Your Christian Identity

[Elihoenai]

If you identify as Christian, what is your belief, or view on cussing - profanity - using abusive speech or words.
I'm referring to those words which most news media and TV channels censor.

@Kenny @InChrist and others, I would really like to hear your side on this.
Could you also identify what faith you identify with (by faith, I mean "denomination").

1 Corinthians 9:19-23

19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.



I Am Christian Gnostic viewed as a Heretic by the Universal Roman Catholic Church and the Subject of on ongoing Inquisition by said Church.


For Real Earthly Christians Profanity of the Mouth is a Requirement and Badge of Honour. For those seeking a different type of Christianity you can do Lip Service to Earthly Christianity while maintaining Integrity to Elohim/God.

 

[101G]

Congratulations! You spoke in 1st person perspective, rather than referring to yourself in the 3rd person as if it were someone else and not you. Way to go! I swear this is the first sentence you've used that others can understand. Keep up the good work!

well thank you.......

BTW, the "things hard to be understood", has to do with the deep Mysteries of God. Not bad grammar or just poor communication skills on the part of the speaker, or forum poster. The deep Mysteries of God are easy by comparison to unintelligible speech.

you spoke of me speaking in third person, now I want you to watch the language in understanding the things of God.

Example. in Genesis 1:27 when God, notice, God said, "let US, and OUR", which are plural terms used. but in the very next verse, Genesis 1:27, the singular terms "he", and "his" are used to describe God.

now watch what the Lord Jesus say about this in Genesis 1:26 & 27. remember Jesus is God in Flesh as the Son. watch his Language. Matthew 19:3 "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Matthew 19:4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female," the he here is God. for Mark 10:6 records the same conversation, and the term GOD is used there for "he" in Matthews 19:4. but the million-dollar question is this, is not Jesus God? yes, so why didn't Jesus the Lord, who is the Son say I made them Male and Female? would that be correct, since he's God? no, because he as the Son, the Lord in Flesh made nothing. why? again, is he not God? yes, but not as Son, (in flesh, bone and blood), when he made all things, when he made all things, he was not in flesh, but Spirit, that's why God is, as the Greek word clearly say is the G243 ALLOS of himself, or in Layman's term the EQUAL SHARE of himself in flesh as Phil 2:6 states.

God is a Plurality of himself, notice of himself, as Genesis 1:1 States. and this plurality is the ECHAD of God in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, or RANK. which the term "beginning clearly states in Genesis 1:1.

the Language. one has to understand what God say, and what God do not say. as here in Matthews 19:4. if the Lord Jesus would have said, I as the Ordinal First "MADE ALL THINGS", who would have believed him .... while in human flesh? because when he said that he was before Abraham and Abraham saw his day, the Jews said you're not even 50 years old and you saw Abraham?

this is why it's so important to study all the scriptures ..... WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, so that one may comprehend the Wisdom of the Words of the Bible. many do not realize what the Lord Jesus said in Matthews 19:4, or what he didn't say.

our minds cannot on its own, no matter how well one exegesis the scriptures, in understanding the totality of the scriptures. I have learned just as much by WHAT GOD DO NOT SAY in Comparision to what he has already said. both are equally important.

so, when you hear 101G say Jesus the Son made nothing, 101G is not saying JESUS, the PERSON, did not make all things, JUST as the Son he didn't. got it?

101G.

 

[YoursTrue]

So your argument is that if Jesus started the work, then therefore what you believe and teach must be what Jesus started because he wouldn't not finish what he started? Is that the line of thinking? Couldn't any oddball cult out there claim that same argument? "We are the true church, because Jesus wouldn't let the church die, and since we're here, this is proof we are the church Jesus started!". Does this sound like a good argument to you?


Not sure how we get from John to the modern JW sect in Brooklyn, NY. in such a clean unbroken line like that?


Yep, this is what the Catholic Claim. At least they are older and closer to the time of the actual apostles.


No. He recognizes his people quite easily by the fruits of the spirit, not by their peculiar doctrinal ideas they use to claim they are the one true church in order to set themselves apart from other Christian sects. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their claims to be the one true church.

Glad you are interested in these things. There is virtually nothing in the Scriptures that claim, show, or demonstrate that Jesus via Peter started the Catholic Church. Obviously you must realize that many have interpreted and misinterpreted statements in the Bible, right? Perhaps you think Jesus via Peter began the Roman Catholic Church? Because then we have breakoffs to the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, etc., later on, plus after that some figured out (like Wesley) that it just isn't so about the "Catholic" church. So what, may I ask, makes you think Jesus via Peter started the Roman(?) Catholic Church?

 

[YoursTrue]

"Coarse talk" is forbidden by the Christian scriptures [usually translated as "cursing"], but what defines "coarse" isn't always clear. Generally speaking, I would tend to think that it's rough talking and there can be various forms of that.

So that is or is not a mythical part of the Bible in your view or is that ok by you, since you have said that Jesus was infused with false teachings, such as the Flood of Noah's day and the beginning with Adam and Eve?

 

[YoursTrue]

"Coarse talk" is forbidden by the Christian scriptures [usually translated as "cursing"], but what defines "coarse" isn't always clear. Generally speaking, I would tend to think that it's rough talking and there can be various forms of that.

Forbidden? Of course, prayer to Mary and Peter are not forbidden by the Catholic Church, are they? But cursing or "coarse language" is? Want to tell us more about the Scriptures and what they say in truth or maybe myth?
I'm not saying it's right to curse or use "coarse language." It's certainly better not to. But since you say it's forbidden, I guess you think prayer to Mary, Joseph, Peter and others is not forbidden. And, of course, remembering that you said Jesus was believing and spouting myths, such as what he learned about the Flood and Adam and Eve. So why talk about what the Scriptures forbid since so many don't believe them anyway?

 

[Windwalker]

well thank you.......

you spoke of me speaking in third person, now I want you to watch the language in understanding the things of God.

I think you are failing to apprehend what is being said about the "things hard to be understood", which Peter was speaking about with Paul's writings. These were not theological concepts, as you attempt to grapple with below about the the Son and the Father roles in the Trinitarian formulation and the "mystery" of the doctrine of the hypostatic union. The "things hard to be understood" rather are spiritual principles. The way down is up, the way up is down. If you want life, you must die, etc..

It's the paradoxical nature of spirituality, versus trying to obtain or possess the things of God the way you would with everything else in the world. These are the deeper mysteries. These are those things difficult to understand, The ways of Spirit. The Nature of God, which does not seem sensible to the 'fleshly' mind.

Example. in Genesis 1:27 when God, notice, God said, "let US, and OUR", which are plural terms used. but in the very next verse, Genesis 1:27, the singular terms "he", and "his" are used to describe God.

now watch what the Lord Jesus say about this in Genesis 1:26 & 27. remember Jesus is God in Flesh as the Son. watch his Language. Matthew 19:3 "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Matthew 19:4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female," the he here is God. for Mark 10:6 records the same conversation, and the term GOD is used there for "he" in Matthews 19:4. but the million-dollar question is this, is not Jesus God? yes, so why didn't Jesus the Lord, who is the Son say I made them Male and Female? would that be correct, since he's God? no, because he as the Son, the Lord in Flesh made nothing. why? again, is he not God? yes, but not as Son, (in flesh, bone and blood), when he made all things, when he made all things, he was not in flesh, but Spirit, that's why God is, as the Greek word clearly say is the G243 ALLOS of himself, or in Layman's term the EQUAL SHARE of himself in flesh as Phil 2:6 states.

God is a Plurality of himself, notice of himself, as Genesis 1:1 States. and this plurality is the ECHAD of God in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, or RANK. which the term "beginning clearly states in Genesis 1:1.

To attempt to understand God rationally, is to try to reduce God into something that is equal to your own mind. God is beyond conceptual thought. Yet, we particularly in this day and age believe if we have the right concepts of God theologically, or doctrinally, that this is what makes us Awakened to God.

No. The best it does is answer questions of the mind's curiosities to grapple with puzzles. It doesn't have anything to do with actual Enlightenment, or Salvation, or spiritual liberation, which are all the same thing. That has to do with transcending reason and thoughts and ideas and concepts and beliefs. Faith is not the same thing as beliefs. Faith is of the heart, and Awakening is of the spirit within us.

Have you ever heard God described as ineffable? It means "too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words". I guarantee you God is just that. Any of our paltry theological notions about God we have, which we esteem as the Truth with a captial T, become instantly evaporated in the Reality of the Divine.

Words are fine to a point. We can use them like fingers pointing at the moon. They are metaphors to direct our gaze to something greater than the words. But when we reduce those metaphors, those pointing fingers, to accurate descriptions of the reality they are pointing to themselves, we mistake the fingers pointing as the moon itself and fail to see the actual moon.

Now understanding that, is actually one of those deeper mysteries of God, namely, that God is beyond understanding with the human conceptual mind, even at its most sophisticated and advanced.

this is why it's so important to study all the scriptures ..... WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, so that one may comprehend the Wisdom of the Words of the Bible. many do not realize what the Lord Jesus said in Matthews 19:4, or what he didn't say.

The fact you used the word "comprehend" shows a direct contradiction to seeing with the Holy Spirit. If we do the latter, the best term is "illumination", more light is shed to show that how we think about things, our understandings, are not where we find God.

There is a difference between comprehend and apprehend. We can never comprehend God. But we can apprehend God. And that is where spiritual illumination, or "with the Holy Spirit" comes into play. We apprehend with the heart, through experience. We comprehend by the conceptual mind, which will never attain God because it limits God to our own minds.

Spend some time understanding the difference, and you may begin to understand why I am saying what I am: Difference Between Apprehension and Comprehension | Difference Between

so, when you hear 101G say Jesus the Son made nothing, 101G is not saying JESUS, the PERSON, did not make all things, JUST as the Son he didn't. got it?

101G.

Why are we back to you speaking of yourself in the 3rd person? It's really distracting. You can just say instead, "when you hear me saying Jesus is the Son....", and that will be much better received by others. Thanks.

 

[Windwalker]

Glad you are interested in these things. There is virtually nothing in the Scriptures that claim, show, or demonstrate that Jesus via Peter started the Catholic Church.

I never put that forth as a claim or an argument. My point was if you re-read my post, was that the argument that because Jesus said he church would never be destroyed, and since the JW church exists, this is proof they are Jesus' church. That was the argument being put forth, and I said if that's a valid argument, then the Catholics have greater claim to it, since they existed for almost 2000 years without a 1900 year gap since the apostles, like the JW church has.

These claims of the "restored church", are made by many of these turn of the century start up religions in America that all sprung up together at that time in history. They all had the "restored church" claim, and that argument is clearly bogus.

Obviously you must realize that many have interpreted and misinterpreted statements in the Bible, right?

Absolutely. Every uneducated preacher who found and read the Bible, and believes that God has revealed the truth to him and starts a movement that becomes yet another new denomination is proof that all of it is a matter of personal interpretation.

Everything in the Bible anyone reads is an interpretation of it. And some of those interpretations are utter nonsense.

Perhaps you think Jesus via Peter began the Roman Catholic Church?

No. I don't believe that. Some of his followers did later on in history at the behest of Constantine for the churches to organize into a centralize religion in Roman style. Prior to that, there was quite a wide array of different views within Christianity itself as a whole. It was the proto-orthodox sect that won out they day politically in order to cement the movement into a religion.

Because then we have breakoffs to the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, etc., later on, plus after that some figured out (like Wesley) that it just isn't so about the "Catholic" church.

That all happened after the RCC was formed, I believe. But technically, Christianity is itself supposed to be "catholic", in the sense that catholic means universal. Christianity is meant to be a universal, inclusive religion. Not these little "we've got the real truth restored church by God, and all these other Christians are polluted whores of Babylon, only we are right", type churches.

They definitely are not inclusive and open in the sense of a universal religion.

So what, may I ask, makes you think Jesus via Peter started the Roman(?) Catholic Church?

May I ask what makes you think I believe that?

 

[YoursTrue]

I never put that forth as a claim or an argument. My point was if you re-read my post, was that the argument that because Jesus said he church would never be destroyed, and since the JW church exists, this is proof they are Jesus' church. That was the argument being put forth, and I said if that's a valid argument, then the Catholics have greater claim to it, since they existed for almost 2000 years without a 1900 year gap since the apostles, like the JW church has.

These claims of the "restored church", are made by many of these turn of the century start up religions in America that all sprung up together at that time in history. They all had the "restored church" claim, and that argument is clearly bogus.


Absolutely. Every uneducated preacher who found and read the Bible, and believes that God has revealed the truth to him and starts a movement that becomes yet another new denomination is proof that all of it is a matter of personal interpretation.

Everything in the Bible anyone reads is an interpretation of it. And some of those interpretations are utter nonsense.


No. I don't believe that. Some of his followers did later on in history at the behest of Constantine for the churches to organize into a centralize religion in Roman style. Prior to that, there was quite a wide array of different views within Christianity itself as a whole. It was the proto-orthodox sect that won out they day politically in order to cement the movement into a religion.


That all happened after the RCC was formed, I believe. But technically, Christianity is itself supposed to be "catholic", in the sense that catholic means universal. Christianity is meant to be a universal, inclusive religion. Not these little "we've got the real truth restored church by God, and all these other Christians are polluted whores of Babylon, only we are right", type churches.

They definitely are not inclusive and open in the sense of a universal religion.


May I ask what makes you think I believe that?

Sorry then that I misunderstood you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I never put that forth as a claim or an argument. My point was if you re-read my post, was that the argument that because Jesus said he church would never be destroyed, and since the JW church exists, this is proof they are Jesus' church. That was the argument being put forth, and I said if that's a valid argument, then the Catholics have greater claim to it, since they existed for almost 2000 years without a 1900 year gap since the apostles, like the JW church has.

These claims of the "restored church", are made by many of these turn of the century start up religions in America that all sprung up together at that time in history. They all had the "restored church" claim, and that argument is clearly bogus.


Absolutely. Every uneducated preacher who found and read the Bible, and believes that God has revealed the truth to him and starts a movement that becomes yet another new denomination is proof that all of it is a matter of personal interpretation.

Everything in the Bible anyone reads is an interpretation of it. And some of those interpretations are utter nonsense.


No. I don't believe that. Some of his followers did later on in history at the behest of Constantine for the churches to organize into a centralize religion in Roman style. Prior to that, there was quite a wide array of different views within Christianity itself as a whole. It was the proto-orthodox sect that won out they day politically in order to cement the movement into a religion.


That all happened after the RCC was formed, I believe. But technically, Christianity is itself supposed to be "catholic", in the sense that catholic means universal. Christianity is meant to be a universal, inclusive religion. Not these little "we've got the real truth restored church by God, and all these other Christians are polluted whores of Babylon, only we are right", type churches.

They definitely are not inclusive and open in the sense of a universal religion.


May I ask what makes you think I believe that?

Hello again. According to the Bible, God moved Moses to lead the Israelites out of bondage to Egypt so they could worship their God, the Almighty, more freely. It was tough going. And God was over the nation for centuries. Then came Jesus. And Jesus had many objections to the set way of worship many were practicing, including the religious leaders. He was assailed by many, in many different ways, yet had God's approval. The temple was ransacked by the Romans after Jesus' death and has never been rebuilt.

 

[metis]

Some of his followers did later on in history at the behest of Constantine for the churches to organize into a centralize religion in Roman style. Prior to that, there was quite a wide array of different views within Christianity itself as a whole.

But it had to be done or Christianity could have badly splintered and possibly died as there were so many different groups, all claiming to be the "true church" and using entirely different texts.

 

[Windwalker]

But it had to be done or Christianity could have badly splintered and possibly died as there were so many different groups, all claiming to be the "true church" and using entirely different texts.

Yes, that is ironically true. I first came across that understanding reading Elaine Pagels', The Gnostic Gospels. At the end of it she concludes that while there was something lost in squelching those like Valentinus' teachings, that "2nd baptism", or what I would call authentic spiritual awakening, or transformation, it would have probably just died out within a couple hundred years because it was harder to administrate. Certainly, it would have remained small at the least.

So there is much to be considered in "mainstreaming" deeper spiritual truths for the sake of keeping it more generalized and accessible, but it's a double-edged sword in that it can lead to stifling those who are ready to access the deeper Mysteries. The history of the church has a reputation for burning its mystics, to where they had to soften their insights in order not to rattle the "authorities" who were the administrator's of the institution. The plus side of keeping it adminstratable is more people can access it. The downside is, it tends to discourage actually accessing it.

I've yet to really work out my thoughts sufficiently on this. I think there is an ideal balance to be struck, but power structures as they tend to naturally unfold, don't let that happen easily. Those who want the power, and like that power to control others, don't want those under they control to not need them, which is what happens when you truly become awakened.

P.S. I just had this thought as it relates to T'ai Chi practice. Tai Chi as a spiritual/martial arts discipline has been something historically that was guarded from novices accessing it. But when the communist Chinese government took over in the 50's, they decided to "dumb it down" for the masses as part of a public health program. They stripped out its more esoteric aspects of it, and it became "T'ai Chi for health", type thing. Gone were the deeper Taoist insights leading to Enlightenment through the practice. And those who were the masters, actually hid those from the government anyway from being exploited and misused by them.

So I'm seeing a clear parallel here. It's great that more people are exposed to T'ai Chi. It's great that people are exposed to Jesus' teachings. But the external form, is not the same as the internal practice, in both cases. It's not really T'ai Chi if you're just moving your arms around without in connecting heaven, earth, and human. It's not really Christian 'liberation' or 'salvation', if it's just following the external rules. T'ai Chi is known as an "Internal martial art" for that very focus. I believe Christianity is also meant as an Internal art, or discipline as well. "Make clean the inside of the cup first", taught Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, that is ironically true. I first came across that understanding reading Elaine Pagels', The Gnostic Gospels. At the end of it she concludes that while there was something lost in squelching those like Valentinus' teachings, that "2nd baptism", or what I would call authentic spiritual awakening, or transformation, it would have probably just died out within a couple hundred years because it was harder to administrate. Certainly, it would have remained small at the least.

So there is much to be considered in "mainstreaming" deeper spiritual truths for the sake of keeping it more generalized and accessible, but it's a double-edged sword in that it can lead to stifling those who are ready to access the deeper Mysteries. The history of the church has a reputation for burning its mystics, to where they had to soften their insights in order not to rattle the "authorities" who were the administrator's of the institution. The plus side of keeping it adminstratable is more people can access it. The downside is, it tends to discourage actually accessing it.

I've yet to really work out my thoughts sufficiently on this. I think there is an ideal balance to be struck, but power structures as they tend to naturally unfold, don't let that happen easily. Those who want the power, and like that power to control others, don't want those under they control to not need them, which is what happens when you truly become awakened.

P.S. I just had this thought as it relates to T'ai Chi practice. Tai Chi as a spiritual/martial arts discipline has been something historically that was guarded from novices accessing it. But when the communist Chinese government took over in the 50's, they decided to "dumb it down" for the masses as part of a public health program. They stripped out its more esoteric aspects of it, and it became "T'ai Chi for health", type thing. Gone were the deeper Taoist insights leading to Enlightenment through the practice. And those who were the masters, actually hid those from the government anyway from being exploited and misused by them.

So I'm seeing a clear parallel here. It's great that more people are exposed to T'ai Chi. It's great that people are exposed to Jesus' teachings. But the external form, is not the same as the internal practice, in both cases. It's not really T'ai Chi if you're just moving your arms around without in connecting heaven, earth, and human. It's not really Christian 'liberation' or 'salvation', if it's just following the external rules. T'ai Chi is known as an "Internal martial art" for that very focus. I believe Christianity is also meant as an Internal art, or discipline as well. "Make clean the inside of the cup first", taught Jesus.

I guess it also meant that they had to torture and kill people not adhering to the Catholic version of Jesus? Reminding me of Constantine, baptized by an Arian (non-trinity-believing priest) who claimed to have seen a flaming cross in the sky as he was physically fighting whoever his enemies were.

 

[Windwalker]

I guess it also meant that they had to torture and kill people not adhering to the Catholic version of Jesus?

That sort of practice didn't happen at the time of the Nicean council meeting. I think you may be confusing that time period of 325 AD, with that of the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500's AD?

But this is the problem when you have hierarchical power structures in religions. You have those trying to control the views of the masses through force. Take for instance the practice of shunning with the Jehovah's Witnesses. That's a form of violence and torture to non-conforming members too. Not too different than the sins of the RCC and the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[2ndpillar]

I guess it also meant that they had to torture and kill people not adhering to the Catholic version of Jesus? Reminding me of Constantine, baptized by an Arian (non-trinity-believing priest) who claimed to have seen a flaming cross in the sky as he was physically fighting whoever his enemies were.

As shown in Daniel 7:25, the "another" "king", Constantine, who was to "make alterations in time and in the law", such as changing the day of rest, to the day of the sun, in homage to his sun god Sol Invictus. He was also to "wear down the saints", the keepers of the Law, for "time, times, and half a time, in which times were with respect to the following kingdoms to come (Daniel 11:6 & 14 & 21 & 24 & 35 etc.), until the original kingdoms of Daniel 2:45 are all crushed, and the "kingdom" shall be set up which shall not be destroyed. Right now, the "kingdom" of the Roman Caesar/Czar/Putin is being crushed by a Jewish leader of a small country, and the defensive weapons being sent to Ukraine by the Jews of Israel. I expect Persia/Iran, the "breast of silver" (Daniel 2), will soon be crushed as well (Zechariah 14) after they have been lulled into attacking Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1-2). The reign of the pope, who claims to hold the keys of David, is soon to "fall:" as well (Isaiah 22:15-25). Right after Constantine's vision of the cross at Milvian Bridge, in 312 B.C., he minted a coin to Sol Invictus, his sun god, in 313 A.D. The "day of the LORD", the day of judgment regarding Joel 2:31-32, when all the nations mentioned in Daniel 2 are "crushed", is fast approaching, and is with respect to the beginning of the 7th millennium, which is in line with the 7th day rest, not the eighth day, which is with respect to the white throne judgment. Those that keep the 8th day, Sunday, the day of the sun god, as their day of rest, well, they might just rest for eternity.

 

[2ndpillar]

That sort of practice didn't happen at the time of the Nicean council meeting. I think you may be confusing that time period of 325 AD, with that of the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500's AD?

But this is the problem when you have hierarchical power structures in religions. You have those trying to control the views of the masses through force. Take for instance the practice of shunning with the Jehovah's Witnesses. That's a form of violence and torture to non-conforming members too. Not too different than the sins of the RCC and the Spanish Inquisition.

The Nicaean Council of 325 A.D. set up the false dogma of the Trinity, which is the central dogma of the Roman church per the degree of 380 A.D.. Constantine set up the practice of burning books and threatened anyone with holding the books of the counter arguments of Arius, with death.

 

[YoursTrue]

That sort of practice didn't happen at the time of the Nicean council meeting. I think you may be confusing that time period of 325 AD, with that of the Spanish Inquisition in the 1500's AD?

But this is the problem when you have hierarchical power structures in religions. You have those trying to control the views of the masses through force. Take for instance the practice of shunning with the Jehovah's Witnesses. That's a form of violence and torture to non-conforming members too. Not too different than the sins of the RCC and the Spanish Inquisition.

Nope, I just moved a little into circumstances after 325 CE.

 

[Windwalker]

Nope, I just moved a little into circumstances after 325 CE.

But quite a bit after 325 CE. And again, while I hear finger pointing at the violence of the church towards unbelievers, you don't consider shunning members of a church to be a form of violence and torture as well? I don't see either as exercising Grace.

 

[Windwalker]

The Nicaean Council of 325 A.D. set up the false dogma of the Trinity, which is the central dogma of the Roman church per the degree of 380 A.D.. Constantine set up the practice of burning books and threatened anyone with holding the books of the counter arguments of Arius, with death.

Yes. Burning books, killing unbelievers, shunning your church and immediate family members who don't conform to church dogma. All of it is from the same evil source.

 

[YoursTrue]

But quite a bit after 325 CE. And again, while I hear finger pointing at the violence of the church towards unbelievers, you don't consider shunning members of a church to be a form of violence and torture as well? I don't see either as exercising Grace.

Killing and torturing non-believers or dissidents is not in harmony with the scriptures. I think you have the disfellowshipping principle askew. There's a difference.

 

[YoursTrue]

But quite a bit after 325 CE. And again, while I hear finger pointing at the violence of the church towards unbelievers, you don't consider shunning members of a church to be a form of violence and torture as well? I don't see either as exercising Grace.

If a person needed help, family or non-family members, and they were disfellowshipped it is not wrong to help that person.