Respose on Creed

Thanks for your response. I don't know...I don't thinks it's wrong to call them to the carpet, they were wrong. "One" of the results of Nicaea was religious persecution, and much of it was persecution of Christians by Christians. It was steady and relentless and did not cease until those who believed differently were obliterated or forced to flee into the Parthian Empire or elsewhere. This deep rooted intolerance manifested itself again with the persecution of the Cathars and the Bogomils and others; it can even be seen in the Inquisition (Of course most Protestants would say that the Inquisition was over the top since they found themselves on the short end of that stick). Constantine supported these actions and perhaps even encouraged them. They could not have taken place under the umbrella of Imperial authority unless he had given the nod. Religious persecution is and was wrong in any guise. The so-called orthodox "Christians" turned on fellow Christians once they attained secular power almost immediately; it was not Christian behavior and was inexcusable.

I don't suggest that every group of worshipers need accept every mode of worship within its ranks; congregations and denominations should be free to decide who can join their church. But, they should be tolerant of others who want to worship differently from them at the church down the road. People who are following their own leadings and seeking after the Divine after the promptings of their own hearts. Nor, is it okay for one group to claim the mantle of Christianity exclusively and define others who believe or worship differently outside the pale and worse force them to convert or be subject to persecution. That is just what happened in late antiquity and still to some extent happens in Christendom today (not so much persecution, but defining individuals based on their acceptance of one sect's unique beliefs). The whole idea of a creed, any creed designed to identify what it means to be a Christian was a step down the wrong path.

You wrote, Thus, while the Nicene creed supported a view opposed to Arianism, and while Constantine desired that the church remain unified because it would be politically advantageous to him, the majority of the bishops present at the council really had no initial opinion on the matter, preferring to remain loyal to Tertullian's view of one substance, three natures (G, 164). And, as can be demonstrated by later history and the dominance of Arianism in practice in various regions, the disagreement about the nature of Jesus had to be worked out in practice, because a mandate from this council was not sufficient to convince the actual believers.

This is true, we agree, but I think we interpret it differently. I think the fact that the Bishops held to a different belief before Nicaea to be a condemnation of the whole process. They either caved in to political pressure from the Emperor or they threw their beliefs to the wind when the opportunity to attain secular power and wealth presented itself. Also, you are correct that Monophysite belief continued to be dominant in some areas, but this was not the result of acceptance or pluralism. It was because the secular and ecclesiastical authorities were unable to "force" them to adhere. The Monophysites survived due to their own tenacity, not any cessation of persecution or benign tolerance on the part of the authorities. The cruel treatment of their fellow Christians did come back to haunt the Orthodox when Islam marched through the Eastern provinces. The persecuted eastern churches fell to the invaders with little opposition. In fact, they had more religious freedom under the Caliphate than they did under the Empire. But, this was of little consolation to the unnumbered masses that fell under Imperial persecution.

I'm sorry, but I see most of what happened after Nicaea as wrong and a great tragedy. What we have is a case of the victors writing the history. And more than victors they were apologists. If we put ourselves in the place of the people that were persecuted by the Christian Empire, be they Pagan, Jew or non-orthodox Christians, it is difficult to find the silver lining. There is no need for every Christian to believe alike, there is no need for a common denominator, the Mystery of Christ is for the individual to interpret for themselves. We have to be willing to call a spade a spade. Many of the so-called orthodox Christians of the time were little better than fanatical, intolerant, savages. Look at the crazed monks did who attacked Hypatia. The histories of late antiquity are filled with barbarous acts of Christian against Jews, Christian against Pagan, and Christian against Christian. Much of this hatred and violence sprang forth from the well of the Nicene Creed. I am droning on....let me close by saying that all the apologetic rhetoric about their good intentions...and how they needed to figure it all out so they could know what happened in the after life, etc, all that is irrelevant. The Christians aided and abetted, and in many circumstances promoted the persecution of people who believed differently, many of them fellow Christians.

Whatever good some Bishops may have thought would come from the Nicene Creed was far outweighed by the religious persecution and violence that followed. The Creed was bad, it promoted intolerance and caused the deaths of countless believers and the world would have been a brighter place without it. What troubles me is now that we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight why do we still try to defend the whole idea. We as a society should be able to stand aloof and condemn it as a policy that did more harm than good to the community of believers.