Anti-Semitism In France!

[Ron Cusano 0]

OK! I understand where you are coming from, and faith is a good thing. As a Christian, even if you don't accept the literal understanding of scripture, let me quote you a few words that Jesus spoke, and let's use YOUR understanding of what they mean . . .

John 3: 17-18 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condem the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"!

Do you not understand that to mean that only those who believe in Jesus are saved (going to Heaven) and those who do not are condemned? Do you think I am reading something into them that is not there?

You also said that none of us can really know what God has in store for us, and yet Jesus said "these thinks I say unto you that you may KNOW you have eternal life"! Jesus said we can KNOW we have eternal life. Don't you find that encouraging?

It was not meant to be sarcasm (although I can see how it might be taken that way). It was meant to skip one step, by anticipating the next response (as in chess).

Ron, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you have no ill intent, but then I have to tell you that I feel that no matter how kindly your intent is, that you are subconsciously (benefit of the doubt again) putting down everyone's religion but your own version.

You continually flip-flop between literal and "what that means is".

I said many pages ago, that my relationship with Christ might be better than those who need to have proof of the deeds of Jesus and the Bible being literal, because I am doing it on faith and since when isn't faith enough? I was not putting anyone down. I was making a case for the possible multitude of viable viewpoints toward religion and how one sees God. I do not know if all types of Christians (including roman Catholics) will gain salvation, or all types of Jews or all types of Muslims, or members of any other types of religions or anyone at all. I even broached the concept that maybe God initiated many varied religions to test faith and that He might have told each group that only that group's way was the right way. God may have done that to make it harder to gain salvation. Maybe, if everyone believed in the same ideas, there would be no challenge to man.

No, I do not have scriptures to back that up. I have a mind, a God given mind (I believe) that allows me to question myself and my surroundings and to think, but never to know.

I know that I think.

You think that you know.

Neither one of us really knows what God has in mind for us. We can hope and have faith, but we can really never know.

[green 6]

When I was very young and briefly a Christian I thought that a Christian was a Christian and that the difference in the sects was merely one of small doctrinal variations and the fit between the style of the church and the individual worshipper. Afterall, I thought, a Christian is a Christian and that is someone who acknowledges and worships the Holy Trinity of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (also known as the Dove/the Holy Ghost). How very wrong I was!

Now, although I am now an atheist, it strikes me that if I were to take the long view, perhaps the view of the Ineffable One who might be looking down at us from upstairs, from his celestial post, He might find much of this passionate doctrinal debate, all of this infighting, foolish, sad, retrograde, and offensive.

Isn't it true that the broad strokes of the Bible demand its believers to follow the Ten Commandments, to love each other as we would love ourselves, and to believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? Perhaps the major philosophical shift between the Old Testament and the New was movement from do no harm to Jesus's teaching to do good. An examination of His behaviour while He was alive will bear this out.

Indeed, it may be argued that Jesus's arguments with the devil and his minions and His threats of hellfire were mostly directed at those individuals who behaved in an unkind and inhumane fashion towards their fellow men. In tossing out the money lenders, he might be making a comment about such individuals as Benny Hinn (who is currently trawling for donations so that he can buy his private jet which will be called The Dove), Jim Bakker, and others of those so-called Christian pundits who have risen to become rich and powerful.

God's argument with Sodom was perhaps based on the city's descent into mindless lust, brutality and social anarchy. A caring and loving same sex couple is the polar opposite from that. One might argue that these days Hollywood comes closer to Sodom, eh.

By all accounts Jesus spent most of His life hanging out with the working class. Indeed, he was a working class bloke Himself. And yet in America so many of those who consider themselves the best Christians continue to vote for a party which favours tax cuts which hurt the poor and the lower and the middle middle class. These best Christians are often people who display ungenerous attitudes towards the Hispanic issue and a racist attitude towards Blacks.

The most powerfully devout Christian whom I have ever met told me that the Messiah chose to make His first appearance before mankind as a Jew because at that time Jews were regarded with the same distaste as Blacks, Trailer Park Trash, or certain other minorities are today. The point, it seemed, was that the message had to be presented by someone without Hollywood lustre; this is where true faith begins.

I was, I must confess, extraordinarily moved when I heard this.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

OK! I understand where you are coming from, and faith is a good thing. As a Christian, even if you don't accept the literal understanding of scripture, let me quote you a few words that Jesus spoke, and let's use YOUR understanding of what they mean . . .

John 3: 17-18 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condem the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"!

Do you not understand that to mean that only those who believe in Jesus are saved (going to Heaven) and those who do not are condemned? Do you think I am reading something into them that is not there?

You also said that none of us can really know what God has in store for us, and yet Jesus said "these thinks I say unto you that you may KNOW you have eternal life"! Jesus said we can KNOW we have eternal life. Don't you find that encouraging?

I find it discouraging that you did not hear Jesus says those words, but you act as if you did.

None of the Gospels were written during the lifetime of Jesus. No one took notes on their "BlackBerry" or "Palm Pilot". I believe that no Gospel was written for about 30 years after the death of Christ and some where not written until about 100 years after the Crucifixion. Many Gospels were written by people who heard them by word of mouth.

There was also a political battle much like you see on this thread between the 13 disciples. The 13th disciple who never actually met Jesus, was in competition to build his church. Who knows what shortcuts were taken and what shadings were done to the words and deeds of Jesus in order to fatten the flock?

But, I will believe on faith, that following most of what I read as what Jesus said was true. There are contradictory words attributed to Jesus. I will not and do not belief the God knew, before Genesis, everything I was ever going to do or say. Or that Jesus or God chose me to be saved.

But I have faith that I will make it. You need not try to convince me that I should accept your literal wording of the Bible.

I have faith that the God of the "Old Testament" was also colored by the writers of their time with their prejudices. The God of the "Old Testament" was not a very nice person, let alone a nice God. He was as different from Jesus as a 747 is from a Chevy Pickup truck.

I also have belief that the Muslims who read the Qur'an as it was written, not as the radical clerics espouse it will gain salvation as will Jews who never accept Christ as their personal Saviour. I do not need scriptures to be a charitable man. I am not speaking of money, but about good will towards people of good will. I belief in the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Ron, do not push your believes unto others. You may be right, but it is not for you to say. And yes, you can keep your believes to yourself. Feel good about being saved, but stop making others feel bad because you do not think that they are saved (or in the case of atheists that they either want to or need to be saved).

[Ron Cusano 0]

Green, I certainly can understand you feelings and can sense you fustration. Believe it or not, I am even more fustrated.

The message of the Old Testament and the New Testament are both the same. That Man is sinful and God is holy and sinless. Because of the sin problem, man is not fit to fellowship with God or enter Heaven. In God's plan, the penelty for sin was physical and spiritual death - "the wages of sin is death"! God, because of His love for His creation, provided a way to deal with the sin problem. He sent His Son, Jesus, who was also God, and therefore sinless, to die in our place. This is a free gift from God available to everyone who will only accept it, by believing that Jesus was who He claimed to be, and did what He claimed to do. Every other point of doctrine and all the differences take second place to this basic truth. That so many do not accept this precious free gift of salvation is what really grieves God.

When I was very young and briefly a Christian I thought that a Christian was a Christian and that the difference in the sects was merely one of small doctrinal variations and the fit between the style of the church and the individual worshipper. Afterall, I thought, a Christian is a Christian and that is someone who acknowledges and worships the Holy Trinity of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (also known as the Dove/the Holy Ghost). How very wrong I was!

Now, although I am now an atheist, it strikes me that if I were to take the long view, perhaps the view of the Ineffable One who might be looking down at us from upstairs, from his celestial post, He might find much of this passionate doctrinal debate, all of this infighting, foolish, sad, retrograde, and offensive.

Isn't it true that the broad strokes of the Bible demand its believers to follow the Ten Commandments, to love each other as we would love ourselves, and to believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit? Perhaps the major philosophical shift between the Old Testament and the New was movement from do no harm to Jesus's teaching to do good. An examination of His behaviour while He was alive will bear this out.

Indeed, it may be argued that Jesus's arguments with the devil and his minions and His threats of hellfire were mostly directed at those individuals who behaved in an unkind and inhumane fashion towards their fellow men. In tossing out the money lenders, he might be making a comment about such individuals as Benny Hinn (who is currently trawling for donations so that he can buy his private jet which will be called The Dove), Jim Bakker, and others of those so-called Christian pundits who have risen to become rich and powerful.

God's argument with Sodom was perhaps based on the city's descent into mindless lust, brutality and social anarchy. A caring and loving same sex couple is the polar opposite from that. One might argue that these days Hollywood comes closer to Sodom, eh.

By all accounts Jesus spent most of His life hanging out with the working class. Indeed, he was a working class bloke Himself. And yet in America so many of those who consider themselves the best Christians continue to vote for a party which favours tax cuts which hurt the poor and the lower and the middle middle class. These best Christians are often people who display ungenerous attitudes towards the Hispanic issue and a racist attitude towards Blacks.

The most powerfully devout Christian whom I have ever met told me that the Messiah chose to make His first appearance before mankind as a Jew because at that time Jews were regarded with the same distaste as Blacks, Trailer Park Trash, or certain other minorities are today. The point, it seemed, was that the message had to be presented by someone without Hollywood lustre; this is where true faith begins.

I was, I must confess, extraordinarily moved when I heard this.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I won't keep beating a dead horse, just let me add a few quick things. First, Matthew, Mark and John were first hand witnesses of everyhting Jesus said and did, so I have no problem believing their accounts, which compliment and agree.

The opther point I want to make is this, if the Bible is devinely inspired by God, that it is to be believed in it's entirety. If the Bible is not inspired by God, then I might as well throw it in the garbage and forget about faith, because if my Christian faith is not based upon the Bible, then what is it based upon? What is it's foundation? For me to believe in Christianity with nothing to base it on that I can accept as pure truth, is believing in fairy tales. I can't base my faith of something that may or may not be true, that some parts may be literal, and others you can make be whatever you want. Either it is all true or it is worthless. That is my opinion and I am not making accusuations against you.

I find it discouraging that you did not hear Jesus says those words, but you act as if you did.

None of the Gospels were written during the lifetime of Jesus. No one took notes on their "BlackBerry" or "Palm Pilot". I believe that no Gospel was written for about 30 years after the death of Christ and some where not written until about 100 years after the Crucifixion. Many Gospels were written by people who heard them by word of mouth.

There was also a political battle much like you see on this thread between the 13 disciples. The 13th disciple who never actually met Jesus, was in competition to build his church. Who knows what shortcuts were taken and what shadings were done to the words and deeds of Jesus in order to fatten the flock?

But, I will believe on faith, that following most of what I read as what Jesus said was true. There are contradictory words attributed to Jesus. I will not and do not belief the God knew, before Genesis, everything I was ever going to do or say. Or that Jesus or God chose me to be saved.

But I have faith that I will make it. You need not try to convince me that I should accept your literal wording of the Bible.

I have faith that the God of the "Old Testament" was also colored by the writers of their time with their prejudices. The God of the "Old Testament" was not a very nice person, let alone a nice God. He was as different from Jesus as a 747 is from a Chevy Pickup truck.

I also have belief that the Muslims who read the Qur'an as it was written, not as the radical clerics espouse it will gain salvation as will Jews who never accept Christ as their personal Saviour. I do not need scriptures to be a charitable man. I am not speaking of money, but about good will towards people of good will. I belief in the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Ron, do not push your believes unto others. You may be right, but it is not for you to say. And yes, you can keep your believes to yourself. Feel good about being saved, but stop making others feel bad because you do not think that they are saved (or in the case of atheists that they either want to or need to be saved).

[Alexandra 55]

Green, that was beautifully, beautifully put. Thank you.

[green 6]

Green, I certainly can understand you feelings and can sense you fustration. Believe it or not, I am even more fustrated.

The message of the Old Testament and the New Testament are both the same. That Man is sinful and God is holy and sinless. Because of the sin problem, man is not fit to fellowship with God or enter Heaven. In God's plan, the penelty for sin was physical and spiritual death - "the wages of sin is death"! God, because of His love for His creation, provided a way to deal with the sin problem. He sent His Son, Jesus, who was also God, and therefore sinless, to die in our place. This is a free gift from God available to everyone who will only accept it, by believing that Jesus was who He claimed to be, and did what He claimed to do. Every other point of doctrine and all the differences take second place to this basic truth. That so many do not accept this precious free gift of salvation is what really grieves God.

But it seems to me that implicit in this package - i.e. belief in God and Jesus, etc - is an acknowledgement of how this individual arrived on this planet and how He chose to conduct His life during His stay here. This was a despised member of the underclass and of an under-race. One cannot be a true follower of Jesus without walking the walk, eh? I spy with my little eye a glaring hypocrisy amongst many of those who are the most right-wing Christians.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I won't keep beating a dead horse, just let me add a few quick things. First, Matthew, Mark and John were first hand witnesses of everyhting Jesus said and did, so I have no problem believing their accounts, which compliment and agree.

You didn't hear Jesus say the things he is supposed to have said, and you didn't hear Matthew, Mark and John first hand either. You have read hand me downs that Matthew, Mark and John allegely said that Jesus said and did.

The opther point I want to make is this, if the Bible is devinely inspired by God, that it is to be believed in it's entirety. If the Bible is not inspired by God, then I might as well throw it in the garbage and forget about faith, because if my Christian faith is not based upon the Bible, then what is it based upon? What is it's foundation? For me to believe in Christianity with nothing to base it on that I can accept as pure truth, is believing in fairy tales. I can't base my faith of something that may or may not be true, that some parts may be literal, and others you can make be whatever you want. Either it is all true or it is worthless. That is my opinion and I am not making accusuations against you.

You just said it though you may deny that was your intent: "Faith is not good enough for you". You need it proved, but the Bible can not be proved, so faith is all that we have. Not even your own memory can be trusted. Eyewitness accounts to crimes are highly unreliable. Eyewitness accounts of catastrophes and memorable events are highly unreliable and not always so memorable. But a book written 6,000 years ago and another written 2,000 years ago are perfect? And only the version of the books, that you believe in, are perfect?

No, faith is needed. You are confusing faith with knowledge. And the only knowledge that you have is a cat chasing its own tail; the Bible is only divinely inspired because the Bible says it is and only a divinely inspired book could be totally true and because the Bible is totally true, it is divinely inspired.

I will stick with my faith. My faith can not be shaken, but if something comes around to disprove some event from the Bible, you will have too choices; deny the event or give up the belief in your knowledge. I will bet on denial.

[green 6]

Green, that was beautifully, beautifully put. Thank you.

Aw shucks, grrl, it was thanks to all the fine work that the other LBTers have been into this thread for quite some number of pages now but it makes me happy to hear that you enjoyed what I had to say.

[Ron Cusano 0]

You may be suprised to hear this, but I agree with you. There are many from all denominations that do and say things that are not consistant with what Jesus taught. We need to remember something though. When you come to believe, you and you life changes, and it is a process. We are still ALL sinners, just forgiven. We are not perfect and we can still do and say wrong things. Prayfully, the more we grow in grace and knowledge, the less of thses things we say and do. Out goal is to become more like Juses, but we are not Jesus.

But it seems to me that implicit in this package - i.e. belief in God and Jesus, etc - is an acknowledgement of how this individual arrived on this planet and how He chose to conduct His life during His stay here. This was a despised member of the underclass and of an under-race. One cannot be a true follower of Jesus without walking the walk, eh? I spy with my little eye a glaring hypocrisy amongst many of those who are the most right-wing Christians.

[Ron Cusano 0]

You misunderstand! Faith is indeed important, but I don't beleive God intends for us to have blind faith. He has provided evidences. Jesus said, "search the scriptures for they ate they that testify of me"! Either that is true or Jesus is a liar.

Let me ask you a question! If you can't believe the accounts of Jesus from those who walked with Him, and you can't believe the Bible in whole, that on what do you base your faith? What do you have faith in and why?

You didn't hear Jesus say the things he is supposed to have said, and you didn't hear Matthew, Mark and John first hand either. You have read hand me downs that Matthew, Mark and John allegely said that Jesus said and did.

You just said it though you may deny that was your intent: "Faith is not good enough for you". You need it proved, but the Bible can not be proved, so faith is all that we have. Not even your own memory can be trusted. Eyewitness accounts to crimes are highly unreliable. Eyewitness accounts of catastrophes and memorable events are highly unreliable and not always so memorable. But a book written 6,000 years ago and another written 2,000 years ago are perfect? And only the version of the books, that you believe in, are perfect?

No, faith is needed. You are confusing faith with knowledge. And the only knowledge that you have is a cat chasing its own tail; the Bible is only divinely inspired because the Bible says it is and only a divinely inspired book could be totally true and because the Bible is totally true, it is divinely inspired.

I will stick with my faith. My faith can not be shaken, but if something comes around to disprove some event from the Bible, you will have too choices; deny the event or give up the belief in your knowledge. I will bet on denial.

[Carlene 12]

I prefer to Celebrate the things which unite us as Christians, not the minor differences that separate us. I think it irrelevant to hash over variances that don't amount to a hill of Beans - Catholics, for example, baptize infants (as do Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, and a host of others) and confirm at the age of "reason", or responsibility. Baptists (and other ultra-conservatives) "dedicate" babies and baptize young adults. Same difference. Who cares about the semantics?

The Nicene Creed was written in the 4th century. It is the most widespread statement of Christian belief (or "dogma") in recorded history. It is accepted and used by the Catholic Church, virtually all branches of Orthodoxy, Lutherans, Anglicans, and most branches of Protestantism. It very nicely sums up pretty much all that I, and many others, believe. How do your beliefs differ, Ron (broadly speaking)?

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit

he was born of the Virgin Mary,

and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in fulfillment of the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son

he is worshiped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

* note for those not familiar with the creed....the term "catholic" in this instance (lower case) literally means "universal". It is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

[Ron Cusano 0]

All that aside, I think the biggest and most important difference is how we deal with the sin and forgiveness issue.

As a Catholic, I was told that Jesus died for my sins, but to have them forgiven and BA able to go to heaven, I had to confess them to a priest and get his absolution. Of courst, if I happen to die between Saturdays whe they had confession, and had commetted a "mortal" sin, I would go to hell.

The Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins, and that believing in who He was, and What he did was all that was required to have salvation.

As a Catholic, I was told my good works and how I lived my live would enable me to earn my way to heaven, while the Bible say's that forgivness of sins and the right to Heaven comes as a free gift from Gos and has nothing to do with my good works.

Aa Catholic, I was taught that the priest was the mediator between me and God, and that only He could grant me the forgiveness I required through absolution. The Bibles teaches that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between man and God.

As a Catholic, I was taught that praying for the dead could have benefit, and praying to Mary and the saints could provide intersession for me to God. The Bible teaches that once you have died, you fate is sealed, and your acceptance or rejection of Jesus is the determining factor. It also teaches that Mary and the saints, like all of us, were sinners in need of forgiveness, and only Jesus makes intersession for Believers before the throne of God.

There are the important differences that seperate Catholics and other Christian denominations, and that are very vital and eternity changing differences differences. That being said, I know some Catholics who believe this way, aside from Catholic teaching, and who I believe are truly saved.

As far as The Nicene Creed, Conservative Christian denomination do not subscribe to it. The other Christian mainline church's have become very liberal and have strayed from biblical truth.

I prefer to Celebrate the things which unite us as Christians, not the minor differences that separate us. I think it irrelevant to hash over variances that don't amount to a hill of Beans - Catholics, for example, baptize infants (as do Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, and a host of others) and confirm at the age of "reason", or responsibility. Baptists (and other ultra-conservatives) "dedicate" babies and baptize young adults. Same difference. Who cares about the semantics?

The Nicene Creed was written in the 4th century. It is the most widespread statement of Christian belief (or "dogma") in recorded history. It is accepted and used by the Catholic Church, virtually all branches of Orthodoxy, Lutherans, Anglicans, and most branches of Protestantism. It very nicely sums up pretty much all that I, and many others, believe. How do your beliefs differ, Ron (broadly speaking)?

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit

he was born of the Virgin Mary,

and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in fulfillment of the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son

he is worshiped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

* note for those not familiar with the creed....the term "catholic" in this instance (lower case) literally means "universal". It is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

[Carlene 12]

As far as The Nicene Creed, Conservative Christian denomination do not subscribe to it. The other Christian mainline church's have become very liberal and have strayed from biblical truth.

And what, exactly, is in the Nicene Creed that you do not subscribe to? In which part do you see something other than "Biblical truth"?

[Ron Cusano 0]

These 2 sentences, and yes, I did see your footnote, nevertheless, it is one of the objection to the Creen. The other is even more striking doctrinally -

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We do not believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus came and died to do that, and baptism has nothing to do with forgiving sins. The first century church was almost all Jewish, and baptish came from the Jewish ceremonial cleasing called the 'micver" forgive the spenning - which is what the Temple Priests did before offering the animal sacrifices. In the biblical sense, batpist is an outward sign of an inward change - that of believeing, and is done whan one comes to believe. This of course cannot occur with infants before the age of reason.

All that aside, I think the biggest and most important difference is how we deal with the sin and forgiveness issue.

As a Catholic, I was told that Jesus died for my sins, but to have them forgiven and BA able to go to heaven, I had to confess them to a priest and get his absolution. Of courst, if I happen to die between Saturdays whe they had confession, and had commetted a "mortal" sin, I would go to hell.

The Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins, and that believing in who He was, and What he did was all that was required to have salvation.

As a Catholic, I was told my good works and how I lived my live would enable me to earn my way to heaven, while the Bible say's that forgivness of sins and the right to Heaven comes as a free gift from Gos and has nothing to do with my good works.

Aa Catholic, I was taught that the priest was the mediator between me and God, and that only He could grant me the forgiveness I required through absolution. The Bibles teaches that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between man and God.

As a Catholic, I was taught that praying for the dead could have benefit, and praying to Mary and the saints could provide intersession for me to God. The Bible teaches that once you have died, you fate is sealed, and your acceptance or rejection of Jesus is the determining factor. It also teaches that Mary and the saints, like all of us, were sinners in need of forgiveness, and only Jesus makes intersession for Believers before the throne of God.

There are the important differences that seperate Catholics and other Christian denominations, and that are very vital and eternity changing differences differences. That being said, I know some Catholics who believe this way, aside from Catholic teaching, and who I believe are truly saved.

As far as The Nicene Creed, Conservative Christian denomination do not subscribe to it. The other Christian mainline church's have become very liberal and have strayed from biblical truth.