Historical and Religious Views of the Roots of Christianity

[Seven Words]

I didn't look into Orthodox Christianity. I simply read the Bible. The Old Testament has some unique elements. But that is shared with Judaism. In the New Testament is where I looked for uniqueness...and did not find it, other than no one else having combined all those pre-existing elements. I do realize that Orthodox Christianity has a different number of books in their New Testament. I am not aware of any theological concepts/events in the Orthodox-only books that are not also found in some other faith. If, in one of those books is indeed something unique, then please tell it to me. That is NOT me being sarcastic, that is me honestly admitting the possibility of a lack of knowledge on my part and the possibility of you possessing the information to remedy that lack. My source for the assertion (which I am NOT presenting as absolute fact) concerning the Orthodox testament is a former Greek Orthodox, now an atheist I knew at college. That was not a claim of some superior source, just me being open about the source of my information.

[rusmeister]

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.

My point is that a) it IS a possibility, and b) that mutually exclusive possibilities cannot both/all be true; ie, that there actually is one Truth (completely correct understanding, if you will); that there IS an entire elephant that has a definite shape and nature.

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.

FWIW, I said "I'm not sure that you grasp...", allowing for the possibility that you do. I am sure that I grasp what you are saying.
In saying "my sense of right and wrong is what it is", you are already speaking about something that is true. Therefore, speaking of a Creator who created you with a radically different sense than His seems to me to be nonsense. To me you are stating what is - that God actually created you with the same basic idea of good that He has/is. therefore, an alternative scenario is non-sense.
Where do you get this idea of "badly" from? And the idea of "rights"? Rights are something granted or not granted. Otherwise we only have the idea of natural selection with the strong surviving and the weak "going to the wall", to revive the old phrase, and have no business complaining about rights.
How do you know what is good and what is bad? Lewis's basic arguments in the opening chapters of MC remain the only reasonable explanation I have ever seen, a complete explanation that actually covers the facts.

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.

Perhaps I misspoke in using the word "why" instead of "how". I didn't mean to distract from the point, which is that there is in fact always an ultimate or base philosophy that is taught, usually passively, in any education system. So people may pride themselves that they are NOT teaching a worldview, when in fact they are by default - when they say that these various subjects represent truths that we propose to teach you (materialistic ones), but those other things represent opinions, ie, non-truth, and we don't admit their discussion at all, except as opinions (because we can no longer agree on what truth is). In a word, we teach that there is no (ultimate) truth, something that I see has been effectively taught to a great many people here - in short, the public school system and media do their work well.

[rusmeister]

I didn't look into Orthodox Christianity. I simply read the Bible. The Old Testament has some unique elements. But that is shared with Judaism. In the New Testament is where I looked for uniqueness...and did not find it, other than no one else having combined all those pre-existing elements. I do realize that Orthodox Christianity has a different number of books in their New Testament. I am not aware of any theological concepts/events in the Orthodox-only books that are not also found in some other faith. If, in one of those books is indeed something unique, then please tell it to me. That is NOT me being sarcastic, that is me honestly admitting the possibility of a lack of knowledge on my part and the possibility of you possessing the information to remedy that lack. My source for the assertion (which I am NOT presenting as absolute fact) concerning the Orthodox testament is a former Greek Orthodox, now an atheist I knew at college. That was not a claim of some superior source, just me being open about the source of my information.

You seem to be expressing the idea that the Bible is the exclusive source of faith. This is true in most forms of protestant Christianity, although it is much more accurate to say that modern interpretations of what people read from ancient texts translated from other languages and cultures, and read outside of a context of significant knowledge and understanding of said ancient cultures are, for many, the source of faith. So it is with your readings. It is called "Sola Scriptura" (the idea of reliance exclusively on the Bible, something compiled by the Christian Church only in the 4th century and the early Christians got along for the first 300 years with only bits and pieces of it).

Thus, it is not the particular canon of the Bible which determines what Christianity is, but the faith tradition - in Orthodoxy it is the Holy Tradition of the Church (of course, you first need to define what the Church is and on what basis you do so) and is capitalized and distinct from "traditions of men" warned against in the New Testament. If all you did was "read the Bible" (and not find anything unique in it - an amazing accomplishment!) then you doubtless relied on your own understanding of what the texts mean - the limitations of your knowledge. In addition, anything imperfectly translated, without a solid faith tradition that carries it over, would be lost as well. Thus, was Mary Ever-Virgin or not? Did Jesus have brothers in the modern English sense? Based on a modern reading from no context and knowing only English, your answers would likely be "no" and "yes" respectively, yet the Orthodox Church would tell you that you are wrong and explain why. (Those things I actually discovered simply from traveling the planet and learning the rudiments of more than a dozen languages, and a few languages fairly well (and OK - fluent Russian). I never would have discovered them from a comparative religions course at a university.

I'll add that some of the really astounding things might fly right by us, simply because we don't get their significance - such as Christ's claim to forgive sins committed against third parties. We'd read it, and write it off to "the religion of that place and time", or whatever.

Anyway, I recommended "The Everlasting Man" www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html as a great outline of what those differences are. (Some here have complained about my not paraphrasing the book in its entirety and squeezing it into posts here - I just feel that those things cannot be reduced to soundbites) It'd be interesting to have a discussion on it sometime.

[Fist and Faith]

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.

My point is that a) it IS a possibility, and b) that mutually exclusive possibilities cannot both/all be true; ie, that there actually is one Truth (completely correct understanding, if you will); that there IS an entire elephant that has a definite shape and nature.

You may also be making those points. But the one I was addressing is this:
"Not seeing only expresses the limits of your own understanding."
Limited understanding might not be the reason I don't see how the actions of the Taliban or early Christians can be justified. It could be that those actions can't be justified in the objective sense that they are in keeping with the true and accurate picture of the universe.

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.

FWIW, I said "I'm not sure that you grasp...", allowing for the possibility that you do. I am sure that I grasp what you are saying.
In saying "my sense of right and wrong is what it is", you are already speaking about something that is true. Therefore, speaking of a Creator who created you with a radically different sense than His seems to me to be nonsense. To me you are stating what is - that God actually created you with the same basic idea of good that He has/is. therefore, an alternative scenario is non-sense.
Where do you get this idea of "badly" from? And the idea of "rights"? Rights are something granted or not granted. Otherwise we only have the idea of natural selection with the strong surviving and the weak "going to the wall", to revive the old phrase, and have no business complaining about rights.
How do you know what is good and what is bad? Lewis's basic arguments in the opening chapters of MC remain the only reasonable explanation I have ever seen, a complete explanation that actually covers the facts.

As I've said a few times, I disagree with Lewis. We see different people acting as if they have very different, even opposing, moral codes. I say different people have very different, even opposing, moral codes. Lewis says everybody has the same moral code, but some choose to ignore it. He has no reason to believe that. The only fact is that different people do different things. How does he conclude from that that they all actually feel the same? More likely different people act different because they feel different. If we see one person throw a baseball 100 mph, another throw it 90 mph, another throw it 80 mph, and another throw it 70 mph, we don't assume they can all throw it 100 mph, but most are choosing to hold back. We assume most can't throw it 100 mph.

The Taliban has a radically different moral sense than I do. About respect for past cultures; about art; about how women should be treated. If your Creator is real, He seems to have created them and/or me with a radically different sense than His.

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.

Perhaps I misspoke in using the word "why" instead of "how". I didn't mean to distract from the point, which is that there is in fact always an ultimate or base philosophy that is taught, usually passively, in any education system. So people may pride themselves that they are NOT teaching a worldview, when in fact they are by default - when they say that these various subjects represent truths that we propose to teach you (materialistic ones), but those other things represent opinions, ie, non-truth, and we don't admit their discussion at all, except as opinions (because we can no longer agree on what truth is). In a word, we teach that there is no (ultimate) truth, something that I see has been effectively taught to a great many people here - in short, the public school system and media do their work well.

Different things don't always belong in the same place. Let me try this scenario... Let's say ALL knowledge of evolution AND religion - all thoughts, writings, art... everything - were removed from existence right now. Nobody anywhere had the slightest inkling that such ideas had ever existed. How would that effect each?

I'd be willing to bet religion would return. I think that, by and large, the human psyche will always look at things a certain way. It will always ask certain questions. And it will always supply answers to those questions. But will Christianity return? Will there be the same specific stories about specific people, events, and all that? Adam & Eve? The 10 Commandments? God came down in human form in Bethlehem; went here; spoke there; performed this miracle; the crucifixion; arose three days later? Will Islam return? Judaism? Zoroastrianism? Many different religions would be found everywhere. Many would be as beautiful as some that we now have. Others would be as evil.

I'd be willing to bet evolution would return. And I'd be willing to bet it returns in very much the same form. Because the fossils are still out there. People accidentally stumble on them all the time.
"Hey, that looks like the image of a lizard in that rock!"
"Is it painted on?"
"No."
"Scratched on?"
"No."
"How is it on the rock?"
"Let's see if we can find out."

And a hypothesis will be formed. And tested. Oops, wrong answer. Guess again. But eventually, the same answers will be found that we currently have. Because nobody has ever seen rock simply spring into existence; but we do see it in various stages of formation all over the world. Because, even though we can't prove that fossils are not supernaturally inserted into solid rock, we do see dead plants and animals imbedded within the different stages of rock formation all over the world. Because radiation decays in a certain way, and we can measure how long things have been sitting there. The answers cannot be different.

Teaching these two areas of human study at the same time is not remotely logical. Different questions are being asked, and different methods are being used to look for the answers. We don't teach painting in the physics class, and nobody seems to have a problem with that.

But yes, you are right that everybody - on both sides of the fence - has opinions that they cannot not express at times. Difficult to teach something that you do not believe is accurate, eh? Impossible to remove the human being from the process of humans teaching humans. Impossible to have a perfect system. (Impossible to agree on what a perfect system is. )

[rusmeister]

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.

My point is that a) it IS a possibility, and b) that mutually exclusive possibilities cannot both/all be true; ie, that there actually is one Truth (completely correct understanding, if you will); that there IS an entire elephant that has a definite shape and nature.

You may also be making those points. But the one I was addressing is this:
"Not seeing only expresses the limits of your own understanding."
Limited understanding might not be the reason I don't see how the actions of the Taliban or early Christians can be justified. It could be that those actions can't be justified in the objective sense that they are in keeping with the true and accurate picture of the universe.

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.

FWIW, I said "I'm not sure that you grasp...", allowing for the possibility that you do. I am sure that I grasp what you are saying.
In saying "my sense of right and wrong is what it is", you are already speaking about something that is true. Therefore, speaking of a Creator who created you with a radically different sense than His seems to me to be nonsense. To me you are stating what is - that God actually created you with the same basic idea of good that He has/is. therefore, an alternative scenario is non-sense.
Where do you get this idea of "badly" from? And the idea of "rights"? Rights are something granted or not granted. Otherwise we only have the idea of natural selection with the strong surviving and the weak "going to the wall", to revive the old phrase, and have no business complaining about rights.
How do you know what is good and what is bad? Lewis's basic arguments in the opening chapters of MC remain the only reasonable explanation I have ever seen, a complete explanation that actually covers the facts.

As I've said a few times, I disagree with Lewis. We see different people acting as if they have very different, even opposing, moral codes. I say different people have very different, even opposing, moral codes. Lewis says everybody has the same moral code, but some choose to ignore it. He has no reason to believe that. The only fact is that different people do different things. How does he conclude from that that they all actually feel the same? More likely different people act different because they feel different. If we see one person throw a baseball 100 mph, another throw it 90 mph, another throw it 80 mph, and another throw it 70 mph, we don't assume they can all throw it 100 mph, but most are choosing to hold back. We assume most can't throw it 100 mph.

The Taliban has a radically different moral sense than I do. About respect for past cultures; about art; about how women should be treated. If your Creator is real, He seems to have created them and/or me with a radically different sense than His.

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.

Perhaps I misspoke in using the word "why" instead of "how". I didn't mean to distract from the point, which is that there is in fact always an ultimate or base philosophy that is taught, usually passively, in any education system. So people may pride themselves that they are NOT teaching a worldview, when in fact they are by default - when they say that these various subjects represent truths that we propose to teach you (materialistic ones), but those other things represent opinions, ie, non-truth, and we don't admit their discussion at all, except as opinions (because we can no longer agree on what truth is). In a word, we teach that there is no (ultimate) truth, something that I see has been effectively taught to a great many people here - in short, the public school system and media do their work well.

Different things don't always belong in the same place. Let me try this scenario... Let's say ALL knowledge of evolution AND religion - all thoughts, writings, art... everything - were removed from existence right now. Nobody anywhere had the slightest inkling that such ideas had ever existed. How would that effect each?

I'd be willing to bet religion would return. I think that, by and large, the human psyche will always look at things a certain way. It will always ask certain questions. And it will always supply answers to those questions. But will Christianity return? Will there be the same specific stories about specific people, events, and all that? Adam & Eve? The 10 Commandments? God came down in human form in Bethlehem; went here; spoke there; performed this miracle; the crucifixion; arose three days later? Will Islam return? Judaism? Zoroastrianism? Many different religions would be found everywhere. Many would be as beautiful as some that we now have. Others would be as evil.

I'd be willing to bet evolution would return. And I'd be willing to bet it returns in very much the same form. Because the fossils are still out there. People accidentally stumble on them all the time.
"Hey, that looks like the image of a lizard in that rock!"
"Is it painted on?"
"No."
"Scratched on?"
"No."
"How is it on the rock?"
"Let's see if we can find out."

And a hypothesis will be formed. And tested. Oops, wrong answer. Guess again. But eventually, the same answers will be found that we currently have. Because nobody has ever seen rock simply spring into existence; but we do see it in various stages of formation all over the world. Because, even though we can't prove that fossils are not supernaturally inserted into solid rock, we do see dead plants and animals imbedded within the different stages of rock formation all over the world. Because radiation decays in a certain way, and we can measure how long things have been sitting there. The answers cannot be different.

Teaching these two areas of human study at the same time is not remotely logical. Different questions are being asked, and different methods are being used to look for the answers. We don't teach painting in the physics class, and nobody seems to have a problem with that.

But yes, you are right that everybody - on both sides of the fence - has opinions that they cannot not express at times. Difficult to teach something that you do not believe is accurate, eh? Impossible to remove the human being from the process of humans teaching humans. Impossible to have a perfect system. (Impossible to agree on what a perfect system is. )

I think I can answer in short by saying that whatever the truth is about the universe, THAT is what will crop up. Therefore, in your hypothetical argument, Christianity would only "not return" if it was actually not the truth. If it is, however, it would most certainly return.

You misstate Lewis's argument. He did not say "all morality is alike". Only that it is much more alike than unlike. The examples he gave - that there is no such thing as a culture that approves of the abandoning of one's comrades in battle or stabbing friends in the back, for example, bear out what he means. Thus, however much we disagree with the Taliban, we actually agree with them much more than we disagree with them regarding the total scale of human behavior - because they are, in the final analysis, human. Their morals are NOT so different (I'd say less than 90 degrees) as to be opposed to ours (180 degrees). With them, as with us, there is such a thing as civil behavior - one may not simply walk up to anyone one does not happen to like and kill them (speaking only of behavior that they actually teach and believe to be right and wrong, excluding those that violate that morality).

And again, on education, I'd refer you to the two questions posed by John Stormer in his book "None Dare Call It Education". In it, he proposes walking up to any education administrator and asking these two questions:
1) what is the nature of man?
2) what is his purpose in life?
Stormer said that the administrator will immediately respond by saying that they do not deal with these questions. However, Stormer correctly points out that it is impossible to construct an education system without having a definite philosophy of education with definite answers to those two questions.
I say that most falsely believe that that philosophy is somehow neutral, or more often are completely unaware of the philosophical base of our public education - which is materialist, humanist and opposed to traditional religions, especially Christianity. If you don't know about the Prussian origins of our education system, who Horace Mann was, the influence of Fabian ideas, esp. on John Dewey and Co, the connections early on between the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations and the nascent NEA, then you've got some homework to do. It is the reason I believe so many people have so quickly been formed to have views radically different from their own grandparents and great-grandparents.

[Seven Words]

Rus--

Something ADDED later on does NOT make it unique. Adding things later is simply marketing. From its' very origins, what is unique about Christianity? I asked about Orthodox books as those are from the origins. A concept added a few hundred, or a thousand, years later is not the same at all.

[rdhopeca]

Rus--

Something ADDED later on does NOT make it unique. Adding things later is simply marketing. From its' very origins, what is unique about Christianity? I asked about Orthodox books as those are from the origins. A concept added a few hundred, or a thousand, years later is not the same at all.

In fact from my perspective, concepts add a few hundred or thousand years later feels more like a big "whoops" to me...as in, whoops, we screwed up the first time around.

[Fist and Faith]

I guess it's possible that the only points of morality on which I disagree with the Taliban are the need for respect of other cultures; the opinion of what is art and/or respect for art; and the enslavement of women.

In the meantime, I'll look at MC again, and see if I think what you're saying IS what he's saying. Of course, even if I didn't think he is saying that, it could certainly be your position. However, I will not agree that, even if every person had the exact same moral stance on every single issue, it would be proof of a creator. No more than I believe the fact that we all (most of us, anyway) have two arms, two legs, etc etc.


As for your two questions, no, an education system does not require that we answer them. Humans have always striven to learn, and explore. An education system is an attempt to teach what is known, hopefully leading to an increase of the base of human knowledge. It doesn't seem human societies are capable of not developing education systems, if they have sufficient time on their hands.(I may be wrong about that. Do societies develop to the point where people aren't struggling 20 hours per day just to survive, but they don't have some sort of schools?) You and I are not going to agree on the answers to those questions, any more than we agree on whether or not the existence of the universe, or similar moral views, is proof of God's existence. So basing an education system on those answers is going to make one of us unhappy.

[aliantha]

Even societies where people *are* struggling 20 hours a day to survive have an education system. It's just more along the lines of, "This is how you hold the spear-thrower to get maximum leverage. Don't plant this seed next to that seed -- the plants don't like each other and won't grow." While an education system of that type might answer "what is man's purpose in life?" (i.e., at that level, it's simply survival), I don't know that they care much about the nature of man. Or, ahem, woman.

Dunno if that's germane to the discussion or not, but the thought occurred to me and so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Rus, I do have a question for you. You said upthread that there are things you've learned about historical Christianity that you never would have learned in a university comparative religion class. I'm wondering what you're basing that observation on. Did you ever take comparative religion in college? I didn't, but the idea is starting to intrigue me, kind of.

[rusmeister]

Rus--

Something ADDED later on does NOT make it unique. Adding things later is simply marketing. From its' very origins, what is unique about Christianity? I asked about Orthodox books as those are from the origins. A concept added a few hundred, or a thousand, years later is not the same at all.

On the contrary, the books themselves can, in a certain sense, be considered 'additions'. Did you understand what I said about Tradition? Thus, they can only be understood in the context of the tradition that produced them.

i do agree that it was not anything "added" that makes it unique. But if you are trying to determine that from Scripture alone, you are in trouble - for who is to determine what scripture means? What it meant to people far removed in time and space? How much do you know that you can claim that understanding on your own? Western Christianity, particularly Protestant, has done so, and what are the results? That the faith is whatever the individual determines it to be based on his own limited understanding. That (just to take the Incarnation as an example) Jesus was born in a western type "stable", rather than the caves that were ubiquitous for the penning and protection of animals, that Joseph was the same age as Mary, simply because they were married - which IS the rule, rather than the exception in today's society, with all the modern assumptions behind what marriage is and what its purposes are...

Have you read the intro for TEM yet? (Or are you part of the crowd that says they WILL NOT read it unless it is paraphrased in posting format here?)

[rusmeister]

I guess it's possible that the only points of morality on which I disagree with the Taliban are the need for respect of other cultures; the opinion of what is art and/or respect for art; and the enslavement of women.

Although I have a good deal of sympathy with your position vis-a-vis the Taliban, in the interests of playing the devil's advocate I'll ask whether the Taliban feel such a need to respect other cultures...?

In the meantime, I'll look at MC again, and see if I think what you're saying IS what he's saying. Of course, even if I didn't think he is saying that, it could certainly be your position. However, I will not agree that, even if every person had the exact same moral stance on every single issue, it would be proof of a creator. No more than I believe the fact that we all (most of us, anyway) have two arms, two legs, etc etc.

Agreed. I wouldn't claim it as proof in a scientific sense. Although I believe it to be powerful evidence of such a Creator.

As for your two questions, no, an education system does not require that we answer them. Humans have always striven to learn, and explore. An education system is an attempt to teach what is known, hopefully leading to an increase of the base of human knowledge. It doesn't seem human societies are capable of not developing education systems, if they have sufficient time on their hands.(I may be wrong about that. Do societies develop to the point where people aren't struggling 20 hours per day just to survive, but they don't have some sort of schools?) You and I are not going to agree on the answers to those questions, any more than we agree on whether or not the existence of the universe, or similar moral views, is proof of God's existence. So basing an education system on those answers is going to make one of us unhappy.

Ah, but I didn't say that the system requires that WE answer them. I'm saying that in order to form any system, those questions must be answered, and WERE answered by those who formed the system - only they didn't hasten to tell us what that philosophy is and what those answers are, and the inheritors of that system are largely no longer aware of the questions.

Why should I bother surviving? Unless I agree to live as an unthinking animal, as soon as I am capable of thinking about it I SHOULD think about it.

Yes, I agree that the answers are bound to conflict. Whether you, as part of the losing side, should submit your children to be taught the opposite of what you teach at home, a philosophy dictated by your, well, philosophical enemies, is another question. It only reveals that being quiet and accepting the results of the winning side (those whose philosophy predominates) is foolish if you believe your position to be the truth, and the winners to be teaching based on falsehood. In short, that conflict is inevitable as long as there are thinkers on the 'losing' side. (I maintain that the goal of the side that has actually won is to teach everyone to not really think; the opposite of mission statements promising to teach "critical thinking skills".)
IOW, it is a war, although I hold that it is, in the final analysis, a spiritual war rather than a temporal one.

[rusmeister]

Even societies where people *are* struggling 20 hours a day to survive have an education system. It's just more along the lines of, "This is how you hold the spear-thrower to get maximum leverage. Don't plant this seed next to that seed -- the plants don't like each other and won't grow." While an education system of that type might answer "what is man's purpose in life?" (i.e., at that level, it's simply survival), I don't know that they care much about the nature of man. Or, ahem, woman.

Dunno if that's germane to the discussion or not, but the thought occurred to me and so I thought I'd throw it out there.

Rus, I do have a question for you. You said upthread that there are things you've learned about historical Christianity that you never would have learned in a university comparative religion class. I'm wondering what you're basing that observation on. Did you ever take comparative religion in college? I didn't, but the idea is starting to intrigue me, kind of.

Hi, Ali!
On the first point, my entire thesis is that the questions I have posed are avoided in the open - they are deliberately "not taught", ie, avoided in public discussion. However, the answers DO inform the base construction of any educational philosophy, and the insidious nature of public life of our time is that the questions are avoided, even while practical decisions are made that assume the answers to them. Therefore, you will see no course teaching or discussing these questions in public schools, and even college/university courses approach them only as "opinions" or "points of view", not as questions of actual truth - and if they do, they purposefully avoid coming to conclusions regarding the answers. But the courses themselves are based on the assumption that there IS no truth, or that the truth is unattainable! As a certified public teacher (having gone through the requirements for both NY and CA), I can tell you that a key requirement of every single course in the programs is a demonstration or explanation of how you will teach the public ideology (multiculturalism, pluralism, tolerance, diversity, and the subsequent negation of truth). Thus, the philosophy manages to permeate everything; first, what the teacher must profess in order to be certified (see Steve Head www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_ed_school.html for an example of someone who refused to toe the line - I was more cowardly, kept my mouth shut and got my cert.), and then what that teacher must express or not express regarding those all-important questions regardless of the subject matter that they teach. It is constantly hammered in and reinforced at endless mandatory staff meetings, training, and ongoing requirements.
It's a corollary that a concept cannot be taught in total isolation from the philosophy of "why should I learn/be taught this?"; it is the reason why the teacher and student approach the subject at all.

BTW, I use the word 'man' to mean the same thing as 'humanity' - the difference being that i can apply the word 'man' to individuals as well as collectively. There is no reflection on either sex from that.

To answer your last question, I was required to take a level 2 philosophy course (I never forgot Siddhartha, by Hesse - that got me started in thinking about the 'whys' of anything) and in addition wound up taking a (3rd year!) Judaic studies course focusing on the Holocaust, so no, I didn't take a specifically comparative course. What I base my comment on (at the risk of beating a dead horse) is the fact that no attempt to approach philosophy can do so in a vacuum - I feel like I'm trying to say this to Fist regarding the philosophy of education and am evidently not doing a very good job of it - so any teaching of philosophy or religion starts from a certain worldview or mish-mash of them. You can't stand outside of philosophy or religion to really learn about them. It's not possible. (In philosophy, it's not possible at all; with religion, I think you can think that you have been objectively taught something regarding the religion, but usually lack the objectivity to see where the teaching was not truly objective). But my point is that the cards are already stacked against some views and in favor of others from the get-go.

[Seven Words]

Rus--

Something ADDED later on does NOT make it unique. Adding things later is simply marketing. From its' very origins, what is unique about Christianity? I asked about Orthodox books as those are from the origins. A concept added a few hundred, or a thousand, years later is not the same at all.

On the contrary, the books themselves can, in a certain sense, be considered 'additions'. Did you understand what I said about Tradition? Thus, they can only be understood in the context of the tradition that produced them.

i do agree that it was not anything "added" that makes it unique. But if you are trying to determine that from Scripture alone, you are in trouble - for who is to determine what scripture means? What it meant to people far removed in time and space? How much do you know that you can claim that understanding on your own? Western Christianity, particularly Protestant, has done so, and what are the results? That the faith is whatever the individual determines it to be based on his own limited understanding. That (just to take the Incarnation as an example) Jesus was born in a western type "stable", rather than the caves that were ubiquitous for the penning and protection of animals, that Joseph was the same age as Mary, simply because they were married - which IS the rule, rather than the exception in today's society, with all the modern assumptions behind what marriage is and what its purposes are...

Have you read the intro for TEM yet? (Or are you part of the crowd that says they WILL NOT read it unless it is paraphrased in posting format here?)

Rus, you are not answering my question. Christianity, be it Western or Eastern, is built upon the Bible. Regardless of if it is individuals interpretation, or the "party line" (that was humor, not sarcasm), it all still comes back to the Bible. What in that is unique?

[rusmeister]

Rus--

Something ADDED later on does NOT make it unique. Adding things later is simply marketing. From its' very origins, what is unique about Christianity? I asked about Orthodox books as those are from the origins. A concept added a few hundred, or a thousand, years later is not the same at all.

On the contrary, the books themselves can, in a certain sense, be considered 'additions'. Did you understand what I said about Tradition? Thus, they can only be understood in the context of the tradition that produced them.

i do agree that it was not anything "added" that makes it unique. But if you are trying to determine that from Scripture alone, you are in trouble - for who is to determine what scripture means? What it meant to people far removed in time and space? How much do you know that you can claim that understanding on your own? Western Christianity, particularly Protestant, has done so, and what are the results? That the faith is whatever the individual determines it to be based on his own limited understanding. That (just to take the Incarnation as an example) Jesus was born in a western type "stable", rather than the caves that were ubiquitous for the penning and protection of animals, that Joseph was the same age as Mary, simply because they were married - which IS the rule, rather than the exception in today's society, with all the modern assumptions behind what marriage is and what its purposes are...

Have you read the intro for TEM yet? (Or are you part of the crowd that says they WILL NOT read it unless it is paraphrased in posting format here?)

Rus, you are not answering my question. Christianity, be it Western or Eastern, is built upon the Bible. Regardless of if it is individuals interpretation, or the "party line" (that was humor, not sarcasm), it all still comes back to the Bible. What in that is unique?

No, it does not all "come back to the Bible". Not all theology and practice is explicitly found in the Bible; the most that can be said that it may be shown to be compatible with Scripture.
The Bible did not exist as such until late in the fourth century. What did Christians do in the mean time?
Your real question is "what is unique in Christian theology?", but as long as you insist that it must all be contained in the Bible, and that you have already read the Bible and therefore know all that you need to know, then you will not be open to anything else; or at the very least, you will take any answer and try to measure it by the Bible and your knowledge of it.
Here is the best outline I know of online:
www.oca.org/OCorthfaith.asp?SID=2
Click on "doctrine" and choose "sources of christian doctrine". You will immediately see that in Orthodoxy, the Bible, while the most important, is only one of nine sources. That means it is necessary to be familiar with more than just the Bible before you can claim to have any real familiarity with Christian doctrine (and that covers just Orthodoxy - although I'd say there are none deeper). Since Orthodoxy is also experiential and cannot be completely understood through reading (theory) alone, you'd also have to visit an Orthodox church at some point. The good news is, that unlike Baptists and some others, they make no pushy efforts to convert you.

[Seven Words]

OK Rus, I read it.

Very, VERY, VERY detailed on the many, MANY ways Orthodox differs from Western in terms of doctrine and interpretation of Scripture. Offhand, I'd say I knew about 20% of what was there (in terms of doctrinal differences...it was interesting, thanks for the link!). However, I still did NOT find anything unique to Christianity. If you are trying to say, unique among Christian sects, that I would certainly say. In fact, I would have said that before I read any that information. But I am talking about unique among ALL faiths...what is found ONLY in Christianity? What is not found in ANY other faith which predates Christianity?

[aliantha]

You can't stand outside of philosophy or religion to really learn about them. It's not possible. (In philosophy, it's not possible at all; with religion, I think you can think that you have been objectively taught something regarding the religion, but usually lack the objectivity to see where the teaching was not truly objective).

But Chesterton says the next best position to being inside Christianity, if you're going to criticize it, is to be totally outside of Christianity. (No need to respond -- I'm just messing with you. )

[Fist and Faith]

I hope, rus, you're not suggesting that the teachings of the pastors/priests/ministers are truly objective!

As with what we've just been saying about education in general, it's not often we find people attempting to teach without their own agenda thrown in there. In many subjects, such isn't even possible. I rather like this, from the Music Master in Hesse's Glass Bead Game:

To be candid, I myself, for example, have never in my life said a word to my pupils about the "meaning" of music; if there is one, it does not need my explanations. On the other I have always made a great point of having my pupils count their eighths and sixteenths nicely. Whatever you become, teacher, scholar, or musician, have respect for the "meaning," but do not imagine that it can be taught.

[rusmeister]

OK Rus, I read it.

Very, VERY, VERY detailed on the many, MANY ways Orthodox differs from Western in terms of doctrine and interpretation of Scripture. Offhand, I'd say I knew about 20% of what was there (in terms of doctrinal differences...it was interesting, thanks for the link!). However, I still did NOT find anything unique to Christianity. If you are trying to say, unique among Christian sects, that I would certainly say. In fact, I would have said that before I read any that information. But I am talking about unique among ALL faiths...what is found ONLY in Christianity? What is not found in ANY other faith which predates Christianity?

I actually object to any simple answer, because it turns out to be too simple. I really really recommend reading TEM. It would help you to get the context of educated Christianity and (more to the point) save tons of posting. Heck, Ali can even joke with me now!

But if I were to present the over-simplified answer you want to see here, I'll say that it includes, but is not limited to a special and essential combination:
A Creator that came and walked the earth, as a man, in definite historical times, who actually said that he was the Creator
PLUS
He claimed to be able to forgive the sins of others.

That ought to be enough. But I'd add that it is still around today (ie, it has survived for a couple of millenia now)
(plus the other things you mentioned, which you can find as elements, or hints, but they only serve to support, rather than deny, the idea of foreshadowing of the truth - the True Myth).

It is precisely the combination that makes Christianity unique, although I think that you could arguably find a shadow of any element in any religion. The ones that are more likely to express real truth about the universe (have a more accurate view of the nature of the universe) are ones which large portions of humanity have agreed upon for long periods of time (to present). That would narrow down the list of religions worth taking seriously dramatically - you're essentially down to the six or so major world religions.

If you read at least the first few chapters of TEM (Lewis's "Christian Reflections" or "God in the Dock" would be acceptable alternatives, I suppose), I'd be happy to continue the discussion. My reason for holding that line is that I have learned a ton over the past six years, and it cannot be boiled down to a few posts, however much people might want it to. I've already gone back and forth too many times with people who want to argue but don't want to discover any bigger context. I'll focus my efforts on those that are open to learning and are willing to read more than just li'l ol' me.

[Seven Words]

OK Rus, I read it.

Very, VERY, VERY detailed on the many, MANY ways Orthodox differs from Western in terms of doctrine and interpretation of Scripture. Offhand, I'd say I knew about 20% of what was there (in terms of doctrinal differences...it was interesting, thanks for the link!). However, I still did NOT find anything unique to Christianity. If you are trying to say, unique among Christian sects, that I would certainly say. In fact, I would have said that before I read any that information. But I am talking about unique among ALL faiths...what is found ONLY in Christianity? What is not found in ANY other faith which predates Christianity?

I actually object to any simple answer, because it turns out to be too simple. I really really recommend reading TEM. It would help you to get the context of educated Christianity and (more to the point) save tons of posting. Heck, Ali can even joke with me now!

But if I were to present the over-simplified answer you want to see here, I'll say that it includes, but is not limited to a special and essential combination:
A Creator that came and walked the earth, as a man, in definite historical times, who actually said that he was the Creator
PLUS
He claimed to be able to forgive the sins of others.

That ought to be enough. But I'd add that it is still around today (ie, it has survived for a couple of millenia now)
(plus the other things you mentioned, which you can find as elements, or hints, but they only serve to support, rather than deny, the idea of foreshadowing of the truth - the True Myth).

It is precisely the combination that makes Christianity unique, although I think that you could arguably find a shadow of any element in any religion. The ones that are more likely to express real truth about the universe (have a more accurate view of the nature of the universe) are ones which large portions of humanity have agreed upon for long periods of time (to present). That would narrow down the list of religions worth taking seriously dramatically - you're essentially down to the six or so major world religions.

If you read at least the first few chapters of TEM (Lewis's "Christian Reflections" or "God in the Dock" would be acceptable alternatives, I suppose), I'd be happy to continue the discussion. My reason for holding that line is that I have learned a ton over the past six years, and it cannot be boiled down to a few posts, however much people might want it to. I've already gone back and forth too many times with people who want to argue but don't want to discover any bigger context. I'll focus my efforts on those that are open to learning and are willing to read more than just li'l ol' me.

Creator walked the Earth and SAID he was, is in many other places. Ability to forgive the sins of others, also not unique.
During historical times is irrelevant, as when, say The Epic of Gilgamesh was first written, those events were posited within "historical time" to that culture.
Longevity is also irrelevant, as Zoroastrianism predates Christianity. As does Hinduism...and there are a LOT of Hindus. Number of adherents? Truth is not needed for that, simply good marketing and some charismatic figures.
The foreshadowing argument is absolutely pointless. It's like saying, "Prove you're not a racist".


Now, before anyone gets all up in arms...NOTHING I have said or posited IN ANY WAY is any sort of refutation of Christianity as a belief structure. I am simply explaining and examining some of the many reasons why I do not believe in it.

[rusmeister]

OK Rus, I read it.

Very, VERY, VERY detailed on the many, MANY ways Orthodox differs from Western in terms of doctrine and interpretation of Scripture. Offhand, I'd say I knew about 20% of what was there (in terms of doctrinal differences...it was interesting, thanks for the link!). However, I still did NOT find anything unique to Christianity. If you are trying to say, unique among Christian sects, that I would certainly say. In fact, I would have said that before I read any that information. But I am talking about unique among ALL faiths...what is found ONLY in Christianity? What is not found in ANY other faith which predates Christianity?

I actually object to any simple answer, because it turns out to be too simple. I really really recommend reading TEM. It would help you to get the context of educated Christianity and (more to the point) save tons of posting. Heck, Ali can even joke with me now!

But if I were to present the over-simplified answer you want to see here, I'll say that it includes, but is not limited to a special and essential combination:
A Creator that came and walked the earth, as a man, in definite historical times, who actually said that he was the Creator
PLUS
He claimed to be able to forgive the sins of others.

That ought to be enough. But I'd add that it is still around today (ie, it has survived for a couple of millenia now)
(plus the other things you mentioned, which you can find as elements, or hints, but they only serve to support, rather than deny, the idea of foreshadowing of the truth - the True Myth).

It is precisely the combination that makes Christianity unique, although I think that you could arguably find a shadow of any element in any religion. The ones that are more likely to express real truth about the universe (have a more accurate view of the nature of the universe) are ones which large portions of humanity have agreed upon for long periods of time (to present). That would narrow down the list of religions worth taking seriously dramatically - you're essentially down to the six or so major world religions.

If you read at least the first few chapters of TEM (Lewis's "Christian Reflections" or "God in the Dock" would be acceptable alternatives, I suppose), I'd be happy to continue the discussion. My reason for holding that line is that I have learned a ton over the past six years, and it cannot be boiled down to a few posts, however much people might want it to. I've already gone back and forth too many times with people who want to argue but don't want to discover any bigger context. I'll focus my efforts on those that are open to learning and are willing to read more than just li'l ol' me.

Creator walked the Earth and SAID he was, is in many other places. Ability to forgive the sins of others, also not unique.
During historical times is irrelevant, as when, say The Epic of Gilgamesh was first written, those events were posited within "historical time" to that culture.
Longevity is also irrelevant, as Zoroastrianism predates Christianity. As does Hinduism...and there are a LOT of Hindus. Number of adherents? Truth is not needed for that, simply good marketing and some charismatic figures.
The foreshadowing argument is absolutely pointless. It's like saying, "Prove you're not a racist".


Now, before anyone gets all up in arms...NOTHING I have said or posited IN ANY WAY is any sort of refutation of Christianity as a belief structure. I am simply explaining and examining some of the many reasons why I do not believe in it.

A)I was specific in saying that Christ walked the earth in a definitive historical time - we can actually say when, and He was right smack in the middle of the civilized world and recent enough history that it is much more difficult to write Him off to mere myth and legend.

B)He walked the earth AS A MAN and claimed the ability to forgive sins - against other people - which in itself is awfully damaging to the idea that He was merely a "wise teacher". Such a person is either a fraud or koo-koo for Cocoa Puffs - unless He is who He said He is.

Like I said, TEM is one good source to get you to think more deeply about the reasons you reject Christianity on; also, Lewis's "Surprised by Joy" includes some of the discussions he, Tolkien and Barfield had on Myth and myths.
Those two men (Chesterton and Lewis) thought head and shoulders above any thought I have ever seen anywhere - they saw and dealt with all of the tired old arguments periodically trotted out - and I have learned an absolute ton from them - which is why, while continuing to think with my own brain, I recommend them so much. Anyway, if you see anything at all that looks smart or wise in anything I have said, it's thanks to them to a great extent.