Should Unbelievers Say the Apostle's Creed And The Nicene Creed In Their Worship Services ?

[Luce NDs]

As an aside, we're providing a free platform for some unnamed Christian AI engine that unsafe has refused to identify. I don't understand how everyone else seems okay with this.

Carry on.

It has something to do with divine schism of two essences that are near nihil ... as nihilism where somebody believe is doing something with nothing that is logic ... god, love is like that and debases the intellect ... the thing falls right off the column ... those on the adjacent pedestrals simply look down ...

It is the way in the descending order of great conflict that destroys anything physical ... a mortal trend!

Takes some extraneous philosophy to grasp that in the distance ... tough stuff if not ruagh ... stormy Eire ...

 

[unsafe]

If AI is wrong then Maybe GordW can clarify what Ai has wrong -------and give us his true knowledge on this -----so-called) consensus of the first 5 centuries

 

[Mendalla]

If AI is wrong then Maybe GordW can clarify what Ai has wrong -------and give us his true knowledge on this -----so-called) consensus of the first 5 centuries

Let's be clear, AI is a glorified search engine, not some godlike authority. It is only as good as its prompt and the material it finds. And studies have already shown that AI searches on controversial topics tend to produce answers biased to the asker. So an AI search is not an authority or even something citeable. A student who wrote an essay and based their entire thesis on a bunch of a AI responses would get a failing grade. You need actual citations from reputable human sources, not AI slop, to make a case.

And that's all leaving aside the problem that in matters of religion and spirituality, it's a subjective field without reproducible hypotheses like in physics or chemistry. So any source supporting your position likely can be countered with a source supporting some other position.

 

[JayneWonders]

re the original question:

There can be a certain comfort, like reciting a well known poem, or singing a song in community.

It's not so much the words, as it is the rhythm.

I ask, should a child be able to say them, if they don't know all the meanings?

What if you haven't explored them in great depth, should there be levels of glow that surround you based on how holy you are?

 

[Mendalla]

re the original question:

There can be a certain comfort, like reciting a well known poem, or singing a song in community.

It's not so much the words, as it is the rhythm.

I ask, should a child be able to say them, if they don't know all the meanings?

What if you haven't explored them in great depth, should there be levels of glow that surround you based on how holy you are?

I imagine the answer is that a creed isn't just a well-known poem or song. It's a statement of faith and of the beliefs that are expected of those speaking it. So arguably, you can't just use it for comfort. It requires some kind of commitment. Not sure I agree with that given my agnosticism but I think that's what people like unsafe are getting at.

 

[unsafe]

AI is a glorified search engine, not some godlike authority.

I agree with that ----But Lets see what GordW say about what AI has printed out about what GordW has brought up -----GordW can Clarify what Ai has wrong -------I have never heard of this ----so-called) consensus of the first 5 centuries

So GordW must have the right information on it ===let him post it so all can be knowledgeable about what he brought up in his post ---i for one have never heard of it ---and would like to know ------so hoping he will give us his view on it ------

 

[GordW]

My point is that the "consensus" was an imposed consensus after the Imperial era of the church began and that it probably hid the amount of diversity that existed in the first century. When we as institutions decide there can only be one right answer to a question we walk on dangerous ground.

 

[Luce NDs]

My point is that the "consensus" was an imposed consensus after the Imperial era of the church began and that it probably hid the amount of diversity that existed in the first century. When we as institutions decide there can only be one right answer to a question we walk on dangerous ground.

Yet some will deny variations, differences and heresy as to them it appears as treason against their one way!

 

[unsafe]

My point is that the "consensus" was an imposed consensus after the Imperial era of the church began and that it probably hid the amount of diversity that existed in the first century. When we as institutions decide there can only be one right answer to a question we walk on dangerous ground.

Point taken -------But Where are you getting this from --------can you post a link because I have searched for this most of the day and Ai is the only one that I could find that really has any info on this -----

your saying this -----the "consensus" was an imposed consensus after the Imperial era of the church began---so where can one access this information ??????

You must have gotten this from somewhere --your not just making it up -----I am sure ---so tell us where to get this info from Please -----

 

[GordW]

It is basic church history. Got it from my church history course. SO I don't have a link to share (took that course 30+ years ago). THe question of whether or not Constantine started to impose uniformity on a diverse church is a matter of interpretation. Some scholars would say it was, some would say it wasn't. AS what you posted points out, the idea came up long after the four great ecumenical councils as a way to speak to divisions in the church, it hearkened back to a golden time when the church was united. Longing for some golden era in the past is a common human tendency in a variety of situations--even if the supposed golden era was not as golden as memory makes it.

ANother aspect of wanting to go back to the time when the church was supposedly united in a common consensus was that for PRotestants (or at least some) it was seen as a way to undo the things they called mistakes by the Roman church. Sort of in the same way that the REformers of the 16th century wanted to go back to some purer form of the faith.

My final year NT prof shared a story from his seminary days. Their church history prof was asked if there was ever a time when the church was one unified body. The answer "well maybe for the first 15 minutes". Christianity has always had more diversity of understanding and interpretation than some official sources would like to admit. Undoubtedly Constantine, seeing a state Christian religion as a way to help unify a divided empire would want more uniformity. The impact Constantine had on the church for better or worse had been a matter of debate for a long time.

 

[Luce NDs]

It is basic church history. Got it from my church history course. SO I don't have a link to share (took that course 30+ years ago). THe question of whether or not Constantine started to impose uniformity on a diverse church is a matter of interpretation. Some scholars would say it was, some would say it wasn't. AS what you posted points out, the idea came up long after the four great ecumenical councils as a way to speak to divisions in the church, it hearkened back to a golden time when the church was united. Longing for some golden era in the past is a common human tendency in a variety of situations--even if the supposed golden era was not as golden as memory makes it.

ANother aspect of wanting to go back to the time when the church was supposedly united in a common consensus was that for PRotestants (or at least some) it was seen as a way to undo the things they called mistakes by the Roman church. Sort of in the same way that the REformers of the 16th century wanted to go back to some purer form of the faith.

My final year NT prof shared a story from his seminary days. Their church history prof was asked if there was ever a time when the church was one unified body. The answer "well maybe for the first 15 minutes". Christianity has always had more diversity of understanding and interpretation than some official sources would like to admit. Undoubtedly Constantine, seeing a state Christian religion as a way to help unify a divided empire would want more uniformity. The impact Constantine had on the church for better or worse had been a matter of debate for a long time.

If heresy means different ... can we see how diversity came through as divine difference between soul and spirit ... one something and one something else like a hole somewhere ... nothing to it!

 

[unsafe]

It is basic church history. Got it from my church history course. SO I don't have a link to share (took that course 30+ years ago).

OK --Understand -----Thank You so much for your Reply -----really appreciate it ------

 

[Mendalla]

Their church history prof was asked if there was ever a time when the church was one unified body. The answer "well maybe for the first 15 minutes".

There's a brilliant satire of this in The Life Of Brian where various followers behind the reluctant messiah Brian keep splintering over things like his dropped shoe. So basically the movement splinters as fast as it forms. It ends with them attacking a desert hermit crying, "A HERETIC!" because he tried to stop them from eating from the bush he used for food, but which they tried to claim Brian created through a "miracle."

The Pythons have always made it clear that they aren't satirizing Christ but they are satirizing Christians. And do such a good job at times, too.