Franklin Graham peppered Obama about ties to Islam

ziggy wrote:That I "didn't deny it" means nothing.

But if it helps you feel better, I was not trying to set you up. The question came to mind as the discussion was about eating the flesh of various creatures.

So tell me, then, do you believe that eating humans is always wrong? Ever wrong? Why or why not?

I can't do justice to this but I'd say that eating humans is always wrong and I'd like to think that I would starve rather than to be a cannibal. Of course, I'm also sufficiently weak that I don't suppose I'd even last long enough to the "do we eat each other?" stage.

Stephanie wrote:All those years of the Nicene Creed are ringing in my ears, Mike. At least I think that was the Nicene Creed, might have been the Apostles Creed, it's been years I get confused.

"We believe in one holy, catholic, apostolic church." I think I have that line right.

You mean to tell me that the distinctions between the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed are not the topic of conversation at all of your dinners at home?

I wager that the Nicene Creed is equally respected by Protestants and Catholics alike.

So tell me, then, do you believe that eating humans is always wrong? Ever wrong? Why or why not?

Desperate people will do desperate things. Today I am not hungry enough to eat human flesh, nor benevolent enough to offer my own flesh to a hungry person. So today I "think" that it would be "wrong".

But I can imagine that, if world population expansion trends continue at today's pace, people will eventually be killng other people for no better reason than to sustain themselves on the flesh of their victims. It would be a matter of "survival of the fittest".

Would that be wrong? In the world of raw instincts to survive, no. It would be the sensible, the necessary thing to do.

I don't think it is ever right to kill another person for food, even if you have to for suvival. The matter of eating someone who is already dead is a stickier wicket, but I'd still guess that it's wrong and I would hope that I would sooner starve. As I am presently well-fed, of course, it's altogether too easy for me to make such pronouncements.

I will say, though, that I do take the Bible's admonitions literally. Jesus declares all foods "clean" in the New Testament but I don't suppose he meant human flesh. The circumstances may help us understand why people make the choices they do, but they do not makes those choices right.

The circumstances may help us understand why people make the choices they do, but they do not makes those choices right.

I think that choices about what's "right" and what's "wrong" have to be made in the context of what we face at the time such choices are being made.

I'd say that different circumstances may or may not affect the morality of a situation. Lying, for example, may be the right thing to do if you are hiding Jews and the Nazis ask you if you are hiding Jews. The default, though, I think should always be telling the truth.

While the circumstances surrounding cannibalism may affect the scope of the transgression (just as they may for stealing), I see a universal here. Now, I would not want the government prosecuting a starving cannibal who was eating someone already dead, but I would still say that such behavior is wrong.

SheikBen wrote:

Stephanie wrote:All those years of the Nicene Creed are ringing in my ears, Mike. At least I think that was the Nicene Creed, might have been the Apostles Creed, it's been years I get confused.

"We believe in one holy, catholic, apostolic church." I think I have that line right.

You mean to tell me that the distinctions between the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed are not the topic of conversation at all of your dinners at home?

I wager that the Nicene Creed is equally respected by Protestants and Catholics alike.

Except for those who believe in multiple baptisms, or the Jehovahs or the LDS.

I'd say that different circumstances may or may not affect the morality of a situation. Lying, for example, may be the right thing to do if you are hiding Jews and the Nazis ask you if you are hiding Jews. The default, though, I think should always be telling the truth.

Well said.

And I agree.

SheikBen wrote:

Stephanie wrote:All those years of the Nicene Creed are ringing in my ears, Mike. At least I think that was the Nicene Creed, might have been the Apostles Creed, it's been years I get confused.

"We believe in one holy, catholic, apostolic church." I think I have that line right.

You mean to tell me that the distinctions between the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed are not the topic of conversation at all of your dinners at home?

I wager that the Nicene Creed is equally respected by Protestants and Catholics alike.

One of them, I think the Nicene, is recited at every Mass. I've attended services at 2 Baptist churches and one Methodist church and I don't recall that being done at any of them.

They don't usually recite the creeds at Baptist and Methodist churches (at least the ones that I have been at). I think those churches (and mine) would do well to, provided that they also insisted that parishoners think on the words and make sure they actually believe what they are saying (or choose not to say it).

Well Sheik why do you think Christian believers should be required to accept (or proclaim) their belief in extra-Biblical Doctrine.?

What's in the Nicene Creed that isn't in the Bible?

Keep in mind even lifelong devout Catholics aren't as familiar with the Bible the most Baptists etc.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Sheik why do you think Christian believers should be required to accept (or proclaim) their belief in extra-Biblical Doctrine.?

The Nicene Creed is based on Biblical Doctrine, as Stephanie has pointed out.

My point is that people should not recite words that they themselves do not believe. While churches do well to have the creeds recited, they should not be empty words.

When I was growing up my church had us recite the Lord's Prayer (and they still do, although I don't get why you would ask God to forgive your sins if you don't believe any sin is ever judged), and I recited the words even though I didn't believe them. I don't think that was of any value. I do see value in having cathecists memorize the creeds, and then they have the information to go by in continuing in the church or realizing perhaps that their beliefs (or lack thereof) would have them elsewhere.

Hmmm. I'd say not. The Nicene creed was written largely to address various heresies.

Without too much detail, some believed God the father was God, and created the Holy Spirit and that Jesus was more man than God for example.

Hence, the lines "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God.

Begotten, not made"

If these are based on the Bible, why were so many confused before being declared heretics?

Lastly, even Catholics (Mel Gibson) disagree with Catholic Councils (Vatican II).

The Council of Nicaea had detractors who believed in a different "biblical doctrine" than the Canon Lawyers settled on.

Who else would come up with the word, "Begotten" but a Lawyer?

SFCraig wrote:Hmmm. I'd say not. The Nicene creed was written largely to address various heresies.

Without too much detail, some believed God the father was God, and created the Holy Spirit and that Jesus was more man than God for example.

Hence, the lines "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God.

Begotten, not made"

If these are based on the Bible, why were so many confused before being declared heretics?

Lastly, even Catholics (Mel Gibson) disagree with Catholic Councils (Vatican II).

The Council of Nicaea had detractors who believed in a different "biblical doctrine" than the Canon Lawyers settled on.

Who else would come up with the word, "Begotten" but a Lawyer?

Difficulties with translations, very low literacy rates and high price and limited number of Bibles available to the general public.

Vatican II is not on the level with the Nicene Creed, either, Craig.

http://www.creationists.org/cults_new_revelations.html

So Mike are there different degrees of adding to the scriptures?

"Vatican II is not on the level with the Nicene Creed, either, Craig."

Who gets to determine what additions or detractions from scripture are acceptable?

Sherman,

Tell me what in the Nicene Creed is not obvious from the scriptures.

SheikBen wrote:Sherman,

Tell me what in the Nicene Creed is not obvious from the scriptures.

Like I said, the "Tri-une God" was very much a matter of debate. Hence the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father AND the Son. Many had a different hierarchy in their minds, although they read the same Bibles.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/godsreligion/p/aa082499.htm

"Homo Ousion (same substance) vs. Homoi Ousion (like substance):
The sticking point at the Nicene Council was a concept found nowhere in the Bible: homoousion. According to the concept of homo-ousion, Christ the Son was consubstantial (sharing the same substance) with the Father. Arius and Eusebius disagreed. Arius thought the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were materially separate from each other, and that the Father created the Son.
Arius and his followers, the Arians, believed if the Son were equal to the Father, there would be more than one God. The opposing Trinitarians believed it diminished the importance of the Son to make him subordinate to the Father."

All these "legalisms" are contrary to Jesus' teachings imo.

He said the highest Commandments were to love God with all your heart, etc. and love your neighbor as yourself.

"On these two Commandments hang all the Law and Prophets".

Not to be caught up in recitations, chants, and other superfluous legalisms.

I don't see any legalism in the Nicene Creed, Sherm. You'll have to show that part to me.

As to Craig's charge, sure there are divisions, but that does not mean that they are legitimate ones.

Blasphemy to the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Bible as unforgiveable. Certainly not any subservience there to the Father and the Son.

Jesus Christ accepted worship, forgave sins, and was proclaimed as Thomas "Lord and God."

Nicea was necessary to clear up divisions, but not because they were good ones. Why do political parties have platforms, Craig? If I had a movement of conservative Democrats (which of course exist) and was beginning to make inroads in the national party (which is happening and the progressives are noticing, see salon.com), would not the Democratic Platform be quite clear that "we" did not speak for them?

Well I do not/would not compare Christianity to a political party.

When you have a recitation or chant with a list of prequisite beliefs which must be accepted other than an acceptance of Jesus and His teachings well then I disagree with that.

To me that is manmade legalism.

why?

Thou shalt not kill. Yet you don't have a problem with voting for politicians who favor abortion on demand into the 3rd trimester, for minors without consulting the parents (or police if under the age of consent), for married women without notifying the husband.

How closely are you following those commandments?

Stephanie wrote:Thou shalt not kill. Yet you don't have a problem with voting for politicians who favor abortion on demand into the 3rd trimester, for minors without consulting the parents (or police if under the age of consent), for married women without notifying the husband.

How closely are you following those commandments?

Who are you directing those remarks to, Stephanie?