By the way, this is off topic, but I can see someone making this argument as to matters of faith, but the Church has a terrible record in the morals department. And I don't just mean the sex abuse scandals, but that's part of it.

The Church is also just wrong on a bunch of moral issues. Two of the biggest are condoms and divorce. The combination of those two means that an African woman whose husband contracts HIV cannot demand that he use a condom when he has sex with her and also cannot leave him for an HIV-negative, non-cheating sex partner.

The Church is dead wrong on non-marital sex. Following the Church's teachings means that people go into a marriage having no idea what they are doing in bed and no idea if their partner will be a fish in bed.

The Church is dead wrong on gays and lesbians. The Church is dead wrong on contraception. The Church is dead wrong on masturbation. The Church is wrong on stem cell research.

(The Church is wrong on abortion too, but that one, I will admit, is at least a tougher question. But the Church even denies that rape and incest victims or women whose lives are in danger can directly procure abortions, so I think that counts as a grave error as well.)

If the Church is actually inerrantly transmitting the word of God on moral issues, than that just proves that God is a complete imbecile.

By the way, since I'm bagging on the "morality" stuff, I want to also put in a good word for this response. This is a person with faith coming to grips with what really happened and just saying "look, I have faith that God guided them". There's nothing at all wrong with saying that, and it's a lot better than the believers who come on here and swear that there's plenty of evidence in the physical and historical record that makes it clear that they got the canon completely correct.

Christianity, in the end, is a matter of faith, and the people who admit that and maintain their faith are being a lot more honest with themselves than the ones who are constantly arguing that the historical record lends support to their beliefs.

Lawdude, are you a Christian sir?

Nope, agnostic.

He would like to give you some literature.

If I were agnostic, I would completely agree with your beliefs (and did about 3 years ago.)

However, since I believe there is a Christian God, I must look at morals from a new perspective, in a world with a loving God. And imho the Catholic morals are much more consistent with this belief than other denominations.

For one example, many denominations beileve in 'once saved always saved' or 'sola-fide' and can do whatever actions they want since justification has nothing to do with sanctification. If they have faith they are saved even without works. I find this idea incoherent.

Well wait a minute, now you are accepting something as Canon in order to justify why you accept it as Canon. Would one not have to demonstrate that John ought to be Canon before you could accept John as inspired scripture? In other words, is it not circular to accept what is written in John as justification as to how the bishops were able to identify what is Canon if the very question is how they were able to identify that John ought to be Canon in the first place?

How do we know John is Canon? The bishops stated it.
How do we know the bishops got it right? John is Canon.

I find it incoherent too. I have my issues with "saved by works" too, but it certainly makes more sense that moral individuals would be saved than that those who guess right as to which religion is correct get saved. Certainly more consistent with the concept of a just God (although I would argue universal salvation would be even more so).

Yes. Absolutely.

You left out the part of why they accepted John in the first place.

This is where Tradition comes in. The gospels were already being accepted by most. The Bishops were tasked with weeding out the bad books and selecting the Canon, and one of the Gospels they chose involves the Spirit guiding into all truths, sort of reaffirming the idea of the Church creating a canon in the first place.

This is somewhat circular still, and it takes faith. However, all Christians do accept John as part of the Bible so it is not exactly an issue for the Church to have to defend against other Christians.

Thanks for your input into this thread.

It is OK.

You have been selected for our Capture, Tag, and Release Program.

This isn't really true. Part of the reason for the Canon was all the different sects like Marcionism (which didn't use John) and all the different books they followed. The Church wanted to put an end to those "heretical" sects and writings.

If you would read my other posts I explained that the canon was not accepted by all. Maybe I shouldn't have said 'most' either, since I don't know how many actually accepted it.

Im not so sure about most either. But Marcionism was pretty big and along with the many other sects i would guess the orthodox Church was in the minority and if not at was at least close.

Sorry i didn't read your other post. It just seemed like you were trying to say the Gospels were all pretty much accepted.

Disputes over religious text lagged for days and with the urging of Constantine the council proceeded to discuss a system of validation for the writings. Constantine had very little knowledge of the writings or of the religion in fact, he was a life long pagan and only converted to Christianity late in life. The council decided to focus on the writings that held popular truth. Writings that contained elements that all could agree upon were validated. The council did not review all writings but the writings that failed to meet the set standards of the council, were burned by the emperor. Many believe that this was done by Constantine because he felt once the center of the argument were no longer around then they could no longer cause disputes. This action enraged many in the church and leaders felt Constantine had no authority to destroy their sacred texts. To this day, historians and theologists believe that many books of supposed prophets were lost here.

[ ] Inspired

Here is another example of their divine inspiration:

Constantine gradually became more lenient toward those who the Council of Nicaea had exiled. Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. Athanasius was exiled following his condemnation by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 (though he was later recalled), and the Synod of Jerusalem the following year restored Arius to communion. The emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius, despite the bishop's objections; Bishop Alexander responded by earnestly praying that Arius might perish before this could happen. As it turned out—for whatever reason—one day before the Sunday appointed for Arius to be formally readmitted to communion, he suddenly died.

Socrates Scholasticus (a detractor of Arius) described Arius's death as follows:

It was then Saturday, and...going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian [Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant here] partisans like guards, he [Arius] paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.

Many Nicene Christians asserted that Arius's death was miraculous—a consequence of his allegedly heretical views. Several scholarly studies suggest instead that Arius was actually poisoned by his opponents.

I did not leave it out, it is the very thing I am asking. Why did they accept John as inspired scripture in the first place? Is it simply because most Christians already accepted it? That does not seem like a good way to deduce which were truly inspired and which were not to me.

John spits baptismal flames yo

uhm, seriously, my favorite book