How do we place science first when agnosticism claims that science does not prove God?

Sure, you can interpret the creeds how you like, but it’s hard to be a Christian without reference to them. Believing in God is not Christianity. Christianity has Christ in it, and you don’t get there from science.

I think Laura’s point holds. There is a different between claiming agnosticism as your religious worldview and claiming to be agnostic about specific Christian claims.

Agreed, I should have used the Nicene Creed. I was thinking at the time that the Apostle’s Creed was even more basic.

3 Likes

I guess since I don’t hold the creeds in any significant light they just don’t play a role in my faith. The creeds could have completely disappeared and it would not affect my faith. Same as the positions held by Sadducees or Pharisees are not pivotal for my own faith.

For me all a creed is ultimately is nothing more or less than the opinions a handful of people slander on. Much like “ what we believe “‘sections on some website.

Or ask the pope. He has zero influence in my life. His opinion means nothing more to me than the opinion of street preacher screaming does. I mean every christian claims their beliefs are based on the Bible and almost every belief has a tradition and scholars behind it. But if the pope, or some creed from a specific place and time is really important to you then it is. Just like the KJV is super important to some.

I seem to regularly lose sight of that. I recognize I have faith positions from outside of Christianity but I don’t think they would qualify as credal if that implies professing a set of beliefs essential to joining a tribe. From within such a tribe I can appreciate how self describing as agnostic overall would not be tenable. In my own case while I recognize what could be described as faith positions, I don’t feel I can ever bring them into such distinct focus that I would forswear revisions. I believe that does make me what could be called broadly agnostic regarding religious sentiments.

1 Like

Yes there is.

God sacrificed His own son. If Jesus had no actual physical connection to God then this is not true and Jesus becomes nothing better than a human sacrifice.

Richard

I don’t see any logic there. Christs sacrifice counted because he never sinned.

Personally I am indifferent on the subject of the virgin birth.

Since conception only requires fertilization not sexual intercourse I see no problem with a miraculous virgin birth. We would expect that level of the miraculous in something so important to God’s providence.

But I don’t buy into the rational of RichardG that it must be a virgin birth because I don’t believe blood sacrifice has any power regardless of the nature of the lamb/person’s birth. I reject such a literal treatment of that metaphor for the atonement. This is not about some kind blood sacrifice magic spell or God’s inability to forgive without magical help. That is just total nonsense as far as I am concerned. (link to previous discussion)

But the belief that Jesus is God is central to the Christian religion. Or as the Nicean creed puts it: “of the essence of the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God.” But for me the point was God, in every way, physically, spiritually, and experientially, coming down to where we are, in order to achieve reconciliation with His children. It is the ultimate meaning of God’s grace that He comes to us in order to lift us up.

For this, I see no great importance in the virgin birth. But neither am I opposed to the possibility. It seems reasonable to me. I don’t see any need or reason to be skeptical or cynical about this.

Christianity is a religion of Jesus being God become man, Jesus is a prophet, and certainly not one of Jesus being a man become God.

But then I don’t think beliefs are any kind of lynch pin for salvation. It is just what I judge to be correct. I don’t think it even affords me any kind of advantage even if what I believe is right.

1 Like

Not the creed originally agreed to in 325 AD.

Some have changed the creed and still call it the “Nicean creed,” but no it is not in the orginal agreement of 325 AD. This is typically the 381 AD revision in the council of Constantinople which includes the virgin birth.

We use the “final draft” of the Nicene Creed, which church ecumenical councils agreed to. Except for the “filioque” part concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, it has united the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants.

2 Likes

That may be… but I see no reason to exclude any of the others agreeing to first and not the second. Ever since there first ecumenical council there have been many many more councils and creeds chopping off more and more sectors of Christianity. And I am not buying into any of that.

If you fit that first definition of Christianity in 325 AD then I consider the requirements of honesty fulfilled and the all the later indulgences in excluding others who don’t believe quite the same way can just go hang themselves. To be sure most of the splits in Christianity happened a bit later, like in the council of Chalcedon 451 AD causing the separation of Oriential Orthodoxy. But the principle of sticking to the first agreement as the most minimal definition of the Christian religion remains a valid argument. And… the 325 AD creed is sufficient to distinguish other religions like Islam from Christianity.

This is not to endorse heresies like Apollinarianism being fought against by the council of Constantinople and those coming later. But often such efforts can exclude more they should.

Yes it does.

1 Like

Is there anybody except you who agrees to the first ecumenical council and not the second?

The Nicene Creed unites Christians. But what do you think of the Reformation? Was it good or bad? It certainly divided Christians.

Who said that was my viewpoint?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son…

Son, not servant, or some sort of adoption, or empowerment.

I do not care how you view salvation,(the atonement) but if God is the provider then Jesus is not just a man, Otherwise, our salvation comes from man, not God! It’s as simple as that.

Richard

Perhaps it is the same person who says this declaration of my belief equates to a declaration of your belief - some person in your imagination.

If you want more explanation then follow the link

Jesus was just a man. That is what 100% human means. Jesus was God - 100% God. God chose to become a man. God can do that. Jesus being 100% man and 100% God means God can become just a man. The virgin birth is irrelevant. Just because we have a virgin birth doesn’t mean the baby is more than a man – not woman either. And God is perfectly capable of becoming just a man or just a woman without a virgin birth.

Irrelevant. Doesn’t mean I am going to go along with the lie that this was the agreement made in Nicea.

Let me repeat., for both of you.

I have no problem with the teaching of a virgin birth (though this doesn’t mean I am going to accept the arguments of those who believe it), and NO I am not going to accept this dogma as a criterion for whether someone is a Christian or not. Get over it.

Are you reading Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code?

btw, you are free to believe whatever you like, of course.

No so much. I believe it defines Christianity. That is all.

Good. Diversity is a good thing, healthy, a sign of life. And I think the evangelical movement was like a second reformation. Also good.

It’s been ages since I read that one. I also read “Angels & Demons” and “Inferno.” I like the second book most – the ambigrams were cool. But it is all total fiction, of course.

The creeds unite Christians in a shared belief.

You mean like the word “tools” unites so many devices at a shared location in the hardware store?

There are lot of Christians who never heard of the Nicene creed. It is not a universal practice to recite them in all churches, you know.

But if you tell them about it and read it to them, many will understand that they believe what it says. Some you might have to explain it to them first. Some you might have to work harder to convince them it means the same as the way they were taught. Some might get stuck on the parts which cannot be found in the Bible.

Abstract unity? Maybe.

A person born from the conjugation of two humans is not God. So how do you propose to make Jesus so?
(And throwing in the Trinity citation that you know I adhere to is not helpful)
The virgin birth makes Jesus unique and it is Scriptural, so why are you denying it?
According to Scripture the spirit of God caused the pregnancy.

Richard

I see no reason to accept such a premise.

I can do no such thing. But I do not understand why you think you can limit God to being incapable of this.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not know what you adhere to. I only know what I believe.

Certainly not any more. Others wonder and doubt if it was ever that unique.

I am not denying it. Quite the contrary. Some people do dispute this understanding of the text. But as I have explained repeatedly… I could care less. I see very little significance to this either way. I see no contradiction with science. The miracle seems quite possible to me. But no I don’t see any great theological necessity for it either.

Yes and according to scripture God created the world. Neither lend a shred of proof to any of the speculations or scriptural interpretations people may have regarding how God accomplished either of these two things. I don’t believe in magic or violations of the laws of nature. So I think both of these happened according to natural law. And according to the Bible Jesus lineage is traced through Joseph. I see no reason to go along with your pick and choose dismissals of parts of the Bible to support your interpretations.

I know, and there are all kinds of churches out there, Unitarian, LDS, etc. But the vast majority of Christians use it or at least know of it.

As for the virgin birth, the Apostles’ Creed includes it. The Apostles’ Creed is used in mainline churches as the covenant for the sacrament of Baptism. The candidates for baptism (or sponsors in the case of an infant) profess it as part of the ceremony.

Again, you don’t have to accept any of this, of course.

1 Like