I find it difficult to believe that just because a group of individuals claimed to have authority over the creation of a concept somehow they, de facto, had that authority.

If by "official" we mean, "whoever first decided to use the word and define it or concept and structure it," then fine.. but I'm not educated enough in linguistics to argue very in-depth.

Prescriptive definition of the word "Christian" is much different and more generally applied than what is placed here-- therefore, I do not know what to call this other than a descriptive one.

I now deem the word "tort" to be synonymous with "donut." So let it be written, so let it be done.

Furthermore, by what is written here, not any of the protestant churches are "Christian." I would find this a very odd position to hold that merely because mine, or others, fail to adhere to the concept of apostolic succession that we are somehow not "Christian".. although, obviously, a defendable position might be held on some grounds of non-relevance or technical argument of "first dibs."

Jmm,

I don't know if it will please you to hear me say this, but deism is a very common intermediate step between conventional theism and atheism. I don't know of many people who have left Christianity and gone straight to atheism, as a matter of fact. Most of the people I know who left Christianity came to the realization that the Christian god was either a lie or an insane son-of-a-bitch, and then took much longer to come to grips with the reality that religion in all cases is a lie.

I seldom talk about my personal experience with religion, because I don't like people to be swayed by anecdotes. That's how people get into religion. I'd rather they use logic to get out. However, I think it might trip some of your logic circuits to know some of my history.

As a musician, I've played in almost every denomination you can think of in the south. Everything from "Holiness" pentecostal to Lutheran, to Baptist, to Methodist, to Catholic, and all points in between. My upbringing was Southern Baptist. I was raised as a quasi-fundamentalist, believing for many years that the bible was inerrant. I was taught to believe in demon possession at a young age. (Those scars took a long time to heal, but that's another topic.)

As I grew up, my beliefs mellowed as my family moved to less fundamentalist churches. Nevertheless, I regularly attended "healing services" and revivals, and was constantly being taught about the "science of the bible."

When I moved out on my own, I retained Christianity, but sought out more liberal churches with a less rigid view of the bible, and a more open mind for things like evolution and modern science. I was, like you, a doubting Thomas... a skeptic.

Gradually, I drifted away from the idea of strict Christianity, and although I professed it as my religion, I secretly doubted that Jesus was the only way a person could get to heaven. That doubt soon turned to outright disbelief. As I learned about other religions, and became exposed to new philosophies -- and particularly when I started reading real philosophy instead of apologetics -- I began to lean heavily towards deism. It just seemed impossible to believe that god could possibly be such an arrogant twat as Christians portrayed him.

I could not get past a few things:

1) Where did the universe come from? There had to be a creator. I just couldn't believe that matter/energy had just always existed.

2) What is the purpose of existence, if there is no god?

3) How do you explain the unexplainable? Don't people sometimes experience miracles?

The last one was actually the hardest for me to get through. A few books on Cosmology cured me of my distress over the origins of the universe.

Number two, well, that one took a while as well. The answer wasn't apparent to me until after I became an atheist, actually. It seems odd to say that I didn't have all the answers to those questions when I became an atheist, but I didn't. I simply knew that god was not the answer. I didn't know what the answer was.

So, numbers two and three. The two big stumbling blocks for me, that kept me in agnosticism/deism for several years before my brain was far enough away from Christianity to see clearly. Yep. That's the big point I'm getting to, tucked neatly away in the middle of a "personal testimony." It took me some time outside of theism to recognize the mental circuitry that had been closed off while I was a theist.

I thought of myself as an extremely open minded individual, and thought theism gave me the widest possible path to consider all the options. In reality, I was.... (drum roll) ... brainwashed. I couldn't even comprehend the logic that rendered me a mental slave to the god concept.

How did I make it out, despite being brainwashed? I don't know. If I knew, I'd probably already have a book published and be speaking at psychology conventions. I attribute it to a few things. How I decided these things, I'm not sure, honestly. First, when I left Christianity, I determined that never again would I believe something because I wanted it to be true. Second, I decided that knowledge is power, and that I wanted to learn everything that I could. Third, I recognized that if there is no god, then we are just animals -- very smart animals, but animals nonetheless. I recognized that attributing something "special and different" about homo-sapiens was to commit the kind of error that contributes to the theist mindset (brainwashing). I determined to learn about sociology/psychology, and put everything through the filter of completely natural, evolved creatures, without any special pleading for "humanity's special place in the universe."

The first result of those decisions was that over a few years, I became really, really good at "reading people" and predicting human behavior. (I'm not proud of this, but to demonstrate to a friend who believed in astrology that it was all hogwash, I became an expert astrologer in less than a week, and successfully wowed everyone at a party with my uncanny and eerilly accurate knowledge of their innermost secrets, based entirely on their star-sign... which was, of course, just good cold reading.)

The second thing that happened was that I gradually became aware that the very foundation of theism is flawed. We've talked about this at length, so I won't say it all again.

My point... the one thing I want you to get from all this personal information... is that I didn't enter atheism "knowing all the answers." Hell, there's a lot I don't know now. But! It took me literally years to be able to look back on myself in my theist days and recognize that mental filters were turned off!

When I was a theist, I swore up and down that I questioned everything, that I was open to any answer, and that I had seriously thought through my beliefs, and that they were perfectly valid! I got mad when atheists told me I was brainwashed. I defended myself valiently! I explained that I wasn't like other theists. I really had thought about it.

The embarrassment I felt when I realized, years later, that they were right... that I had been brainwashed... that was one of the things that led me to activism. I can't help that people have been brainwashed, but if I can lessen the power of religion, then the next generation will have less people who have to go through what I did. It's been very difficult for me to live with the knowledge of what I was when I was a theist. I recognize now that a large portion of my life, I was dishonest with myself because I couldn't even comprehend the logic necessary to attain self honesty.

Ok, jmm. That's all. I'm sorry to make you read so much. I hope it means something to you.

Textom:  so you're holding me to the authoritarian dogma of the 4th century...with authoritarian dogma?  That's interesting, but it further solidifies my point that it's easier to hold Christians to the archaic caricatures than to actually address their points.  It's the 21st century, man.  Things are changing, and faith is not immune to these changes. 

Hambydammit:  I really do appreciate your lengthy response.  It's probably no mystery that our interactions inspired this thread, and I'm glad that you didn't take any offense.  You're my favorite poster on these boards.  You're one of the smartest people I've ever talked to on the internet, and you're also a great communicator of ideas.  The more you reveal to me, the more it seems like we have a great deal in common.  I'll respond in further detail to your post after work, but I'd just like to say that I hope we can continue our dialog into the future.  

Eight Foot Manchild:  I think you need to reread my post.  You've gotten a few key things switched around that I honestly don't have time at the moment to clear up myself.  

Thanks for the replies, everyone.  I'll respond to each of you in greater detail as time allows. 

...the question is not whether this is true-- this seems to be almost tautological.

The question is "what is the doctrine of the christian faith" or even if there is one.

One cannot merely state it, de facto, as so-- there must some argument for the position if it is a position you wish to take.  Like Textom could have (I don't believe he has) taken the position that Christian Doctrine was settled by the Council of Nicea, never to be legitametly taken from again because... X.

Without an argument, whatever assertion there is about what is a necessary doctrine of Christian Faith is merely that, an assertion. 

(Disclaimer: I didn't read all of the replies)

We know that if you believe in the Christian God, then you are brainwashed. If you have your own beliefs in god, then you are not brainwashed... you are just making explanations for the unknown. My goal as an atheist is to get rid of religion, not the belief in god itself. When we say "God does not exist" we are refering to the God related to that religion. When we say "prove that god exist" we are asking for you to prove your God of religion exist.

It is possible for a god to exist, but I chose not to believe in it... just like you chose not to believe aliens are reading your mind right now. If you want to beleve in god, just do it without being part of a manipulative religion.

Rhad, you're treating the Nicean Creed as though it were some forgotten footnote to Christian history.

In fact, the Nicene Creed is the founding statement of the Christian church. Before Nicea, there was no official definition of what it meant to be "Christian."  The purpose of the council was to define the parameters of the religion, and the creed has been used continuously to define Christianity ever since.

Even where some denominations (like protestants) have different definitions for words like "catholic" and "apostolic," they still accept these rules as the defining characteristics of their religion.  Many churches still routinely recite the "Apostle's Creed" as a part of regular services. Even where denominations aren't formally familiar with these rules, they're interwoven into the doctrines that are taught.

I find it amazing the number of Christians who think that the definition of Christianity is open to interpretation--or that the version their church uses is different from the one defined at Nicea.  Unless you belong to a really obscure sect, your Christian church uses this definition of Christianity too.

(Note that the word "catholic" here is the small "c" version, which means "all-inclusive."  Even so, many protestant sects eliminate that line from their own versions of the Apostle's Creed to avoid confusion.)

I realize that.  I didn't mean to imply that "catholic" was "Catholic."  But "apostolic" really does have a strong and probably intended implication regarding aposotlic sucession, papal authority, ecclessiastic authority, etc.

There is a strong difference of opinion regarding this and other christian denominations.

I'm reading is a group of individuals who individuals who, if anything, got together to centralize authority with regards to the "Christian Faith."

I just disagree that they had that authority in the first place.. and certainly not control over the word.

I'd hate to think I'd have to create a new word like... "Jesusiate" merely because they copyrighted or used it first.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure this is a problem:

I don't think the Council said:

Christianity, def.: X

Merely i think people say that what they established WAS the basis for what we call now the Christian Faiths.

Which is probably true, since all Christian faiths pretty much derived from the Catholic one.

That is, once again, not saying that they have any authority on what IS christianity and therefore what I must believe or distinguish myself from in order to accurately call myself a Christian.

This is especially true for those whom profess to believe in the authority of the bible as opposed to the authority of the church.

  Nevertheless, I suppose I can understand your argument, and even accept it-- I have no problems being called something other than a Christian.   Someone can call me a Bloofog if they want.. I'm not really sure how it would affect things much accept that people might get confused along the lines of this:

"Wait, you're a bloofog but you believe that an individual named Jesus lived around 30 AD, preached, died, resurrected, and in someway is connected to divine manifestation of the God somehow spoken of within what Christians now call the Old Testament? So why aren't you a Christian?"

Heh. When I said "word" I did not mean "Word," as in the sense of the Bible.

I meant "word" as in the "word" or "label" of "Christianity" or "Christian."

Same words. Different interpretation. While their "authority" formed the Bible, this is not to say that their interpretation of that Bible was the "authority" on the Bible.

That's if to say that the one who first compiled the Illiad or the Odyssey has the authoritative word on what it means.

I disagree with the whole thing! I would never profess to agree with writing professing to solidify what I believe should always be open to change, understanding of "God."

So.. I disagree with the creed on principle.

Especially one with language saturated with ambiguity.

e.g.

etc. 

    Well basically the foundation of the christian faith and church are based on these tenants, you can say it has changed, although the word of god changing when it is supposedly to stand unchanged for the rest of time (wait that's the OT and the NT changes things....go figure)  So how does one say i don't agree with the foundation of the church and of the christian faith with things that supposedly are not changeable? Science does not say it is unchangable, it does not adhere to strict unbending rules, it changes as the evidence changes and as new knowledge is aquired, science and faith are 2 different things altogether.

    As well the tenants are the foundation of the christan faith, the pillars of the church and what the entire christian faith comes from the same basic foundation of those tenants (although we have different sects, cults etc of the chrsitianity). Then again, the catholic church does state that it is the only one true church and no other belief system in christianty can consider itself a church of god, this a different topic altogether. So really are you a catholic? if not your not a christian (well if we take this arguement from the pope to be true)

Who said that? The Council of Nicea? Or some other group of individuals that claimed like authority?

While absolute truth, by definition, is not changeable-- I, and I would presume many others as well, do not claim to have such a grasp on it to claim that what they have is unchangeable.

I don't "need" a god.  I'm just strongly compelled to believe in one.   

Yes, of course, you must proselytize to the unbelievers, mustn't you? This is actually pretty amusing. Your actions contradict your words, my friend. "I have no reason to proselytize, yet I proselytize." Whether you recognize it or not, that's p and not p. I thought you guys were supposed to like basic logic? Especially, y'know, in the Rational Response Squad.

Read John 3:16.

Peace.

Seriously, dude. Read some of what I've written before you embarrass yourself.

Peace.

To me, as a Freethinker, I don't really put much worry in the flavors of Christianity that are just confused about things and would rather privately believe in some tales. 

I stand in opposition to people, who under the banner of Christianity (or any dogmatic religion), use it to champion irrational policy, elect nitwits to office, start/perpetuate wars, impede scientific discoveries that could help all of humanity, corrupt schools or promote racism/sexism.  

To me, the particular denomination or sect doesn't matter, if you're causing or increasing the suffering of others and use a god or sacred text as an excuse, that excuse isn't good enough and I am your opponent.