I didn't really want to get involved in all this, as I am not an expert on the abstruse arguments used by the many sides of the many-faceted proponents of various religions and sects within those religions.

Mine is a basic sort of faith, a belief that there must somehow be a creator, maybe just a creator of the big bang. But with the ever-expanding universe - what is it expanding into? If there is nothing beyond space - what is that nothing? It's not a brick wall, not a vacuum. There is a lot of this that I just don't understand.

And I do believe in a sort of soul for mankind. And that people stay alive in the memories of those left behind. I'm hoping for something after death, in some fashion - but what it will be I have no idea.

But getting back to the politics of the early church - as I said earlier, Constantine was in discussions with the Christian Church to reconise a state religion for the Roman Empire (or what was left of it). He was based in Constantinople and was therefore closer to the beliefs and mores of the Asia Minor area than the western Mediterranean. The language of the Constantinople area was Greek, not Latin, (if you were educated) and the local religions included Judaism, Zoroastrianism and the older Greek gods, although such pantheism was fading. Judaism was not a real starter in this race, as one had to be born into the faith. No proselytation, no conversion.

So the race was basically between Christianity and Zoroastrianism - West -v- East. Zoroastrianism had a trinity of gods as the main tenet of belief, with multiple lesser gods. So christianity (the Cappadocian Fathers especially) did a Tony Blair / US President thingy, stuck their hands up and said 'Me too! Me, too! - we've got a trinity too.' Just to keep in the race.

Remember that the Roman military had worshipped Mithras - a Roman derivation of the Zoroastrian Mithra - one of the trinity. In Roman Mithraic belief Mithras was vborn from a rock, but in Zoroastrian belief he was born in a cave used for cattle. (A manger?)

In other Mithraic beliefs (he was pretty well universal in the Persian Empire, even when not couples with Zoroastrianism) he was born on 25th December, he had 12 disciples, he blessed a meal of bread and wine, so on.

And of course the Vatican is built over one of the Roman Mithras cult caves.

All the early development of Christianity drew heavily from other religions in the area, as Islam drew very heavily on Judaic beliefs in the areas around Mecca and M'dina - M'dina being a strongly Jewish city at that time.

Again - the split with the Eastern Church - as you say - the 'filioque' clause.

Used in the Nicene Creed as the Holy Sprirt coming from God and the son (latin 'filioque') and the Eastern Church does not accept this.

So my dates and such were wrong, but my basic understanding of the problem is OK (?).

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to as 'the problem'.

I don't see how it could be any clearer. One group was saying one thing while another group was saying something else, which was a problem.

And for me, it still is a problem and yet another gaping whole in the legitimacy of the whole thing.

Just because two sides can't agree doesn't make the entire issue illegitimate. Unless maybe BOTH sides are wrong.

Now there's an interesting idea.

However, having said that, I think the "Science" side of the debate would be the first to admit that since not all is known about the subject, there may indeed be a 3rd option.

Interesting post, HB. Now there's a topic for you... the interdependence of religions. Whether, of course, Christianity deliberately borrowed from Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Isis worship etc etc, or whether these religions had an imperfect vision of what was to be perfected in Christianity, we should never agree! Certainly the date of Christmas was borrowed, there being a winter solstice festival in many religions, and I am sure the popularity of the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary owes a lot to the fertility goddesses who crop up all over the Mediterranean. To suggest that Christianity sprung fully-armed from nowhere would be a mistake.

This talk of a third option puzzles me, though; either there is a God, or there is not a God. What is the third?

Interesting post, HB. Now there's a topic for you... the interdependence of religions. Whether, of course, Christianity deliberately borrowed from Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Isis worship etc etc, or whether these religions had an imperfect vision of what was to be perfected in Christianity, we should never agree! Certainly the date of Christmas was borrowed, there being a winter solstice festival in many religions, and I am sure the popularity of the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary owes a lot to the fertility goddesses who crop up all over the Mediterranean. To suggest that Christianity sprung fully-armed from nowhere would be a mistake.

This talk of a third option puzzles me, though; either there is a God, or there is not a God. What is the third?

The 3rd option....or rather, a third option, could be a non-corporeal (or at least non-terrestrial) intelligence that is "omniscient" (relatively) and that does perform "miracles" (from our perspective), and is perhaps not a single "he" or a "she", but a collective of individuals (an intergalactic mission comprised of a team of missionaries or scientists, perhaps)....the options are endless......but the bottom line (in the 3rd option scenario) is that there IS some sort of non-human intelligence that has been interfereing from time to time in our lives, and who has been interpreted by all deifying religions as a"god", but is not actually a god as defined by said religions, and is not exactly what the boffins have been alluding to either.

Again - the split with the Eastern Church - as you say - the 'filioque' clause.

Used in the Nicene Creed as the Holy Sprirt coming from God and the son (latin 'filioque') and the Eastern Church does not accept this.

So my dates and such were wrong, but my basic understanding of the problem is OK (?).

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to as 'the problem'.

I don't see how it could be any clearer. One group was saying one thing while another group was saying something else, which was a problem.

And for me, it still is a problem and yet another gaping whole in the legitimacy of the whole thing.

Just because two sides can't agree doesn't make the entire issue illegitimate. Unless maybe BOTH sides are wrong.

In this case it does

Just because two sides can't agree doesn't make the entire issue illegitimate. Unless maybe BOTH sides are wrong.

In this case it does

1. If two parties can't agree, it doesn't mean that both are wrong.

2. They may both be wrong....in which case there is a truth still to be discovered.

3. Speculation about that truth is just that; speculation.

Edit: Geez I get pissed off with editng to correct the "Allowed number of quotes" and "Mismatched opening and closing quotes" errors. I understand the need, but golly those rules can frustrate at times.

But it's the word of god. It is preached for generations as the word of god and therefore absolutely correct.

So how could there be any disagreement or speculation on it? Or is it just another metaphor?

But it's the word of god. It is preached for generations as the word of god and therefore absolutely correct.

So how could there be any disagreement or speculation on it? Or is it just another metaphor?

Not a metaphor...fallability of man, I suspect.

As far as interpretation of the Bible goes.....it has always been a matter of interpretation....is any interpretation correct?

But my point is, although you may be quite correct in claiming ....whatever it is you're claiming about religion (and I'm with you, wherever that may be), but that doesn't mean that your answer to the question (whatever the question may be) is correct.

I don't have an answer. For me it's probably a matter of "I don't know what it is, but I tend to think that I know what it's not".

I don't have an answer. For me it's probably a matter of "I don't know what it is, but I tend to think that I know what it's not".

Fair comment. We all have to make our own decision. If the Christian (or any other) faith could be proved, it would be largely worthless, because it would mean that the celestial intelligence (even your committee, Harcourt (you must have sat on too many of those in your time!)) could be comprehended by, and therefore was less complex than your or my intelligence. I do not expect to understand an omniscient and omnipotent God... simply because I am far from omniscient or omnipotent.

I don't have an answer. For me it's probably a matter of "I don't know what it is, but I tend to think that I know what it's not".

Fair comment. We all have to make our own decision. If the Christian (or any other) faith could be proved, it would be largely worthless, because it would mean that the celestial intelligence (even your committee, Harcourt (you must have sat on too many of those in your time!)) could be comprehended by, and therefore was less complex than your or my intelligence. I do not expect to understand an omniscient and omnipotent God... simply because I am far from omniscient or omnipotent.

I don't have an answer. For me it's probably a matter of "I don't know what it is, but I tend to think that I know what it's not".

Fair comment. We all have to make our own decision. If the Christian (or any other) faith could be proved, it would be largely worthless, because it would mean that the celestial intelligence (even your committee, Harcourt (you must have sat on too many of those in your time!)) could be comprehended by, and therefore was less complex than your or my intelligence. I do not expect to understand an omniscient and omnipotent God... simply because I am far from omniscient or omnipotent.

Take some Andrews' - might stop you repeating.

Take some Andrews' - might stop you repeating.

Is it still on sale.

Loved when a kid, add cordial and water, great fizzy drink.

Take some Andrews' - might stop you repeating.

Is it still on sale.

Loved when a kid, add cordial and water, great fizzy drink.

Isn't it the same as Eno? That's still on sale.

That's put a bit of fizz back in a rather tired old thread!!!

1. If two parties can't agree, it doesn't mean that both are wrong.

2. They may both be wrong....in which case there is a truth still to be discovered.

3. Speculation about that truth is just that; speculation.

....or 4. Truth has no absolutes, yet numerous variables.