|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 26, 9:04*pm, " wrote:
On Feb 26, 6:57*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 6:33*pm, " wrote: On Feb 26, 3:49*pm, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 26, 10:10*am, " wrote: On Feb 26, 9:21*am, "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: On Feb 25, 10:51*am, " wrote: FWIW, the Catholic resources I've looked at don't seem to limit their use of "Christian" to those who believe in the Nicene Creed. *Hardon's _Modern Catholic Dictionary_ says: Christian: A person who is baptized. A professed Christian also believes in the essentials of the Christian faith, notably in the Apostles' Creed. The Apostles' Creed is a later document. I've never noticed it included in a Missal. (But then, I haven't looked at a Missal in decades.) It's the creed usually said in Protestant churches (and also at Episcopal Morning Prayer) when a creed is recited. Historically, the content of the Apostle's Creed predates the Nicene Creed (its credos are found, for instance, in the writings of Irenaeus c. 200 AD, over a century before the Council of Nicea), though the precise wording used by modern churches has changed some since then. The Protestant version that you refer to, used by Episcopalean Churches among others, is a _much_ later formulation--it's also obviously not what the Catholic dictionary I quoted has in mind. Then perhaps you should say what you mean by "the Apostles' Creed" if you don't mean the Apostles' Creed. _I_ don't mean anything by the Apostle's Creed--it's the Catholic dictionary that uses "the Apostle's Creed" in the quoted definition, and (being Catholic) what they mean is quite clearly not a Protestant formulation. It ought to be pretty obvious that Catholics generally mean the Catholic version of the Apostle's Creed when they use that phrase. Once again you have not addressed the key point about the Nicene Creed and have instead dwelt on a tangent.- Did you have a "key point"? Yes: that the Nicene Creed is not used by all Christian churches. For some reason you deflected the discussion to the Apostles' Creed The introduction of the definition which mentioned the Apostle's Creed was completely responsive to the original question that involved me in this thread, not a deflection: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. I'm sure there are, and gave examples of Christians who may believe in the Nicene dogma but not use the creed (e.g. most Quakers--Mike Lyle pointed out that not all Quakers are Christians) and also of Christians who don't believe in the dogma of the Nicene creed at all (a long list, still available upthread). At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. I offered English definitions of "Christian", which include no mention of the Nicene Creed or Trinitarianism. *I also offered a Catholic dictionary definition as one example of how even the largest Christian denominations don't require belief in the Nicene creed to fall within their definition of "Christian": according to that Catholic definition, a Christian is one who a) is baptized and b) believes in the Apostle's Creed. For some reason, you then completely avoided the core point (that the definition of Christian used doesn't include any reference to the Nicene creed) and stated that the BCP version of the Apostle's Creed is newer than the Nicene creed. *I responded saying that the timeline is irrelevant, but also pointing out that the BCP version wasn't relevant to the definition of "Christian" cited. *You then asked what I meant by the Apostle's Creed, to which I replied that _I_ don't mean anything by it, I was citing a definition from a Catholic dictionary and so the relevant question is what _they_ mean by it (which is obviously the Catholic form). You still have no offered any definition of Christian, let alone explained why it might be a superior definition to that given in Webster's, or the OED, or a Catholic dictionary; in the absence of that, I'm not sure that there's anything left to debate regarding the original question. which you claim exists in Catholic- land as something other than the familliar Apostles' Creed. I find your use of "familiar" here somewhat baffling. *Do you mean more familiar to you? *If so, I'm not sure what the relevance is. *If not, the Catholic version is both older than and used by more people than the Book of Common Prayer version, so in general there's no reason to assume that it isn't the "familiar" version to most people. I'd personally avoid using that term, though, unless I were specifically discussing familiarity with respect to some group. The context should make the version used pretty obvious, anyway. *A Catholic dictionary is generally going to refer to Catholic forms, unless they're specifically discussing other faiths. *If someone quoted the Episcopalian dictionary, the Apostle's Creed would generally refer to the BCP version. I have still seen nothing, other than your assertion, to indicate that there's a "Catholic Apostles' Creed" that's different from the one in any Protestant prayer book. It's much like discussing the Bible--when a Catholic refers to the Bible, they're most likely referring to a book which includes the Book of Baruch (as one example). *When an Episcopalian is speaking, they probably mean a different version from which Baruch is excluded.- One day I happened to notice a plethora of Biblia Sacra's at the local Wal-Mart (in Secaucus) and got curious. Not one of them -- neither the traditional version dating from about the same time as the Douai version, nor recent translations -- contains what since Luther we have called the apocryphal books. Aren't most Spanish-speaking Americans Catholics? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:20:00 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. Although an atheist myself, I sometimes find myself in situations when the concept of "Christian" may need clarifying, especially since I also belong to Unitarian-Uniersalist church. To me, one is only a Christian if one believes that there was a Jesus Christ who was the son of God and who died to redeem the sins of [fill in the blank: everyone; the chosen; the confessed, etc.]. None of this "I believe Jesus had good ideas stuff". I'm sure there are, and gave examples of Christians who may believe in the Nicene dogma but not use the creed (e.g. most Quakers--Mike Lyle pointed out that not all Quakers are Christians) and also of Christians who don't believe in the dogma of the Nicene creed at all (a long list, still available upthread). At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. But you don't have to say it explicitly to be a Christian. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 2:39*am, Hatunen wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:20:00 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. Although an atheist myself, I sometimes find myself in situations when the concept of "Christian" may need clarifying, especially since I also belong to *Unitarian-Uniersalist church. To me, one is only a Christian if one believes that there was a Jesus Christ who was the son of God and who died to redeem the sins of [fill in the blank: everyone; the chosen; the confessed, etc.]. None of this "I believe Jesus had good ideas stuff". I'd basically agree with that definition, or something pretty close. Note that that definition would include a lot of faiths like Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, etc that don't believe in the Nicene Creed, because they think that Jesus was made when God impregnated the Virgin Mary, or that Jesus was God's son but was a separate being, or something else that contradicts Nicene Trinitarianism. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 2:39*am, Hatunen wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:20:00 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. Although an atheist myself, I sometimes find myself in situations when the concept of "Christian" may need clarifying, especially since I also belong to *Unitarian-Uniersalist church. To me, one is only a Christian if one believes that there was a Jesus Christ who was the son of God and who died to redeem the sins of [fill in the blank: everyone; the chosen; the confessed, etc.]. None of this "I believe Jesus had good ideas stuff". I'm sure there are, and gave examples of Christians who may believe in the Nicene dogma but not use the creed (e.g. most Quakers--Mike Lyle pointed out that not all Quakers are Christians) and also of Christians who don't believe in the dogma of the Nicene creed at all (a long list, still available upthread). At that point you claimed they are "by definition, not Christians". Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. But you don't have to say it explicitly to be a Christian. You have to accept it. You probably have to affirm it at Confirmation (if you were baptized as an infant) or at Baptism (if baptized as an adult). I wonder whether sjedvnull would be satisfied with, If you're baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then you're a Christian. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 5:23*am, " wrote:
On Feb 27, 2:39*am, Hatunen wrote: On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:20:00 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. Although an atheist myself, I sometimes find myself in situations when the concept of "Christian" may need clarifying, especially since I also belong to *Unitarian-Uniersalist church. To me, one is only a Christian if one believes that there was a Jesus Christ who was the son of God and who died to redeem the sins of [fill in the blank: everyone; the chosen; the confessed, etc.]. None of this "I believe Jesus had good ideas stuff". I'd basically agree with that definition, or something pretty close. Note that that definition would include a lot of faiths like Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, etc that don't believe in the Nicene Creed, because they think that Jesus was made when God impregnated the Virgin Mary, or that Jesus was God's son but was a separate being, or something else that contradicts Nicene Trinitarianism. And thus they're not Christians. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:39:25 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:20:00 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: The discussion was about whether there are Christians who don't use the Nicene creed. Although an atheist myself, I sometimes find myself in situations when the concept of "Christian" may need clarifying, especially since I also belong to Unitarian-Uniersalist church. To me, one is only a Christian if one believes that there was a Jesus Christ who was the son of God and who died to redeem the sins of [fill in the blank: everyone; the chosen; the confessed, etc.]. A denomination might be Christian only if it subscribes to "there was a Jesus Christ who was the son of God...", but "one" - the individuals who are of that denomination - are not non-Christians because they don't accept this particular bit as truth. One needn't accept the whole package to be part of a denomination. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Hatunen wrote: "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. But you don't have to say it explicitly to be a Christian. You have to accept it. You probably have to affirm it at Confirmation (if you were baptized as an infant) or at Baptism (if baptized as an adult). I wonder whether sjedvnull would be satisfied with, If you're baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then you're a Christian. Naah, I was baptized when I was sixteen (for convenience's sake, so as not to disappoint those who were helping our family immigrate into the USA), and for the same reason, I was confirmed in the Lutheran church after arrival in the States. I don't believe in any of that stuff, but what are you gonna do? It made our helpers happy, and no believers were harmed in the process. Why, I even joined the YMCA, as it was our official sponsor. The YMCA had great pool tables and a table tennis facility, so all was not lost. -- Skitt (AmE) What? Me Christian? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
On Feb 27, 2:21*pm, "Skitt" wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote: Hatunen wrote: "Peter T. Daniels" wrote: Sigh. The essence of Christian dogma is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. But you don't have to say it explicitly to be a Christian. You have to accept it. You probably have to affirm it at Confirmation (if you were baptized as an infant) or at Baptism (if baptized as an adult). I wonder whether sjedvnull would be satisfied with, If you're baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then you're a Christian. Naah, I was baptized when I was sixteen (for convenience's sake, so as not to disappoint those who were helping our family immigrate into the USA), and for the same reason, I was confirmed in the Lutheran church after arrival in the States. *I don't believe in any of that stuff, but what are you gonna But you said that you did, at either Baptism or Confirmation or both. If you had "mental reservation," as it's sometimes put, then presumably the sacraments were not legitimately performed. do? *It made our helpers happy, and no believers were harmed in the process. Why, I even joined the YMCA, as it was our official sponsor. *The YMCA had great pool tables and a table tennis facility, so all was not lost. I don't think you have to be Christian (or Young) to use the YMCA ... you certainly don't have to be Jewish (or male) to use the YMHA; the 92nd St. Y is one of New York City's great cultural institutions. (They don't seem to use the MHA in their name any more.) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The perpetual calendar
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
"Skitt" wrote: Peter T. Daniels wrote: I wonder whether sjedvnull would be satisfied with, If you're baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then you're a Christian. Naah, I was baptized when I was sixteen (for convenience's sake, so as not to disappoint those who were helping our family immigrate into the USA), and for the same reason, I was confirmed in the Lutheran church after arrival in the States. I don't believe in any of that stuff, but what are you gonna do? But you said that you did, at either Baptism or Confirmation or both. Yeah, well, when necessary I say all sort of things, especially when I don't take the happenings seriously. You know -- religious hocus-pocus and such. If you had "mental reservation," as it's sometimes put, then presumably the sacraments were not legitimately performed. And yet, I keep on living. It made our helpers happy, and no believers were harmed in the process. Why, I even joined the YMCA, as it was our official sponsor. The YMCA had great pool tables and a table tennis facility, so all was not lost. I don't think you have to be Christian (or Young) to use the YMCA ... Not to use, but there was some sort of commitment that had to be expressed to join the Y. you certainly don't have to be Jewish (or male) to use the YMHA; the 92nd St. Y is one of New York City's great cultural institutions. (They don't seem to use the MHA in their name any more.) I used to play table tennis also at Newman Hall in San Jose. Also at some sort of an Episcopal facility, when I was kicking around with the son of the then San Jose Police Chief (Blackmore). -- Skitt (AmE) What? Me religious? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The perpetual calendar | Andrew Usher | Astronomy Misc | 1189 | August 9th 11 07:43 PM |
Perpetual Gregorian Calendar | Mr. Emmanuel Roche, France | Astronomy Misc | 22 | November 24th 09 10:34 PM |
(More) Perpetual Motion Machines | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 3 | November 9th 09 03:35 PM |
The first perpetual motion machine | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | March 12th 08 10:13 PM |
Perpetual motion... | gb6726 | Astronomy Misc | 5 | November 12th 07 04:34 PM |