Historical and Religious Views of the Roots of Christianity

[Seven Words]

Ancient Rome didn't see anything special in Christianity until Christianity acted out. Roman citizens could hold ANY belief system they wished. However, they had to respect others right to the same. And early Christians DID NOT, they were fanatical, they would disturb the peace, accost and assault other faiths adherents, and damage/destroy their temple and relics because their faith "demanded" it of them. Just like the Taliban destroyed those priceless historical icons of those Buddha statues. Look throughout Europe...virtually EVERY sacred site, pre-Christian, had a Church built over it, trying to obliterate the natives faith.

And before anyone asserts that the Orthodox Church never did anything like this, first..this was BEFORE the split occurred...and second, the Orthodox Church was involved in the repeated pogroms which eventually led to the large Russian and Eastern European Jewish immigration to the US.

[aliantha]

(Edit) a comment on the definitions of "martyr" that you offer - the 2nd definition is already a smearing that clouds the meaning of martyrdom, and the third definition completes that process - by broadening the definition it makes it relatively more meaningless, making the word mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and thereby making it useless for the purposes of discussion or debate - because we mean completely different things using the same word. It kills precision of thought and effective communication. Thus, the only use of the word that I admit at all is the first definition. Otherwise we might as well just speak gibberish. Doesn't that make more sense?

Um, no. Because the other definitions are understood and acknowledged by the rest of the English-speaking world. Regardless of which of the definitions you exclude from your personal lexicon, you're still going to have to explain yourself to others. Sorry.

BTW, Rus, I'm currently reading "The Everlasting Man". Don't get too excited, tho -- I'm not even to the Christian apologetics yet and already I have a bunch of nits to pick with the guy.

[rusmeister]

(Edit) a comment on the definitions of "martyr" that you offer - the 2nd definition is already a smearing that clouds the meaning of martyrdom, and the third definition completes that process - by broadening the definition it makes it relatively more meaningless, making the word mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, and thereby making it useless for the purposes of discussion or debate - because we mean completely different things using the same word. It kills precision of thought and effective communication. Thus, the only use of the word that I admit at all is the first definition. Otherwise we might as well just speak gibberish. Doesn't that make more sense?

Um, no. Because the other definitions are understood and acknowledged by the rest of the English-speaking world. Regardless of which of the definitions you exclude from your personal lexicon, you're still going to have to explain yourself to others. Sorry.

BTW, Rus, I'm currently reading "The Everlasting Man". Don't get too excited, tho -- I'm not even to the Christian apologetics yet and already I have a bunch of nits to pick with the guy.

That's fine. Perhaps you'll at least understand a little better where I'm coming from.

On definitions, though, my point about precise thinking stands. The English speaking world DOES use different and changing definitions today, which is precisely why the thinking is muddled and people are ceasing to understand what a martyr really is. The word is being watered down, in some cases deliberately. If you use it to mean something that I do not mean, then we are already doomed to misunderstand each other and fail to communicate. When I say "martyr" I exclude that 2nd meaning - and you can apply that to every use I have ever made of the word. I am saying it would save reams of posting misunderstandings to tighten up that sloppiness and clarify what exactly are the bones of contention. Insisting on using different definitions in the context of Christianity leads people to completely misunderstand what traditional Christians mean when they say "martyr".

[rusmeister]

Ancient Rome didn't see anything special in Christianity until Christianity acted out. Roman citizens could hold ANY belief system they wished. However, they had to respect others right to the same. And early Christians DID NOT, they were fanatical, they would disturb the peace, accost and assault other faiths adherents, and damage/destroy their temple and relics because their faith "demanded" it of them. Just like the Taliban destroyed those priceless historical icons of those Buddha statues. Look throughout Europe...virtually EVERY sacred site, pre-Christian, had a Church built over it, trying to obliterate the natives faith.

And before anyone asserts that the Orthodox Church never did anything like this, first..this was BEFORE the split occurred...and second, the Orthodox Church was involved in the repeated pogroms which eventually led to the large Russian and Eastern European Jewish immigration to the US.

There is some truth to the first part of your post, and I will say that it is something I do respect about what the Taliban did - even though I disagree with their actions. They held beliefs, and acted on them. The one thing they did not do that is now the great plague of the West is to say that your beliefs should not affect your actions, that what you believe doesn't matter; that it does not and cannot reflect truth that also affects others. If someone is right, then it follows that their actions to eliminate darkness and falsehood are logical and correct, just as you might propose the eliminating flat earth or creationist teachings from public school books. Therefore I support and applaud the actions of the Orthodox Church before the split, as well as afterward. However, pogroms were never condoned by the Church. The Russian Church was in a fairly decadent state by that point, and I put the blame on the Petrine Synod reform for the slow time bomb that lead to the disintegration of the 20th century, but that particular instance is one you really can't blame the Church for. The most you could do is find some bad eggs in the Church, but there isn't a lot of evidence of Church involvement. Generally civil authorities were mostly to blame.

There are a lot of other things I'd probably have to say for you to correctly understand my context, but that ought to do for starters.

[Fist and Faith]

If someone is right, then it follows that their actions to eliminate darkness and falsehood are logical and correct, just as you might propose the eliminating flat earth or creationist teachings from public school books.

Are you kidding? That means we'd be eliminating you. You are spreading darkness and falsehood. And yet it is wrong to eliminate you. Just as it was wrong for the Taliban to destroy the statues; wrong for the early Christians to destroy other faiths' holy places and build their own churches on top of the ruins; etc. A belief is not made strong by wiping out all other beliefs. If that's the best reason to believe a faith has to offer, it is a weak faith.

[Damelon]

The Russian Church was in a fairly decadent state by that point, and I put the blame on the Petrine Synod reform for the slow time bomb that lead to the disintegration of the 20th century, but that particular instance is one you really can't blame the Church for.

So, are you an Old Believer then?

[Seven Words]

Rus--

"does not and cannot reflect truth"....Your beliefs, at this time, do not reflect truth in the objective sense...namely, something which can be tested, measured, verified. Now, "cannot"? I would NOT use that term. Just as there is no proof of the veracity, neither is there refutation. It's rather self-righteous to claim truth absent proof. And when one's belief system is a mish-mash of elements drawn from a slew of pre-existing faiths, is it any wonder those faiths took a dim view of the knock-off?

[rusmeister]

If someone is right, then it follows that their actions to eliminate darkness and falsehood are logical and correct, just as you might propose the eliminating flat earth or creationist teachings from public school books.

Are you kidding? That means we'd be eliminating you. You are spreading darkness and falsehood. And yet it is wrong to eliminate you. Just as it was wrong for the Taliban to destroy the statues; wrong for the early Christians to destroy other faiths' holy places and build their own churches on top of the ruins; etc. A belief is not made strong by wiping out all other beliefs. If that's the best reason to believe a faith has to offer, it is a weak faith.

C'mon, Fist - I agree that a faith should be able to stand up to others. But if it is true, then THAT is what should be taught, and the reasons why it is not (with all invitations to testing, etc). I again refer to flat earth and creationist teaching. Don't you think those should have equal place along side modern scientific theories, such as evolution and the heliocentric earth? Or do you really think that kids should not be taught certain things...?

That it was wrong for the Taliban to destroy the statues depends on whether their faith is the true and accurate picture of the universe. Ditto on the Christians. I say the Christians were right, even as you say they were wrong. You have to say WHY something is wrong; what your basis for saying so is.

[rusmeister]

The Russian Church was in a fairly decadent state by that point, and I put the blame on the Petrine Synod reform for the slow time bomb that lead to the disintegration of the 20th century, but that particular instance is one you really can't blame the Church for.

So, are you an Old Believer then?

Not at all. Just that there were things wrong with the Russian Church that really began with the elimination of the Patriarch. Good things like the "startsy" weren't nearly enough to turn things around. Things like Ilya Repin's painting "Dinner at a Monastery" didn't come from nowhere. Only the blood bath of the 20th century became the Golgotha of the Russian Church, and most likely don't know the extent of the 20th century persecution of Christians in Russia (=95% Orthodox Christian), but I assure you it is staggering - but it ensured that the faith was once again something to die for.

[rusmeister]

Rus--

"does not and cannot reflect truth"....Your beliefs, at this time, do not reflect truth in the objective sense...namely, something which can be tested, measured, verified. Now, "cannot"? I would NOT use that term. Just as there is no proof of the veracity, neither is there refutation. It's rather self-righteous to claim truth absent proof. And when one's belief system is a mish-mash of elements drawn from a slew of pre-existing faiths, is it any wonder those faiths took a dim view of the knock-off?

First, you seem to limit truth to that which can be empirically proved. Thus, it is not true that you love your mother.

You seem here to be assuming that Christianity is merely a "mish-mash of elements drawn from a slew of pre-existing faiths". There is an element of truth in that. However:

The primary blunder, of course, is that comic one to which students
like Mr. Frazer have lent, or rather pawned, their authority.
I mean the absurd notion that in matters of the imagination men
have any need to copy from each other. Poems and poetic tales tend
to be a little alike, not because Hebrews were really Chaldeans,
nor because Christians were really Pagans, but because men
are really men. Because there is, in spite of all the trend
of modern thought, such a thing as man and the brotherhood of men.
Anyone who has really looked at the moon might have called the moon
a virgin and a huntress without ever having heard of Diana.
Anyone who had ever looked at the sun might call it the god
of oracles and of healing without having heard of Apollo.
A man in love, walking about in a garden, compares a woman to a flower,
and not to an earwig; though an earwig also was made by God, and has
many superiorities to flowers in point of education and travel.
To hear some people talk, one would think that the love of flowers
had been imposed by some long priestly tradition, and the love
of earwigs forbidden by some fearful tribal taboo.

The second great blunder is to suppose that such fables, even when they
really are borrowed from older sources, are used in an old tired and
customary spirit. When the soul really wakes it always deals directly
with the nearest things. If, let us say, a man woke up in bed from
a celestial dream which told him to go on painting till all was blue,
he would begin by painting himself blue, then his bed blue, and so on.
But he would be using all the machinery that came to hand;
and that is exactly what always happens in real spiritual revolutions.
They work by their environment even when they alter it.

Thus, when professors tell us that the Christians "borrowed"
this or that fable or monster from the heathens, it is as if people
said that a bricklayer had "borrowed" his bricks from clay,
or a chemist had "borrowed" his explosives from chemicals;
or that the Gothic builders of Lincoln or Beauvais had "borrowed"
the pointed arch from the thin lattices of the Moors.
Perhaps they did borrow it, but (by heaven!) they paid it back.

MONSTERS AND THE MIDDLE AGES, from "The Common Man"
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/Common_Man.txt

[Fist and Faith]

If someone is right, then it follows that their actions to eliminate darkness and falsehood are logical and correct, just as you might propose the eliminating flat earth or creationist teachings from public school books.

Are you kidding? That means we'd be eliminating you. You are spreading darkness and falsehood. And yet it is wrong to eliminate you. Just as it was wrong for the Taliban to destroy the statues; wrong for the early Christians to destroy other faiths' holy places and build their own churches on top of the ruins; etc. A belief is not made strong by wiping out all other beliefs. If that's the best reason to believe a faith has to offer, it is a weak faith.

C'mon, Fist - I agree that a faith should be able to stand up to others. But if it is true, then THAT is what should be taught, and the reasons why it is not (with all invitations to testing, etc). I again refer to flat earth and creationist teaching. Don't you think those should have equal place along side modern scientific theories, such as evolution and the heliocentric earth? Or do you really think that kids should not be taught certain things...?

That it was wrong for the Taliban to destroy the statues depends on whether their faith is the true and accurate picture of the universe. Ditto on the Christians. I say the Christians were right, even as you say they were wrong. You have to say WHY something is wrong; what your basis for saying so is.

I don't say any particular faith is NOT the true and accurate picture of the universe. I say I have no reason to believe any of them are. There is no evidence, and I have no personal experiences or knowledge to support any creator, much less a specific one and religion. Without evidence to support the beliefs that justify the actions of the Taliban and the early Christians, I don't see how those actions can be declared right and good. The Taliban's beliefs may require them to kill you for spreading your devil-lies. But I don't see evidence supporting those beliefs, so I would defend you. (Maybe not with my life, though.)

Further, as it turns out, my values would not care if a faith that demanded the death of non-believers WAS somehow proven true in my eyes. If I learned that the Talliban's beliefs WERE the Truth of existence, I would STILL defend you. I would say that their deity is wrong, and possibly petty and evil, and I would not support it.

As for teaching this and that in school, I've said before I would support classes that teach various religions' beliefs. Religion is among the biggest aspects of humanity, and I see no reason to treat it as taboo. But these things should not be in a class that teaches how long it takes the forces of nature to form rock, and the fossils in them; radioactive dating; similarities and differences between the things seen in the fossils; etc.

[Seven Words]

Rus--

A deity who died, and lived again? Balder, Osiris, Dionysus

3 days in the tomb? Mithra, among others.

Massive flood? Epic of Gilgamesh had it first.

Consumption of the deity's body? Dionysus

In the beginning was the word? very, very similar to the whole nam-shub of Enki, the stealing of "me", and so on

I'm not saying these facts invalidate Christianity. Objectively speaking, they DO make it seem less credible when so much of it is simply taken wholesale from other faiths. They are NOT refutations...as I said, claims of Gods existence cannot generally be proven or refuted. I say generally, because if someone claims that their God told them specifically X will happen on day Y.....and nothing happens, THAT'S a refutation of THAT GUY'S god.

cannot be true I love my mother? Love can be demonstrated, tested. At personal sacrifice, letting one's early-Alzheimer's mother move in...accepting cost of care, food, etc.

[rusmeister]

Rus--

A deity who died, and lived again? Balder, Osiris, Dionysus

3 days in the tomb? Mithra, among others.

Massive flood? Epic of Gilgamesh had it first.

Consumption of the deity's body? Dionysus

In the beginning was the word? very, very similar to the whole nam-shub of Enki, the stealing of "me", and so on

I'm not saying these facts invalidate Christianity. Objectively speaking, they DO make it seem less credible when so much of it is simply taken wholesale from other faiths. They are NOT refutations...as I said, claims of Gods existence cannot generally be proven or refuted. I say generally, because if someone claims that their God told them specifically X will happen on day Y.....and nothing happens, THAT'S a refutation of THAT GUY'S god.

cannot be true I love my mother? Love can be demonstrated, tested. At personal sacrifice, letting one's early-Alzheimer's mother move in...accepting cost of care, food, etc.

Hi, SW,

Yes, yes, yes. It is well known that other faiths, even before Christianity, had some of these ideas. (Although the Flood is actually Judaism, if you come down to it). If you are familiar with the idea, expressed by Lewis (who got it from Tolkien, btw) of a True Myth, of which the others were echoes, or foreshadowing, these similarities become evidence FOR, rather than against, the faith.

I think the thing that you REALLY need to explain is how Christianity DIFFERS from all the other faiths. What makes it remarkable is its absolute uniqueness among world religions, past and present.

I have already recommended "The Everlasting Man" more times than I can count here. As Ali said, she is reading it now, and I'd be curious as to where she agrees, as well as disagrees. But the point is that Christianity is unique. I wonder if you know why? Anyway, since you might have missed it:
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html
If you can name those differences (regarding its claims), I will be a lot more impressed.

It's a less important point, but on loving your mother (or vice-versa) no - it is not proof to point to things like care if I can turn it around and ascribe it to ulterior motives, which is precisely what a lot of people do with evidence that does point towards faith.

[rusmeister]

I don't say any particular faith is NOT the true and accurate picture of the universe. I say I have no reason to believe any of them are. There is no evidence, and I have no personal experiences or knowledge to support any creator, much less a specific one and religion. Without evidence to support the beliefs that justify the actions of the Taliban and the early Christians, I don't see how those actions can be declared right and good. The Taliban's beliefs may require them to kill you for spreading your devil-lies. But I don't see evidence supporting those beliefs, so I would defend you. (Maybe not with my life, though.)

I highlighted what I see to be a key point in your post. Not seeing only expresses the limits of your own understanding.

Further, as it turns out, my values would not care if a faith that demanded the death of non-believers WAS somehow proven true in my eyes. If I learned that the Talliban's beliefs WERE the Truth of existence, I would STILL defend you. I would say that their deity is wrong, and possibly petty and evil, and I would not support it.

I'm not sure you really grasp what "learning the Truth of existence" means. If something were really true; if, say, other people really WERE servants of the devil that wanted to destroy you and all your loved ones and damn them to eternity in hell to boot, you would likely see the rightness of killing them. of course, I think your response is (correctly) based in your reaction to the moral violation of killing; that you are correctly responding in accordance to the law of human nature, or if you like, a moral sense that is not greatly corrupted or fallen. But the question remains as to whether they are correctly expressing the true nature of the universe or not.

As for teaching this and that in school, I've said before I would support classes that teach various religions' beliefs. Religion is among the biggest aspects of humanity, and I see no reason to treat it as taboo. But these things should not be in a class that teaches how long it takes the forces of nature to form rock, and the fossils in them; radioactive dating; similarities and differences between the things seen in the fossils; etc.

Speaking as a certified ex-public HS teacher...
Problem is, there is always an ultimate philosophy behind any teaching. the teacher, course and materials all have base assumptions about the relation of what they are teaching to the universe. Thus, it is inevitable that at some points those assumptions must crop up when a "why" question reaches the boundaries of what the discipline (in this case science) can explain. At that point, a teacher must prevaricate, refuse to teach or deceive the pupil if they may not or will not tell what they perceive to be the truth. Public policy in the west tends to be to encourage this.

[Fist and Faith]

I don't say any particular faith is NOT the true and accurate picture of the universe. I say I have no reason to believe any of them are. There is no evidence, and I have no personal experiences or knowledge to support any creator, much less a specific one and religion. Without evidence to support the beliefs that justify the actions of the Taliban and the early Christians, I don't see how those actions can be declared right and good. The Taliban's beliefs may require them to kill you for spreading your devil-lies. But I don't see evidence supporting those beliefs, so I would defend you. (Maybe not with my life, though.)

I highlighted what I see to be a key point in your post. Not seeing only expresses the limits of your own understanding.

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that there's nothing to see. Maybe there are other possibilities. Regardless, I cannot act on or believe in things I don't have reason to believe exist.

Further, as it turns out, my values would not care if a faith that demanded the death of non-believers WAS somehow proven true in my eyes. If I learned that the Talliban's beliefs WERE the Truth of existence, I would STILL defend you. I would say that their deity is wrong, and possibly petty and evil, and I would not support it.

I'm not sure you really grasp what "learning the Truth of existence" means. If something were really true; if, say, other people really WERE servants of the devil that wanted to destroy you and all your loved ones and damn them to eternity in hell to boot, you would likely see the rightness of killing them. of course, I think your response is (correctly) based in your reaction to the moral violation of killing; that you are correctly responding in accordance to the law of human nature, or if you like, a moral sense that is not greatly corrupted or fallen. But the question remains as to whether they are correctly expressing the true nature of the universe or not.

I do grasp what you're saying. But you don't grasp what I'm saying. My sense of right and wrong is what it is. I would not care if I learned that there is a creator, and that my sense of right and wrong is opposed to that creator's. If that creator hates when we're kind to each other, and wants us to cause pain and fear and death, I will tell the creator where to stick it. Yes, I would be going against what can't not be viewed as the objective Truth of existence, but I would not be going against what I think is right and wrong. Simply having the power to create us does not give the creator the right to treat us badly, and more than I have the right to abuse my children.

As for teaching this and that in school, I've said before I would support classes that teach various religions' beliefs. Religion is among the biggest aspects of humanity, and I see no reason to treat it as taboo. But these things should not be in a class that teaches how long it takes the forces of nature to form rock, and the fossils in them; radioactive dating; similarities and differences between the things seen in the fossils; etc.

Speaking as a certified ex-public HS teacher...
Problem is, there is always an ultimate philosophy behind any teaching. the teacher, course and materials all have base assumptions about the relation of what they are teaching to the universe. Thus, it is inevitable that at some points those assumptions must crop up when a "why" question reaches the boundaries of what the discipline (in this case science) can explain. At that point, a teacher must prevaricate, refuse to teach or deceive the pupil if they may not or will not tell what they perceive to be the truth. Public policy in the west tends to be to encourage this.

Science isn't trying to answer "why." It tries to learn "how." How did this image of a fish become part of this rock? But sure, every individual has their own view of things, and tends to fit what they see into that view. There's no helping the fact that we're human beings, eh? Of course, on either side of this fence, people claim more knowledge than they have. Than anybody has. We can try to insist that people only teach what is known, but we'll never have a perfect system. Just as we can't prevent abuse of the welfare system.

[Seven Words]

Rus--

The only "unique" thing about Christianity is the fact that is the first to aggregate all of these disparate elements into one faith. And that foreshadowing theory is a patently obvious case of working from conclusions back, constructing interpretations to fit the results one has already decided are correct. This does NOT make that assertion wrong...it does tank its credibility to anyone not already a believer. The same foreshadowing is equally valid as evidence supporting Islam..which also draws support from certain passages in the Bible. I am NOT saying Islam is therefore true...merely that your reasoning supports other positions as well as your own.

[rusmeister]

Rus--

The only "unique" thing about Christianity is the fact that is the first to aggregate all of these disparate elements into one faith.

Your answer is not correct.

Please try again!


Seriously, until you actually want to find out, it's not worth trying to tell you.

[aliantha]

I have already recommended "The Everlasting Man" more times than I can count here. As Ali said, she is reading it now, and I'd be curious as to where she agrees, as well as disagrees.

Don't you worry, Rus. I'll be posting my response.

[Seven Words]

Rus--

The only "unique" thing about Christianity is the fact that is the first to aggregate all of these disparate elements into one faith.

Your answer is not correct.

Please try again!


Seriously, until you actually want to find out, it's not worth trying to tell you.

I did research this, a lot. I found nothing that was not drawn from another faith. So yes, my answer IS correct. And I deeply resent you assuming I am simply tossing off a statement like that based solely on my opinion. Your last sentence is annoyingly reminiscent of how there is "proof" of Creationism, if I'd only look at it. "Want to find out"=share my beliefs, I have always found.

[rusmeister]

Rus--

The only "unique" thing about Christianity is the fact that is the first to aggregate all of these disparate elements into one faith.

Your answer is not correct.

Please try again!


Seriously, until you actually want to find out, it's not worth trying to tell you.

I did research this, a lot. I found nothing that was not drawn from another faith. So yes, my answer IS correct. And I deeply resent you assuming I am simply tossing off a statement like that based solely on my opinion. Your last sentence is annoyingly reminiscent of how there is "proof" of Creationism, if I'd only look at it. "Want to find out"=share my beliefs, I have always found.

I think the key point in your quote is "I found nothing".
I AM Orthodox Christian, seriously research it all the time, and can not come to any end in that research. I don't see how you could do so in any way that comprehensively explored Christianity. Tell me what you know about Christianity from the Orthodox perspective. If it's good enough to cover a decent 'catechism', I could concede that you HAD studied it, perhaps sufficiently to be able to make a reasonable judgement.

It's not that you need to know everything about every world religion (who could?), but if you are going to say that everything in Christianity simply copied someone else, you'd better come armed for bear (never mind that you did not comment on the quoted text above aimed directly at that idea).

And maybe you do want to find out. If so, I apologize. I did read that you didn't into your words, and I realize that you didn't express that idea. I shouldn't have made that assumption.