Refuted : Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus !

[The Irish Ram]

I'm not being confrontational, but I have to disagree. The difference is so important that the eternal lives of all of mankind depends on it. "No man gets to heaven but through me", is out of the mouth of the Son of God, the only one worthy to inherit the kingdom, and our planet.

We are discussing whether the religions of Islam and Christianity are devoted to the same God, not whether they are the same religion. Of course they are not.

As for the rest of your post, that's more angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. It's a HUGE mistake to suppose that you can even UNDERSTAND the teachings of Jesus without great mystical inspiration, and those who have gained that inspiration universally find that the similarities among religions outweigh the differences. All are dealing with realities that cannot be told, and as such, all of their teachings are metaphors. All, without exception. And how can it ever be said that one metaphor is "true" while another is "false"?

God is too big to fit into a little box. He will not fit under your hat. You can, metaphorically, say some things about what he IS. But in order to say what he is NOT, you would have to have more knowledge than is humanly possible.

There is a mystical group within Islam (which tends to this error every bit as much as Christianity) called the Sufis. The Sufis are the source of the story of the blind men and the elephant. That story goes like this, for those who haven't heard it:

Six blind men were curious about the nature of the elephant and found one and examined it to see what it was like.

One man stumbled against the elephant's broad side, and said, "The elephant is like a wall!" Another brushed against a tusk and said, "The elephant is like a spear!" A third grasped the animal's sturdy leg and said, "The elephant is like a tree!" A fourth laid hands on the ear, and said "The elephant is like a fan!" The fifth found himself holding the elephant's tail, and said "The elephant is like a rope!" And the last took hold of the trunk and said, "The elephant is like a snake!"

The blind men angrily began arguing with one another and beating each other with their canes, trying to suppress each other's heretical opinions -- when all of them were only partly right, and all of them wrong.

So it is with religions. There is no such thing as a true religion, because the truth cannot be told; it's beyond human language. The greatest spiritual teachers, including Jesus, have always understood this. That's why Jesus taught so often in parables.

Islam and Christianity are not the same religion, anymore than either of them is the same as Judaism, although all three of these are in the same related family. But when they say they worship the same God, the best approach is to accept this, and not get hung up on minutiae.

I think it is huge mistake to turn our Father into some supreme mystic entity that makes no sense to us little creatures. What would be the point?
He gave us the ability to understand him. Adam and Eve walked with him in the cool of the evening. When he talked they understood. When he sat with Abraham around the camp fire, Abraham understood when God spoke.
God is not an aloof being to big to understand. Why would he put into motion a grand scheme that no one could relate to, or figure out? You'd be surprised how "down to Earth" our Abba is.
Think of him more like a father, and less of a supreme being.
All one needs to do is read the Quran and the Bible to figure out the the God of Abraham and the the God of Islam are two completely different Gods. It is NOT 2 religions/same God. And trying to make them the same is to lose our place at our father's table. And to call Him a liar.
Jesus, not Mohammad, paid for our sins thus clearing the way to an eternal life with God. Don't make getting to know him, out of reach.

Little Child, " Daddy is it true God can see everything I do"?
Dad: "He loves you so much he can't take his eyes off of you".

 

[Dragon]

I think it is huge mistake to turn our Father into some supreme mystic entity that makes no sense to us little creatures. What would be the point?

The point would be acknowledgement of the only divine reality we know.

Religions contain three things in their teaching as far as statements of fact are concerned: mysticism, myth, and make-believe. (The fourth M, morality, consists of statements of value, not fact.)

All of the things about Christianity (or any other religion) that are either mysticism or myth are true, and are either the same (mysticism) or metaphors for the same reality (myth) as in all other faiths. Those things that are unique to Christianity (or any other religion) are make-believe.

Most of what you have been asserting in the way of Christian doctrine consists of make-believe. If you recognized its metaphorical nature, it would be myth instead (and in some cases very good myth), but since you insist on believing it literally, it's make-believe. It's not true, or anyway there's no reliable evidence that it's true, and since most of it is highly unlikely on the face of it, well -- without evidence, we dismiss.

 

[Inquisitor]

If you are a Christian, you believe in the Trinity. If you do not you need to read the Bible again.

I have spent a lot of time debating the bible , creation,and evolution. These are some very hard subjects to debate rationally.

If you like start a thread and I will show you from scripture why I believe as I do. I assure you I am not illiterate.

I don't deny your expertise, I just didn't and still don't understand your platform.
For instance:
The trinity IS the way God revealed himself to us, among other things, so if you believe that that God revealed himself to man by way of the trinity, don't you then believe in the trinity?

Trinity was heresy until Constantine made it doctrine for political reasons.

Tertullian was the first to express the Trinity Doctrine in the form we know it today in the 3rd Century and the Church at large rejected this doctrine.

For the first 300 years the Church did not believe in the Trinity.

 

[Dragon]

Trinity was heresy until Constantine made it doctrine for political reasons.

I disagree with this for two reasons. One, Constantine did not personally micro-manage Christian doctrine as unified at the Council. He called the Council of bishops, let it be known he wanted a new state religion that would support the authority of the Emperor, and otherwise let them do it.

Two, prior to the Council of Nicaea and the creation of the Imperial Church, there was no unified Christian doctrine, and therefore no way to define "heresy." The idea of the Trinity pre-existed the Council. It just wasn't "official Christian doctrine," because there was no such thing.

 

[Inquisitor]

A completely different God. As different as night and day. Allah has no son. To bring home that point, in big bold letters on the dome of the rock, it says GOD HAS NO SON. On the other hand, the God of Abraham has a son. If one has a son, and one does not, you can't be talking about the SAME entity.

Abraham was the first monotheist and the Father of both the Muslims and the Jews as recorded in the Torah (Old Testament).

Abraham had two sons; Isaac and Ishmael.

He taught both of his son's to worship the "One" God; called Yahweh in Hebrew and Allah in Arabic.

Isaac had 12 sons which became the patriarchs of the 12 Tribes of Israel.

Ishmael also had 12 sons, who became the patriarchs of the 12 Tribes of Arabia.

Both genealogies of the two brothers and their descendants are recorded in the Torah.

Nowhere in the Torah (Old Testament) does it say that Abraham taught his sons that God had a son or was going to have a son.

Nor is it recorded in the Torah that any of Isaac or Ishmael's descendants taught that God would have a son.

This false doctrine of God having a physical son walking the earth.

Was an invention foisted on the Jewish followers of Jesus long after his death.

Later taken up by the gentile believers who further twisted the words of Jesus and invented the religion called Christianity.

Abraham having Issac was God's plan. Abraham having Ishmael was Sarah's plan. God described the descendants of Ishmael in Gen. 16:12. He didn't MAKE them that way, he was prophesying.
God has a covenant with Abraham, to look after Abraham's children. ALL of his children.
The el at the end of Ishmael's name means "he belongs to God". Abraham's God. And Abraham LOVED Ishmael. You can trace what we watch on TV now in the middle east back to the eldest brother feeling he was robbed of his inheritance, by his younger brother Issac. One has declared, "NO LAND-NO PEACE". the other, "NO PEACE-NO LAND".

When God asked Abraham to take Issac to a specific place to sacrifice him, Abraham didn't need to be tested as to the strength of his faith. He ate supper with the All Mighty! They hung out!!
Even if he did have to kill Issac, Abe knew that generations were promised through Issac, so Abraham's friend, God, would just bring him back to life so......
No, not a test of faith. That drama was to show Abraham, what God was going to go through when He actually DID sacrifice His SON. Some believe that it was actually the same spot.
There are many references to God's son in the Torah. Ishmael, took a different route, and even though they acknowledge Abraham and Jesus, they have formed a religion of their own. The God of Abraham, the father of Christ, intends to step in and remove the hatred between the brothers, and give all of Abraham's children their fair share and they will live in peace and love.
Allah contends that peace can only come about on this earth by killing their brothers and everyone else that does not comply with the edicts of Mohammad. Peace will be achieved when they are the only ones left.
They are not the same god./different dialect. Allah is not the God of Abraham.

If a person walks up to you and says " I worship the God of Abraham" who are you to say any different ?

The God that the followers of Islam claim they worship is the God of Ishmaels father Abraham.

That does not mean that these are Gods chosen people .. but they still worship this God regardless.

 

[Inquisitor]

Trinity was heresy until Constantine made it doctrine for political reasons.

I disagree with this for two reasons. One, Constantine did not personally micro-manage Christian doctrine as unified at the Council. He called the Council of bishops, let it be known he wanted a new state religion that would support the authority of the Emperor, and otherwise let them do it.

Two, prior to the Council of Nicaea and the creation of the Imperial Church, there was no unified Christian doctrine, and therefore no way to define "heresy." The idea of the Trinity pre-existed the Council. It just wasn't "official Christian doctrine," because there was no such thing.

History is history. Constantine did "personally" micro-manage Christian doctrine.

Not even Eusebius agreed with the insertion of the term homoousious ("one substance" with the father) into the Nicene Creed, and he refused to sign the document at first.

Constantine got his way.

To the Greeks there were two types of matter, that which God was made of, and that which everything else was made of .. rocks, humans, angels and so on.

By claiming that Jesus was "one substance" with the father this was making the claim that Jesus "was" God.

Prior to Constantine the main Church leaders rejected this idea. That is a historical fact.

The reason Constantine did it was because he wanted to have absolute power and be the emmisary of God. Pontifex Maximus .. bishop of bishops.

He wanted his words to be unchallenged "speaking for God" essentially. If the people have many Gods they could say .. Constantine speaks for his God not mine. If there is only one God .. his word is unchallengable.

The Persians had been united under Zoroastrianism monotheism and Constantine, as all Roman Emperors, knew his history.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Abraham was the first monotheist and the Father of both the Muslims and the Jews as recorded in the Torah (Old Testament).

Abraham had two sons; Isaac and Ishmael.

He taught both of his son's to worship the "One" God; called Yahweh in Hebrew and Allah in Arabic.

Isaac had 12 sons which became the patriarchs of the 12 Tribes of Israel.

Ishmael also had 12 sons, who became the patriarchs of the 12 Tribes of Arabia.

Both genealogies of the two brothers and their descendants are recorded in the Torah.

Nowhere in the Torah (Old Testament) does it say that Abraham taught his sons that God had a son or was going to have a son.

Nor is it recorded in the Torah that any of Isaac or Ishmael's descendants taught that God would have a son.

This false doctrine of God having a physical son walking the earth.

Was an invention foisted on the Jewish followers of Jesus long after his death.

Later taken up by the gentile believers who further twisted the words of Jesus and invented the religion called Christianity.

Abraham having Issac was God's plan. Abraham having Ishmael was Sarah's plan. God described the descendants of Ishmael in Gen. 16:12. He didn't MAKE them that way, he was prophesying.
God has a covenant with Abraham, to look after Abraham's children. ALL of his children.
The el at the end of Ishmael's name means "he belongs to God". Abraham's God. And Abraham LOVED Ishmael. You can trace what we watch on TV now in the middle east back to the eldest brother feeling he was robbed of his inheritance, by his younger brother Issac. One has declared, "NO LAND-NO PEACE". the other, "NO PEACE-NO LAND".

When God asked Abraham to take Issac to a specific place to sacrifice him, Abraham didn't need to be tested as to the strength of his faith. He ate supper with the All Mighty! They hung out!!
Even if he did have to kill Issac, Abe knew that generations were promised through Issac, so Abraham's friend, God, would just bring him back to life so......
No, not a test of faith. That drama was to show Abraham, what God was going to go through when He actually DID sacrifice His SON. Some believe that it was actually the same spot.
There are many references to God's son in the Torah. Ishmael, took a different route, and even though they acknowledge Abraham and Jesus, they have formed a religion of their own. The God of Abraham, the father of Christ, intends to step in and remove the hatred between the brothers, and give all of Abraham's children their fair share and they will live in peace and love.
Allah contends that peace can only come about on this earth by killing their brothers and everyone else that does not comply with the edicts of Mohammad. Peace will be achieved when they are the only ones left.
They are not the same god./different dialect. Allah is not the God of Abraham.

If a person walks up to you and says " I worship the God of Abraham" who are you to say any different ?

The God that the followers of Islam claim they worship is the God of Ishmael's father Abraham.

That does not mean that these are Gods chosen people .. but they still worship this God regardless.

Since they are not the same God, I'll ask them which God they worship, because one has a son and one does not. The one that promised the Jews that no one would ever take the land away from them again? That God? Or the one that promotes the extinction of the Jews, and the destruction of Israel? Which one?

If Muslims worship the God of Israel, then Israel has nothing to worry about right?

 

[Inquisitor]

Abraham having Issac was God's plan. Abraham having Ishmael was Sarah's plan. God described the descendants of Ishmael in Gen. 16:12. He didn't MAKE them that way, he was prophesying.
God has a covenant with Abraham, to look after Abraham's children. ALL of his children.
The el at the end of Ishmael's name means "he belongs to God". Abraham's God. And Abraham LOVED Ishmael. You can trace what we watch on TV now in the middle east back to the eldest brother feeling he was robbed of his inheritance, by his younger brother Issac. One has declared, "NO LAND-NO PEACE". the other, "NO PEACE-NO LAND".

When God asked Abraham to take Issac to a specific place to sacrifice him, Abraham didn't need to be tested as to the strength of his faith. He ate supper with the All Mighty! They hung out!!
Even if he did have to kill Issac, Abe knew that generations were promised through Issac, so Abraham's friend, God, would just bring him back to life so......
No, not a test of faith. That drama was to show Abraham, what God was going to go through when He actually DID sacrifice His SON. Some believe that it was actually the same spot.
There are many references to God's son in the Torah. Ishmael, took a different route, and even though they acknowledge Abraham and Jesus, they have formed a religion of their own. The God of Abraham, the father of Christ, intends to step in and remove the hatred between the brothers, and give all of Abraham's children their fair share and they will live in peace and love.
Allah contends that peace can only come about on this earth by killing their brothers and everyone else that does not comply with the edicts of Mohammad. Peace will be achieved when they are the only ones left.
They are not the same god./different dialect. Allah is not the God of Abraham.

If a person walks up to you and says " I worship the God of Abraham" who are you to say any different ?

The God that the followers of Islam claim they worship is the God of Ishmael's father Abraham.

That does not mean that these are Gods chosen people .. but they still worship this God regardless.

Since they are not the same God, I'll ask them which God they worship, because one has a son and one does not. The one that promised the Jews that no one would ever take the land away from them again? That God? Or the one that promotes the extinction of the Jews, and the destruction of Israel? Which one?

If Muslims worship the God of Israel, then Israel has nothing to worry about right?

The Jews do not believe that Jesus was the son of God. God did take the land away, or at least allow others to take it.

The Catholic Church also persecuted Jews for over 1000 years. During this time Mulsims helped the Jews. ( I wish Islam would look at its own history because there were much better days)

Catholic Croats committed genocide against Orthadox and Jewish Serbs in WWII so apparently worshiping the same God does not give one security.

 

[The Irish Ram]

According to prophesy, when the age of the Gentile is filled, Christ will reveal himself to his people and they will be happy to accept him as their own. In fact, so many are coming to Him already that Jewish Law is being altered to accommodate them, and Messianic Jews are being given citizenship, as are Jews from both parental lines and not just the mother's line.
Throughout history, God did allow their land to be over run,( and then predicted to the day, when they could return to it!), but end time prophesy says He will never let it happen again, and harshly warns those who are trying to force them to relinquish Jewish land under the pretense of peace.

Horrors have been perpetrated in the name of the Lord, that have nothing to do with the Lord. Beware of Catholic dogma the promotes anti-semitism. Remember God's promise to Abraham. "I will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you". So, how is the Catholic Church doin' lately?

Back to my question, If Muslims worship the God of Abraham then Israel has nothing to worry about, right?
That prophesy about Israel being surrounded by her enemies, please disregard?

 

[newpolitics]

Just another satan worshiping psycho.

Hahahaha!!!! Only a religious zealot was say such a ridiculous and sadly ironic thing.

 

[Dragon]

History is history. Constantine did "personally" micro-manage Christian doctrine.

History is history and must be distinguished from something you made up. There is no evidence that Constantine did anything of the kind.

Not even Eusebius agreed with the insertion of the term homoousious ("one substance" with the father) into the Nicene Creed, and he refused to sign the document at first.

Constantine got his way.

If you remove the words "Not even" at the beginning, this becomes true. There is no particular reason to single out Eusebius, Bishop of Caesaria, as if his (mild) disagreement with Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, were especially significant. The real disagreement in any case came from Arius, the presbyter from Alexandria.

There were many disputes at Nicaea, and no evidence that Constantine cared much one way or another what the bishops decided, as long as what they came up with was suitable as a state-supporting religion. He was not a devout or deeply philosophical man. He was a politician first and foremost, and what he did with Christianity was done for political reasons, not doctrinal ones.

By claiming that Jesus was "one substance" with the father this was making the claim that Jesus "was" God. Prior to Constantine the main Church leaders rejected this idea. That is a historical fact.

No it's not. You're claiming a consistency and unity to Christianity prior to Constantine that simply did not exist. Christianity then was much like Christianity now: divided, widely divergent, without any single authority or universally-accepted dogma. The most you can claim here is that the idea of Jesus' divinity was not universally accepted, not that "the main Church leaders rejected the idea."

The reason Constantine did it was because he wanted to have absolute power and be the emmisary of God. Pontifex Maximus .. bishop of bishops.

Pontifex Maximus was an old Roman pagan title that was ALWAYS held by the Emperors, all the way back to Augustus. For that matter, Gaius Julius Caesar was also Pontifex Maximus, but he obtained the office the legitimate Republican way, by election. There was nothing new in Constantine's adoption of the title. It went with being Emperor.

Constantine did act as religious authority on occasion, but usually with a light hand. The clearest example is his order expelling the Donatists in 317, but that was after local Church councils had ruled against them. Constantine always seemed to side with whatever faction would bring the most order and unity. It was how he rolled.

I'll grant you the crucial role that he played in forming the Imperial Church, but he did not write its doctrines. Or at least, there is no evidence that he did.

He wanted his words to be unchallenged "speaking for God" essentially. If the people have many Gods they could say .. Constantine speaks for his God not mine. If there is only one God .. his word is unchallengable.

The problem with this argument is that Constantine never did claim to be "speaking for God," nor did he ever outlaw non-Christian religion and in fact continued throughout his rule to honor the pagan religions believed by many. Persecution of non-Christians didn't begin until the 5th century.

 

[Sunni Man]

Back to my question, If Muslims worship the God of Abraham then Israel has nothing to worry about, right?

It is true that God made a Covenant with the "Chosen People"

This is recorded in both the Torah and the Quran.

But the Chosen People continued to break their covenant with God over and over by worshipping false idols.

Even sending them into slavery in Egypt, and later Babylon, had no lasting effect on their idolatrous behavior.

As recorded in the Quran; God finally washed his hands of these rebellious people.

And the covenant was declared null and void.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Back to my question, If Muslims worship the God of Abraham then Israel has nothing to worry about, right?

It is true that God made a Covenant with the "Chosen People"

This is recorded in both the Torah and the Quran.

But the Chosen People continued to break their covenant with God over and over by worshipping false idols.

Even sending them into slavery in Egypt, and later Babylon, had no lasting effect on their idolatrous behavior.

As recorded in the Quran; God finally washed his hands of these rebellious people.

And the covenant was declared null and void.

No covenant from the one true God, Jehova, has ever been broken by God. That is just another satan worshiping lie.

 

[Dragon]

No covenant from the one true God, Jehova, has ever been broken by God.

Heh. I even agree with this. One might reasonably question whether any such covenant has ever been entered into, or whether there is a "one true God," or what his/her/its name would be if there was, but that such a covenant was ever broken is most unlikely.

 

[Sunni Man]

Back to my question, If Muslims worship the God of Abraham then Israel has nothing to worry about, right?

It is true that God made a Covenant with the "Chosen People"

This is recorded in both the Torah and the Quran.

But the Chosen People continued to break their covenant with God over and over by worshipping false idols.

Even sending them into slavery in Egypt, and later Babylon, had no lasting effect on their idolatrous behavior.

As recorded in the Quran; God finally washed his hands of these rebellious people.

And the covenant was declared null and void.

No covenant from the one true God, Jehova, has ever been broken by God. That is just another satan worshiping lie.

Please pull your head out of your anal cavity and read what I wrote.

I never said that God broke the covenant with the people.

It was the "Chosen People" who broke the covenant with God.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Back to my question, If Muslims worship the God of Abraham then Israel has nothing to worry about, right?

It is true that God made a Covenant with the "Chosen People"

This is recorded in both the Torah and the Quran.

But the Chosen People continued to break their covenant with God over and over by worshipping false idols.

Even sending them into slavery in Egypt, and later Babylon, had no lasting effect on their idolatrous behavior.

As recorded in the Quran; God finally washed his hands of these rebellious people.

And the covenant was declared null and void.

If you believe that God turned his back on the Jews, does that mean they are fair game?
Did Abraham's God then tell you, via the Quran, to kill all the Jews and take their land, in order to achieve peace on Earth, because He's tired of dealing with them?

God has never washed his hands of those "rebellious people". The covenant remains intact. It is an eternal covenant.
end time prophesy >Israel will be surrounded by their enemies and the God of Abraham will personally drive Israel's enemies back, so that there will be no dispute as to who has Israel's back..
Since you believe that the Allah of the Quran, and the God of Abraham are one and the same, will He be fighting against himself?

 

[Sunni Man]

If you believe that God turned his back on the Jews, does that mean they are fair game?

Today the Jews are nothing special and just like everyone else.

 

[The Irish Ram]

If you believe that God turned his back on the Jews, does that mean they are fair game?

Today the Jews are nothing special and just like everyone else.

So, does that mean everyone else is fair game or neither is fair game?
What about those that do not recognize the Islamic faith? What is Allah's or Mohammad's directive toward Jews and non Muslims?

 

[Sunni Man]

If you believe that God turned his back on the Jews, does that mean they are fair game?

Today the Jews are nothing special and just like everyone else.

So, does that mean everyone else is fair game or neither is fair game?

What is this fair game nonsense you keep talking about?

 

[Inquisitor]

History is history. Constantine did "personally" micro-manage Christian doctrine.

History is history and must be distinguished from something you made up. There is no evidence that Constantine did anything of the kind.

LOL .. it is you that knows not history.

Not even Eusebius agreed with the insertion of the term homoousious ("one substance" with the father) into the Nicene Creed, and he refused to sign the document at first.

Constantine got his way.

If you remove the words "Not even" at the beginning, this becomes true. There is no particular reason to single out Eusebius, Bishop of Caesaria, as if his (mild) disagreement with Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, were especially significant. The real disagreement in any case came from Arius, the presbyter from Alexandria.

Wrong .. Eusebius disagreed with "Constantine" You are out of your wits if you think the Church at large accepted the Trinity prior to Constantine.

No it's not. You're claiming a consistency and unity to Christianity prior to Constantine that simply did not exist. Christianity then was much like Christianity now: divided, widely divergent, without any single authority or universally-accepted dogma. The most you can claim here is that the idea of Jesus' divinity was not universally accepted, not that "the main Church leaders rejected the idea

Indeed the Church was divided, over many things. One thing that it was not divided over was the idea that Jesus "was" God. This was something that was just not generally believed and in fact was referred to as heresy.

Just do a google search .. it is not hard to figure out.

The reason Constantine did it was because he wanted to have absolute power and be the emmisary of God. Pontifex Maximus .. bishop of bishops.

Pontifex Maximus was an old Roman pagan title that was ALWAYS held by the Emperors, all the way back to Augustus. For that matter, Gaius Julius Caesar was also Pontifex Maximus, but he obtained the office the legitimate Republican way, by election. There was nothing new in Constantine's adoption of the title. It went with being Emperor.

Constantine did act as religious authority on occasion, but usually with a light hand. The clearest example is his order expelling the Donatists in 317, but that was after local Church councils had ruled against them. Constantine always seemed to side with whatever faction would bring the most order and unity. It was how he rolled.

I'll grant you the crucial role that he played in forming the Imperial Church, but he did not write its doctrines. Or at least, there is no evidence that he did.

It was on Constantines insistance that the term Homoousius was inserted.

He wanted his words to be unchallenged "speaking for God" essentially. If the people have many Gods they could say .. Constantine speaks for his God not mine. If there is only one God .. his word is unchallengable.

The problem with this argument is that Constantine never did claim to be "speaking for God," nor did he ever outlaw non-Christian religion and in fact continued throughout his rule to honor the pagan religions believed by many. Persecution of non-Christians didn't begin until the 5th century.

Did he or did he not take the Title Pontifex Maximus ? aka - speaking for God.

Constantine killed Arius and many others who did not share his beliefs.