Re: HUMOR: Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional!

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jun 29 2002 - 03:01:16 MDT


Max More wrote:
> At 06:53 PM 6/28/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> THere are many protestant sects which do not accept the divinity of
>> jesus. The alleged divinity of the guy has been probably THE major bone
>> of contention among christian sects since before the Council of Nicea.
>
>
> They may *say*, but I think they should not be considered Protestants at
> all. They can't really be considered Christians even. The early Church
> did have protracted and heated discussions about exactly what it meant
> to talk about "the son of God". However, as a matter of good cognitive
> practice we should stick to the usage according to which a Christian are
> all and only those who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. [To

I don't think so. The early Christians didn't necessarily have
this belief. It took the Catholic Church 3 or 4 centuries to
sort out what they thought dogma should be in this regard. The
Catholic take cannot be said to reasonably subscribe
non-Catholic Christianity. It is not good cognitive practice to
drop the complexity of the real situation for something easier.

> make this more lively, read each instance of this name in a deep,
> booming Southern accent -- "Jay-sus Chrasst!!"] After all, what is a
> CHRIST-ian otherwise?
>
> I think that to be considered a Christian, someone needs to believe more
> than that J.C. was a really cool kind of guy.
>

Actually, they need to seek to be Christ-like, to follow the
purported teachings of Christ. All of this other stuff is
derivative from this or that sect.

- samantha



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:05 MST