrines, but excluding them as non-orthodox is hardly being "non-inclusive." Either something is something or it is not something.

I agree with your reply; at the same time, there is a whiff of heresy in what you've written! Especially as regards the "One True Church" concept: this semantics and doctrinal game is played by any religion which needs to control its membership and/or take comfort in having a black-and-white set of rules, so that uncomfortable individual thought is never required. Those preaching such doctrines also say it either is or is not true--regardless of its popularity--and posit their entire credibility[sic] upon such foundations. As long as the religion (and for the purposes of this discussion, I would be comfortable including rigid scientific and political cants in this generalization) sticks to its own purview when defining orthodoxy and heresy, it stands a better chance...

However, when doctrine-protecting zealots get overenthusiastic and start pronouncing on everything in order to "protect" their faith, they are riding for a fall. As examples, increases in knowledge have left behind beliefs including: the earth is flat and is orbited by the sun; using a table fork indicates either affectation or demonic inclination; prayer and charms are the only possible methods for treating illness; being struck with strips of goatskin will increase human fertility; et cetera.

Since humans have better hindsight than foresight, we don't know which of our treasured doctrines--doctrines upon whose correctness some stake their entire belief system--will be shown to be in error in the future. [Example: I suspect that the theory of evolution will eventually be accepted by most persons without compromising their religious faith, just as the theory of gravity is now accepted by most persons without compromising their religious faith.]


Now, portokalos: thanks for introducing that idiom. It was very entertaining to follow the side topic!

-gailr

[Apoclima]

gailr:

However, when doctrine-protecting zealots get overenthusiastic and start pronouncing on everything in order to "protect" their faith, they are riding for a fall.

Yes and No! If the "Zealot" defends the central doctrines of Christianity, he may do so too enthusiastically, but he will still be justified in doing so, but too demand belief in a non-essential doctrine, like for example, "the Rapture," which is not necessary for salvation, you are right, and this is often how cults are created.

gailr:

the earth is flat and is orbited by the sun;

Exactly, whether the people of the bible thought of the entire earth as flat and that the sun traversed the firm earth below is irrevelant! There is no need to take verses that sound this way literally, any more that it is correct to think that modern people think the sun orbits the earth because we say "sunrise" and "sunset" when perhaps we should say something like "earth turn that exposes the sun" or "earth turn that creates night."

The Bible is not meant to be a scientific work anyway; it is a history of God's interaction with Humankind and the ultimate and final authority on spiritual matters.

gailr:

using a table fork indicates either affectation or demonic inclination;

I am not sure that this was really part of the doctrine of the Church, but my last priest in the PEC was a convert from RC and actually went through the whole "sinister" hand thing with his parents. How silly and superstitious!

gailr:

prayer and charms are the only possible methods for treating illness; being struck with strips of goatskin will increase human fertility; et cetera.

Charms just seem so pagan to an old Protestant like me!

gailr:

we don't know which of our treasured doctrines--doctrines upon whose correctness some stake their entire belief system--will be shown to be in error in the future.

Of course, I must disagree here, whatever an Apostate Church does in the future, the doctrines of the Nicene Creed cannot be erased or else Christianity becomes void.

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I don't think that the "filioque" makes an important distintion. But I don't want to delve too deeply into my personal understanding of this mystery.

gailr:

[Example: I suspect that the theory of evolution will eventually be accepted by most persons without compromising their religious faith, just as the theory of gravity is now accepted by most persons without compromising their religious faith.]

Unlike (macro-)evolution, the theory of gravity is ostentatiously demonstrable. If a theist accepts the theory of evolution, and stays a theist, the theory is changed in its essense from one of random mutation and natural selection, to a theory where a divine hand guides and shapes with an eye to a teleology: Humankind. This is not a theory of evolution that a materialist-naturalist would be able to accept.

Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win

The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully, or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end. Rightly or wrongly, the future belongs to ID. There's nothing irreducibly complex about it.

An irritatingly confident and cheerful young man in any case!

But the problem still remains, the dark, random, and spiritless world of "scientific naturalism" will not allow for any outside interference with Evolution. And as much as people find it convenient and compelling to attribute Evolution to God's hand in the clay, this is completely out of the question for a materialist-naturalist: the universe and everything in it is finite and knowable eventually, working on mechanist principles such as gravity and chemical reactions, but nothing supernatural can be proven, by its very nature of not be material, cannot be known and therefore does not exist.

I think this philosophical bent (naturalism) works very well for the natural sciences: physics, geology, astronomy and chemistry, and yes, biology, but only in the day to day workings of such, in repeatable experiments, but this sort of
science is very bad at understanding "unique events," such as the origin of the universe or the origin of life, because these things cannot be duplicated in an experiment.

The idea that materialist-naturalist science can or will have all the answers is simply flawed. The idea that love, hate, freewill and even our own consciousness can be explained entirely by biochemical reactions, leaves Humankind as a robot programmed by a random universe, tempered by genetic mutation and survival.

The Irrational Rule of Naturalism

Evolutionism is one of the stories based on naturalism. It is a major tenet of naturalism's church. This is one reason why attempting to harmonize theism with the claims of evolutionism is not very productive. They are at opposite poles on the most basic level. Contrary to what some think, creationists are not opposed to science – true science that is. In fact, it is based upon having an intelligent Creator that makes studying the material universe a valid possibility. How else can we be sure that we can even properly perceive the world? If God didn’t create, and we are the result of mindless chance, what guarantee do we have that we are really able to reason and think logically?

My chemical reactions are saying "Good-bye,"

Apo

[KatyBr]

Look, it's simple if you don't want to believe, don't, if you have an issue with a particular church, tell them. I do not believe in theo-business. I'm against a "Church" whose main objective is keeping themseves afloat, if a Pastor's concerns are mortgage, building funds, and the heating bill his church is too big. His main focus should be on his flock.
My silly opinion and I'm sticking to it.


Kt

[portokalos]

[Apoclima]

You had me at "hello".

Apoclima

[portokalos]