Sold my soul, but not to the devil.

[Fist and Faith]

Why did God not do something with the Native American peoples? Or did he? Did Jesus appear somewhere here, too? I've never heard reports of that, but maybe it happened. But if it didn't, then Satan and demons were appearing to them all over the place, fairly regularly, and God didn't do anything.

If nothing else, it might have changed how things went down when the Europeans arrived. They might have been less inclined to commit genocide against other Christians. (Not that it's a guarantee, mind you...)

Well... what? Fiction?

What follows is consistent with Christian cosmology. You should read it for yourself.

Well, at any rate, the story of what follows is consistent with Christian cosmology. Whether or not that story is fiction or non-fiction is the question.

[rusmeister]

Why did God not do something with the Native American peoples? Or did he? Did Jesus appear somewhere here, too? I've never heard reports of that, but maybe it happened. But if it didn't, then Satan and demons were appearing to them all over the place, fairly regularly, and God didn't do anything.

If nothing else, it might have changed how things went down when the Europeans arrived. They might have been less inclined to commit genocide against other Christians. (Not that it's a guarantee, mind you...)

This is where I'd say that reading more Lewis would provide a cure. (It worked for me.) if I were pointing to the Bible, I'd refer to "the law written on the hearts" of Indians or other pagans as a hope for their salvation. Lewis talks extensively in places about the question of pre-Christian societies.
Basically, the idea is that such peoples received pictures, if you will, harbingers of what Christ would be. Thus, the "corn god", far from disproving Christianity, becomes another nail of support for it. So the contention is that God did something, and will judge them fairly, with love and mercy, as he will all people.

The Europeans that committed genocide were not Christians who took their faith seriously. In short, they were nominal. That goes for any priests that supported such evils as well.

Well... what? Fiction?

What follows is consistent with Christian cosmology. You should read it for yourself.

Well, at any rate, the story of what follows is consistent with Christian cosmology. Whether or not that story is fiction or non-fiction is the question. [/quote]
The story is admittedly fiction. It only illustrates what Christian cosmology claims. Whether you accept those claims, or at least concede that they could be taken seriously, is really the question.

[Fist and Faith]

This is where I'd say that reading more Lewis would provide a cure. (It worked for me.)

I'm not ill. I was just asking your/ the OC's position on this topic.

if I were pointing to the Bible, I'd refer to "the law written on the hearts" of Indians or other pagans as a hope for their salvation. Lewis talks extensively in places about the question of pre-Christian societies.
Basically, the idea is that such peoples received pictures, if you will, harbingers of what Christ would be. Thus, the "corn god", far from disproving Christianity, becomes another nail of support for it. So the contention is that God did something, and will judge them fairly, with love and mercy, as he will all people.

I thought you just said the "corn god" was a demon?

(I'm a native American in my own lights, and so do not accept or teach the new PC term, as it implies that I am native to nowhere.)

In this usage, "native" refers to where the ancestors of this particular group of people were from. African Americans are Americans whose ancestors came from Africa. Asian Americans are Americans whose ancestors came from Asia. Native Americans are Americans whose ancestors were native to America.

[aliantha]

(I'm a native American in my own lights, and so do not accept or teach the new PC term, as it implies that I am native to nowhere.)

In this usage, "native" refers to where the ancestors of this particular group of people were from. African Americans are Americans whose ancestors came from Africa. Asian Americans are Americans whose ancestors came from Asia. Native Americans are Americans whose ancestors were native to America.

Thanks, Fist, I'd meant to make this point and forgot. Calling Native Americans "Indians" is worse than the PC term, imho, as they got to be called "Indians" because Christopher Columbus screwed up on his geography and thought he'd landed in India.

Canada calls them "First Nations People," I believe -- i.e., the nations that were here in North America before the whites arrived.

I'm both a native American (born in Illinois) and a (teensy bit) Native American, so the term works for me either way.

[rusmeister]

This is where I'd say that reading more Lewis would provide a cure. (It worked for me.)

I'm not ill. I was just asking your/ the OC's position on this topic.

The OC does not have a position on every question under the sun. It has positions on what is Church dogma, and in a great many other things, it claims appropriate agnosticism.. However, a good answer would be "We know where the grace of God IS. We do not know where it is not." Based on "the law written in their hearts", we have a good basis for hoping that a great many pagans and pre-Christians will be saved; perhaps all, or nearly all of them. We have a strong belief in God's mercy, and especially that is is far greater than we can comprehend. At the same time, we are left with definitive teachings regarding post-Christian peoples, who do not have the excuse the pre-Christians have, and we have to teach that there is a definite concept of eternal destruction that is a possible 'destination' (or state) for us.

if I were pointing to the Bible, I'd refer to "the law written on the hearts" of Indians or other pagans as a hope for their salvation. Lewis talks extensively in places about the question of pre-Christian societies.
Basically, the idea is that such peoples received pictures, if you will, harbingers of what Christ would be. Thus, the "corn god", far from disproving Christianity, becomes another nail of support for it. So the contention is that God did something, and will judge them fairly, with love and mercy, as he will all people.

I thought you just said the "corn god" was a demon?

No, I didn't, although a great many pagan cultures were subject to demonic influences, visions and even action. But here, we do not always know when this is the case. (Again, if you considered the premise in TEM of "The war of the gods and the demons", it would be easy to see that there is no difficulty in identifying a culture like that of the Carthaginians, or worshipers in general of B'aal, Moloch or Tanit as one dominated by demonic influence. But there is a great deal of difficulty in knowing such a thing about, say, the Greek or Norse gods. Thus a lot of pagan culture was basically good and moral, and could be seen as preparing ground for Christianity. People who already had definite ideas about good and evil and of rejecting evil, even at great or total cost (the noble pagan) could more readily accept the ideas, and ideals, of Christianity. The Vikings who believed that the (good) gods and (wicked) giants would fight at Ragnarok, and that the gods would lose - but the good guys stay on their side, anyway - is just one example of this.

Of course, if you ever take the time to read Lewis (or Chesterton, or even Dickens) more extensively, you will see strong suggestions that the best of paganism survives in Christianity. It is something that was always good, but it has been, of necessity, 'baptized'. The corn god who dies and rises again is actually a picture of the (then-future) Resurrection of Christ. Just look at Narnia and all of the mythological imagery there as something accepted into, but submitted to, the acknowledgment of Aslan as King. Making merry at Christmas (uh, the middle of winter) is something pagans did long before Christ. But the Christian has a much better reason to make merry, and so Pan's celebration of wine becomes the marriage at Cana and the very water is blessed and turned into wine.

(I'm a native American in my own lights, and so do not accept or teach the new PC term, as it implies that I am native to nowhere.)

In this usage, "native" refers to where the ancestors of this particular group of people were from. African Americans are Americans whose ancestors came from Africa. Asian Americans are Americans whose ancestors came from Asia. Native Americans are Americans whose ancestors were native to America.

I know what the official justification is, something that every school child has drilled into them. However, even that is not proven, and AFAIK, the most popular theory is that their ancestors crossed the Bering Strait. But I'll stick with the fact that nobody actually knows that. And the usage of this term has one practical purpose, and it is precisely to insist that people who have lived for many generations in America are native to nowhere. Nobody calls me a "Native European" - and I can hear actual Europeans snickering at that one)... This has profound implications. It essentially denies, in the most literal interpretation, that America is not my homeland. I object to that, and so do not use or teach the term as being a valid one. I am aware that the people traditionally called Indians also have good objections to the term "Indian". personally, I would be fine with a name like "First Americans", but since it looks that that will never hit popular usage, I'll stick with the popular usage that doesn't 'disenfranchise" me. My further objection is the way in which the new term has been propagated. It is absolutely not by natural/organic change of language, but by imposition through the education system - which means that instead of change spreading naturally from the bottom up, it is actually imposed from the top down by a tiny minority. That IS what "politically correct" terms are, and that is why common people have a natural revulsion for them and curse PC, even as they are taught to use the terms. At least on an instinctive level, they know that PC is deeply undemocratic.

The rooted hope of the modern world is that all these dim democracies do still believe in that romance of life, that variation of man, woman and child upon which all poetry has hitherto been built. The danger of the modern world is that these dim democracies are so very dim, and that they are especially dim where they are right. The danger is that the world may fall under a new oligarchy -- the oligarchy of prigs. And if anyone should promptly ask (in the manner of the debating clubs) for the definition of a prig, I can only reply that a prig is an oligarch who does not even know he is an oligarch. A circle of small pedants sit on an upper platform, and pass unanimously (in a meeting of none) that there is no difference between the social duties of men and of women, the social instruction of men or of children. Below them boils that multitudinous sea of millions that think differently, that have always thought differently, that will always think differently. In spite of the overwhelming majority that maintains the old theory of life, I am in some real doubt about which will win. Owing to the decay of theology and all the other clear systems of thought, men have been thrown back very much upon their instincts, as with animals. As with animals, their instincts are right; but, as with animals, they can be cowed. Between the agile scholars and the stagnant mob, I am really doubtful about which will be triumphant. I have no doubt at all about which ought to be.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/What ... World.html

[Xar]

Rus, I would like to point out that, first of all, you haven't answered the questions I last posted. Secondly, I would point out that the fact that your vision of pagan religions as "preparing for Christianity" and/or heralding it is, once again, just as valid as it would be for a pagan to say that Christianity stole their religion's identity and celebrations, destroyed the religion's holy sites, and imposed itself - sometimes brutally - on people who for the most part did not WANT to be converted. To say that in the end it all worked out well, and/or that the fact that Christianity is one of the major religions nowadays implies it is "better" in any way would be tantamount to a ruler saying that his rule is good and just simply because he's still on the throne...

[aliantha]

I'm just gonna disregard all this bidness about demonic influences in paganism. I don't believe in Hell or Satan or demons, so it doesn't affect me one way or the other. Altho it does strike me as Christianity puffing itself up by discrediting the faiths that went before it. So rus, if it makes you feel better to do that, feel free.

People who already had definite ideas about good and evil and of rejecting evil, even at great or total cost (the noble pagan) could more readily accept the ideas, and ideals, of Christianity. The Vikings who believed that the (good) gods and (wicked) giants would fight at Ragnarok, and that the gods would lose - but the good guys stay on their side, anyway - is just one example of this.

Of course, if you ever take the time to read Lewis (or Chesterton, or even Dickens) more extensively, you will see strong suggestions that the best of paganism survives in Christianity. Etc.

So in short, rus, what you're saying is that Christianity cherry-picked "the best of paganism" and incorporated it, and demonized the rest.

Which makes it exactly like pretty much every religion that went before it.

[rusmeister]

I'm just gonna disregard all this bidness about demonic influences in paganism. I don't believe in Hell or Satan or demons, so it doesn't affect me one way or the other. Altho it does strike me as Christianity puffing itself up by discrediting the faiths that went before it. So rus, if it makes you feel better to do that, feel free.

People who already had definite ideas about good and evil and of rejecting evil, even at great or total cost (the noble pagan) could more readily accept the ideas, and ideals, of Christianity. The Vikings who believed that the (good) gods and (wicked) giants would fight at Ragnarok, and that the gods would lose - but the good guys stay on their side, anyway - is just one example of this.

Of course, if you ever take the time to read Lewis (or Chesterton, or even Dickens) more extensively, you will see strong suggestions that the best of paganism survives in Christianity. Etc.

So in short, rus, what you're saying is that Christianity cherry-picked "the best of paganism" and incorporated it, and demonized the rest.

Which makes it exactly like pretty much every religion that went before it.

There are many ways in which Christianity is similar to other religions. What is remarkable about it is how it differs from the others.

[Xar]

I'm just gonna disregard all this bidness about demonic influences in paganism. I don't believe in Hell or Satan or demons, so it doesn't affect me one way or the other. Altho it does strike me as Christianity puffing itself up by discrediting the faiths that went before it. So rus, if it makes you feel better to do that, feel free.

People who already had definite ideas about good and evil and of rejecting evil, even at great or total cost (the noble pagan) could more readily accept the ideas, and ideals, of Christianity. The Vikings who believed that the (good) gods and (wicked) giants would fight at Ragnarok, and that the gods would lose - but the good guys stay on their side, anyway - is just one example of this.

Of course, if you ever take the time to read Lewis (or Chesterton, or even Dickens) more extensively, you will see strong suggestions that the best of paganism survives in Christianity. Etc.

So in short, rus, what you're saying is that Christianity cherry-picked "the best of paganism" and incorporated it, and demonized the rest.

Which makes it exactly like pretty much every religion that went before it.

There are many ways in which Christianity is similar to other religions. What is remarkable about it is how it differs from the others.

There are also many ways in which Christianity has been influenced by other religions, from its earliest days. Isn't it itself evolved from Judaism, which in itself isn't the world's oldest monotheistic religion? And, Rus, the reasoning you offer by explaining that Christianity took the "good" parts of paganism which after all "were better explained" by Christian doctrine than by pagan beliefs, then I would like to point out that a Muslim could say the same about his religion in comparison to Christianity - that Islam is the true religion and that it has taken whatever good is in Judaism and Christianity, because obviously these things fit Islam better than they fit the former two.

[rusmeister]

I'm just gonna disregard all this bidness about demonic influences in paganism. I don't believe in Hell or Satan or demons, so it doesn't affect me one way or the other. Altho it does strike me as Christianity puffing itself up by discrediting the faiths that went before it. So rus, if it makes you feel better to do that, feel free.
So in short, rus, what you're saying is that Christianity cherry-picked "the best of paganism" and incorporated it, and demonized the rest.

Which makes it exactly like pretty much every religion that went before it.

There are many ways in which Christianity is similar to other religions. What is remarkable about it is how it differs from the others.

There are also many ways in which Christianity has been influenced by other religions, from its earliest days. Isn't it itself evolved from Judaism, which in itself isn't the world's oldest monotheistic religion? And, Rus, the reasoning you offer by explaining that Christianity took the "good" parts of paganism which after all "were better explained" by Christian doctrine than by pagan beliefs, then I would like to point out that a Muslim could say the same about his religion in comparison to Christianity - that Islam is the true religion and that it has taken whatever good is in Judaism and Christianity, because obviously these things fit Islam better than they fit the former two.

Hi Xar,
I won't have time to respond to your posts for the next couple of days. I'll say, in the minute I have now, that I know you can say those things. And STILL the most remarkable thing about Christianity is how it differs from all other religions. I've recommended reading TEM until my face turns blue (so you could at least understand how I could get off saying things like that. As GKC said, those differences make dust and nonsense of comparative religion.

Islam actually can't say those things you suggest it could, though. As a tremendous simplification of Christianity, it actually eliminates, rather than adds anything to itself. The doctrine of the Trinity being just one quick example.

[Xar]

There are many ways in which Christianity is similar to other religions. What is remarkable about it is how it differs from the others.

There are also many ways in which Christianity has been influenced by other religions, from its earliest days. Isn't it itself evolved from Judaism, which in itself isn't the world's oldest monotheistic religion? And, Rus, the reasoning you offer by explaining that Christianity took the "good" parts of paganism which after all "were better explained" by Christian doctrine than by pagan beliefs, then I would like to point out that a Muslim could say the same about his religion in comparison to Christianity - that Islam is the true religion and that it has taken whatever good is in Judaism and Christianity, because obviously these things fit Islam better than they fit the former two.

Hi Xar,
I won't have time to respond to your posts for the next couple of days. I'll say, in the minute I have now, that I know you can say those things. And STILL the most remarkable thing about Christianity is how it differs from all other religions. I've recommended reading TEM until my face turns blue (so you could at least understand how I could get off saying things like that. As GKC said, those differences make dust and nonsense of comparative religion.

Islam actually can't say those things you suggest it could, though. As a tremendous simplification of Christianity, it actually eliminates, rather than adds anything to itself. The doctrine of the Trinity being just one quick example.

Not to rain on your parade, but the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't officially formulated and accepted by the Church until the third century A.D.; so to respond to your argument that Islam simplified Christianity by removing it, one could just as easily say that it was artificially added to Christianity in the first place, and that Islam preserved earlier teachings.

[Fist and Faith]

Are you suggesting, Xar, that Christ, who was surely the greatest authority of Christianity, did not speak of the Trinity? The one who established Christianity isn't the one who established one of its fundamental doctrines? I know rus and the Church do not get all of their beliefs from the Bible. There are other sources. Not everything sacred comes from the Bible. But one of the top few most important doctrines of Christianity surely comes from the most important source.

Or am I simply unaware that there are actual teachings of Jesus in some of those other sources? Actual words that Jesus spoke that didn't make it into the Bible?

[Xar]

Are you suggesting, Xar, that Christ, who was surely the greatest authority of Christianity, did not speak of the Trinity? The one who established Christianity isn't the one who established one of its fundamental doctrines? I know rus and the Church do not get all of their beliefs from the Bible. There are other sources. Not everything sacred comes from the Bible. But one of the top few most important doctrines of Christianity surely comes from the most important source.

Or am I simply unaware that there are actual teachings of Jesus in some of those other sources? Actual words that Jesus spoke that didn't make it into the Bible?

The New Testament contains references to the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, but nowhere in the New or Old Testament is there an explicit reference to a Trinity, or a description of this doctrine. The origin of the doctrine of a Holy Trinity as it is now taught by Christianity dates back to, if I recall correctly, around A.D. 325, and it was elaborated by Christian leaders on the basis of those texts. Although the bases were decided then, the doctrine as a whole did not arise until the late 4th century. Some sects of Christians refused to recognize the validity of this concept since it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible; one such sect was Arianism, which believed that God the Father was eternal, and had created God the Son, who had himself created the world; the two of them together had then created the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, all such non-trinitarian doctrines were deemed heretical after the Nicene Council, and were eventually eradicated.

[Fist and Faith]

But the doctrine of the Trinity is a deal-breaker for many Christians. Not just rus. A woman I was talking to at work several years ago said there are three requirements if you want to call yourself a Christian: Accept Christ as your personal savior; the Trinity; ... (Damn. I forget the third.) I suspect rus, and many others, feel the same? I find it hard to believe that one of the required beliefs of Christianity was not, somewhere or other, taught by Christ. You know, the guy who actually established Christianity. It doesn't sound like "references" to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are teachings of a doctrine. References are fine for something like how tall a church should be, or how to greet a person in a particular position in the church. But a fundamental, required belief of Christianity??? A cornerstone of the religion?? A specific, detailed doctrine? Christ couldn't have skipped over that.

[Xar]

But the doctrine of the Trinity is a deal-breaker for many Christians. Not just rus. A woman I was talking to at work several years ago said there are three requirements if you want to call yourself a Christian: Accept Christ as your personal savior; the Trinity; ... (Damn. I forget the third.) I suspect rus, and many others, feel the same? I find it hard to believe that one of the required beliefs of Christianity was not, somewhere or other, taught by Christ. You know, the guy who actually established Christianity. It doesn't sound like "references" to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are teachings of a doctrine. References are fine for something like how tall a church should be, or how to greet a person in a particular position in the church. But a fundamental, required belief of Christianity??? A cornerstone of the religion?? A specific, detailed doctrine? Christ couldn't have skipped over that.

As I said, that's the case... In fact, if I recall correctly the whole need for a unified doctrine about God's nature came about exactly because some Christian sects were reading the New Testament references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit in various ways; hence the need to consolidate those references and create a doctrine which would ensure the Church would not splinter into a thousand different sects. The doctrine of the Trinity rose from these discussions, and it led to declaring non-trinitarian sects as heretical; of course the woman you spoke with was correct too - starting from the early 5th century, if you wanted to call yourself a Christian, belief in the Trinity was (and is) one of the core tenets. but before the doctrine was formalized, there was no such need.

[Fist and Faith]

Well, of course, that's only if you wanted to be recognized as a Christian in the eyes of one of the sects that insisted you must accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Xar]

Well, of course, that's only if you wanted to be recognized as a Christian in the eyes of one of the sects that insisted you must accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

Well, by the time the doctrine of the Trinity was established and the Nicene Creed was adopted, the trinitarians - which comprised the greater part of Christianity - became mainstream Christianity, not sects. Conversely, the non-trinitarians were branded as heretical sects (incidentally this means that if you didn't want to be recognized as a Christian in front of trinitarians, you'd be very likely to be hunted as a heretic). It should also be noted that the trinitarians were a relatively monolithic group for several centuries after the development of the doctrine of the Trinity - it was only around the 11th century that they began splitting into different branches of Christianity.

[Fist and Faith]

Sure. But today, many people, many sects, believe it. But they need not be consulted if you want to call yourself a Christian, or if you want to avoid being hunted down by the official Church.

[Xar]

Sure. But today, many people, many sects, believe it. But they need not be consulted if you want to call yourself a Christian, or if you want to avoid being hunted down by the official Church.

In fact, some modern sects do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. For example, unless I recall wrongly, off the top of my head the Church of the Latter-Day Saints believes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct beings acting in concert.

[danlo]

Isn't it itself evolved from Judaism, which in itself isn't the world's oldest monotheistic religion?

Right, just to interject: According to "Western" history the first mention of monotheistic religion happened around 1356 BC under Pharaoh Akhenaten in Eqypt....