Susan's Place Transgender Resources

There was a very interesting National Geographic special on last night.  A lot of the content wasn't new to me but some was, mostly because it delved more deeply into the subject.

In an nutshell, there are many more gospels than just Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Gospels by Thomas (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html), Mary Magdalene (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html), and even Judas Iscariot (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf) have been found, although dating them takes them back to about 50-200CE.  So at least some was written after their deaths.  Some scholars think they are forgeries.  However, the recognized four gospels also fall into that category of forgeries for the same reason.  But when you think about it, if these writings were used like the Bible is used today, they would get a lot of wear and tear and would have to be re-written over and over.  For the lost gospels, that stopped around 200CE.

The Christians of the known world were a scattered, disorganized bunch until Roman Emperor Constantine stepped in.  He gathered the heads of all the factions at the Council of Nicea and it was there the Bible, as we know it today, was formed.  And it was there that many of the gospels were deleted.  Believers in those gospels were, from that point on, considered to be heretics and you know how they were dealt with.

The gospel of Thomas is believed to be a gnostic gospel.  Gnostic means "of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge."  Gnostics (http://www.gnostic-jesus.com/) were stigmatized as heretics rather than being seen as intellectual or knowledgeable.  Gnostics did not have the need for priests or bishops as an intermediary or a leader.  They communicated directly with God.  The priests and bishops didn't like that. 

The gospel of Thomas has the words of Jesus in it, as if he were there, front and center, with Jesus, recording what he said.  That's a lot better than what is basically hearsay in many of the accounts of Jesus in the Bible.

Constantine, at the Council of Nicea (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm), decided a lot of the spiritualistic stuff was a bit hard to swallow, so he banned it from being taught.  Besides, the religious leaders wanted control and Constantine had to give them something if he was going to get their cooperation.  Constantine also officially made Jesus a deity.  Obviously, this kind of stuff will cause some sabre rattling among the ranks of Bible believers today but the facts are what the facts are. 

The gospel of Mary finds Christian believers also very open to women being accepted as religious leaders, something power hungry men didn't like.  Peter was said to have been very angry when he found out Jesus told Mary things about God and heaven he hadn't told him or the other Apostles (damaged male ego?)  Apparently Constantine and the bishops weren't too fond of the idea either because her gospel was banned at Nicea too.

So, in effect, the Bible that we know today, the one too many people abuse to justify their prejudices (and that would also be against us) was formed by a Roman emperor in 323AD.  He decided what would and what wouldn't be in it.  He hand picked the contents.  And he forced the people to accept what is essentially the Bible according to Emperor Constantine.  He also proclaimed he was the head of all the Christians, which gave him enormous power.  Then he sent his troops out to enforce his new law.

Conclusion: (here it goes) the Bible really isn't the word of God, it is the culmination of editing all the available information at the time the Council of Nicea was held by a power hungry Roman emperor.  The Bible is the word of God according to Roman Emperor Constantine.  There, I said it. 

You'll find me in the bomb shelter over there awaiting the fallout.

No bombs, my friend.  Just do know that there are some serious historical inaccuracies in what you have written.

Quotebut the facts are what the facts are.

Umm, I would agree with this.  And it would cause me to dispute most of your post.  We could do so privately if you wish, or just leave it as is.

Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on August 30, 2010, 10:41:48 AM
No bombs, my friend.  Just do know that there are some serious historical inaccuracies in what you have written.

Umm, I would agree with this.  And it would cause me to dispute most of your post.  We could do so privately if you wish, or just leave it as is.

Kristi

Doing it in private wouldn't be fair to the readers.  If what I wrote has historical inaccuracies, please cite them.  I'm a big girl.  I can take it.  I'd rather suffer a bruised ego than establish myself as a gossip columnist.  :D

What I wrote was based on the special I saw last night.  National Geographic has a reputation for doing its homework and I would imagine the scholars and scientists who shared the results of their studies are very credible.  That's why I posted this here.  If it was from an article in the National Enquirer  ::), it wouldn't even bear repeating.

But, by all means, please make the corrections you feel will make this more accurate.  You won't be correcting me, you'll be correcting NatGeo and their sources.  Except for the part about Constantine being a power hungry man.  That was my label.  ;D

You couldn't make a better sumary on this case, it is very clear.

The discovery of the non-canonical Gospels was my fist careful step in religion beyond the Bible. Indeed, many religious texts concerning Jesus never made it into the Bible. This form of sensorship is a clear indication that the Bible as it exists now is not a true religious book, but instead a book made to control the minds of people. Why else would they leave out texts that encourage people to find their own thruth and lessons in the teachings of Jesus?

When you compare Christianity with the Roman empire there are some striking similarities. On early portraits Jesus is often displayed as a Roman emperor, wearing a purple cloth or even a military dress. There are also striking similarities between the uprise of Jesus and the first Roman emperor: Augustus.
40 jears before Jesus was born, in the time Augustus was already consul, Vergilius wrote a poem that gave him a holy status.

From his 4th poem:

Quote[...]With a new breed of men sent down from heaven.
Only do thou, at the boy's birth in whom
The iron shall cease, the golden race arise,
[...]Under thy guidance, whatso tracks remain
Of our old wickedness, once done away,
Shall free the earth from never-ceasing fear.
He shall receive the life of gods, and see
Heroes with gods commingling, and himself
Be seen of them, and with his father's worth
Reign o'er a world at peace. For thee, O boy,
First shall the earth, untilled, pour freely forth
Her childish gifts, the gadding ivy-spray
[...]Untended, will the she-goats then bring home
Their udders swollen with milk, while flocks afield
Shall of the monstrous lion have no fear.
Thy very cradle shall pour forth for thee
Caressing flowers. The serpent too shall die,
Die shall the treacherous poison-plant.

It sounds a lot like Jesaja.

Many christians believend Vergilius was writing of Jesus' birth, but in fact he wrote of the future emperor Augustus. Just like other poets of the time Vergilius was raised in a time of brutal civil war. The common people longed for peace so much they were prepared to give a devine status to anyone who would end this misery.

In the Aeneis was written:

QuoteBut next behold the youth of form divine,
Ceasar himself, exalted in his line;
Augustus, promis'd oft, and long foretold,
Sent to the realm that Saturn rul'd of old;

So long before the birth of Jesus Roman poets wrote of the coming of a savior who would live on earth before ascending to the heavens.
Also, Augustus was declared the son of God: DIVI FILIVS.

Suetonius also writes of the birth of Augustus. The senate would have declared that no boy born in 63BC should be kept alive because of the prophecy that a king would be born. A strange story, but doesn't it sound a lot like the massacre of the innocents by Herod?
After this we are told that the mother of Augustus: Atia had a dream during a visit to the temple of Apollo. She was told that she was blessed among women in that she she would give birth to the savior. Atia asked: "How will this happen, I have never been in coitace with a man".

Are these similarities pure coincidence or is there more to it?

I was first exposed to the Gospel of Thomas and some of the other writings along these lines when studying New Testament at a Southern Baptist college. Our professor felt that if we examined them and canon carefully, we would likely determine for ourselves that canon was the way to go.

These days, multiple versions of Gnostic Gospels and many other collected writings from that general period are in my "philosophy of religion" library, along with primary and secondary sources from various parts of the world & historical eras.

I have even cultivated some modest academic abilities (and lost most of them since) with some of the languages in which many of these things were written.

At this point I guess I have enough respect for the enormity of it all not to trouble people with my opinions on the subject more than seems strictly necessary. :)

Well OK, Julie.  I did not see the show you are mentioning.  However, you are correct that there are many gospel accounts.  Forgeries?  I am not sure where you are getting this from.  But it is true that the very dates of some of the documents make this a certainty.  These, I would argue, primarily belong to the apocryphal gospels.  It is also true that these were well known to the early Christin writers and their comments are available for any who wish to pursue this further.  As far as the writings which we have either in manuscript form or mention, the primary ones are as follows, along with their approximate dates or authorship:

Canonical:
Mark      55
Matthew   60
Luke      62
John      80-85
Apocryphal:
Gospel of Thomas   150
Gospel of Truth   140-180
Gospel of the Twelve   2nd century (no surviving fragments)
Gospel of Peter   100-130
Gospel of the Egyptians   2nd century
Gospel of the Hebrews   mid 2nd century
Gospel of Matthias   2nd century
Preaching of Peter   100-120
Acts of Andrew   150-200
Acts of Paul      185-195
Acts of John      late 2nd century
Epistle to the Laodiceans    2nd-4th century    
I Clement      95-96
Epistle of Barnabas   100-135
Shepherd of Hermas    100-175
Apocalypse of Peter    135

One of the ways writings are traditionally dated is by their mention, or lack thereof, of the most important event at the time,  the destruction of the Temple, which happened in 70 AD.  Note the dates of the canonical gospels.  The first three are called the synoptics, because they contain substantially similar material.  Every writing has its own agenda.  Mark is thought by most scholars today to be the first written because of its length and style.  Matthew seems to be very concerned with showing Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, the reason it is traditionally placed first in the current canon.  Luke seems primarily concerned with the earthy ministry of Jesus, especially concentrating on the poor.  (Acts was originally the second volume by the same author.)  John, however, has a very different emphasis, as Jesus is presented as the Word, as Deity.  It is not meant, according to its introduction,  to be a strictly historical book.  So, even though it was likely written after 70 AD, this would not have been an important book to this author.

To be fair, the date of the Gospel of Thomas is a subject of much scholarly debate right now.    But I still believe the date listed above to be fairly accurate.  But even a perusal of the dates makes it pretty obvious which are firsthand accounts and which are not.

The common misconception is that Constantine formed the canon.  While this is a very popular opinion, history paints a very different picture.  For instance, I am not personally convinced that Constantine was a Christian from his own accounts.  However, during his reign of 274 to 337 A.D. he not only legalized Christianity but made it official.  In so doing he neither did Christianity nor the world a favor.  He did, however, find a wonderful unifying force for his empire.  This is important to understand because it goes to his motives for calling the Council of Nicea in 325.

This first ever council was called primarily because he feared that the disputes he was beginning to see within the church might cause disorder within his empire. The main dispute was Arianism, the belief that Jesus was a created being.  The records of the council indicate a lot of debate concerning the famous phrase, "There was when He was not."   This reference to Jesus was declared heretical by the council and thus resulted in the proclamation about Christ, included in the Nicene Creed: "God from true God...from the Father...not made."

The popular version of the council today talks of manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine.  However, historically there is no mention of such a thing actually happening at the order of Constantine or at the Council of Nicea.   The closest thing to this happened at the end of the debate concerning the Arian controversy.  The Arian  document claiming Christ to be a created being, was abandoned by them because of the strong resistance to it and was torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council.

Also contrary to your assertion, Constantine, and the Council of Nicea, for that matter, had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397, sixty years after Constantine's death. However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical—Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.

Some modern authors like to purport the idea that the gospels of Thomas and Peter (and other long-disputed books) contain truths that the church vehemently stomped out, but that simply has no basis historically.   It is closer to the truth to say that the writings of the early church fathers show that these books were well-known to the scholars at that time.  However, records indicate that no serious theologians really cared about these books because they were obviously written by people lying about authorship and had little basis in reality. They were not destroyed.  They simply went out of use, other than in isolated pockets of adherents.  That is one reason why a council declaring the canon was so late in coming (397 AD), because the books that were trusted and the ones that had been handed down were already widely known.  With a few exceptions, the books now considered canon were widely ratified by use, and by scholarship long before 397.

Does this mean that the apocryphal gospels have no value?  Of course not.  I find them to be fascinating windows into what some of the common thought and theories being tested at the time happened to be.  The fact that they fell out of use, though, cannot be laid at the feet of Constantine.  Rather, it was due to a coalescing and evolution of Christian thought.

Kristy can do a much better job than me so i defer to her on the details but, essentially, respected scholars disagree with each other. And even as credible an organization as NatGeo can cherry-pick the scholars that support a position they are comfortable with.

The basic truth is, though, that there is very good scholarship that says that the canonical gospels are verifiability and indisputably more authentic than the non-canonical gospels. Bth in terms of dating and in terms of textual criticism.


There ARE some valid questions about the content of the canon - but they don't generally relate to the Gospels.

Quote
he not only legalized Christianity but made it official.  In so doing he neither did Christianity nor the world a favor.

Hear! Hear!

Game/Set/Kristi. ;D

Unfortunately, I am speaking for someone else here, namely the experts who appeared in the NatGeo program and other experts who have shared their findings on this subject, but I'm doing so from a point of view that makes sense to me.  I fully understand there is a lot of debate over the subject matter here by people far more educated in this field than I.  That is why I have attempted to pass on their knowledge.  I pride myself on being as accurate as possible but I am human and I am passing on information I heard.  Any errors are unintended.

Quote from: Kristi on August 30, 2010, 10:06:00 PMForgeries?  I am not sure where you are getting this from.

One of the experts NatGeo had on the show used this term and I repeated it.  He was explaining some scholars claimed the Gnostic Gospels were forgeries because the archeological evidence indicated they were written after the death of the "authors".  He said in that sense, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are also forgeries.

But, and I reiterate, it is highly possible the writings were reproduced over and over, as wear and tear from use required it. Guttenberg wasn't around then.  ;) So, if these writings were read, they were handled.  If they were handled, they were exposed to wear and tear.  If handled too much, they would have to be replaced.  So archeological dating of the documents thus far discovered only proves when the documents that were discovered were written, not if they were the originals and not by whom they were originally authored and when.

The above paragraph only looks at dating from a scientific viewpoint and can only be applied to actual writings thus far discovered.  We also know much "historical record keeping" at the time was done through word of mouth.  Most people couldn't even read. let alone write, so information had to be passed verbally.  There is a mountain of evidence that anything passed by word of mouth never remains true to the original word.

QuoteOne of the ways writings are traditionally dated is by their mention, or lack thereof, of the most important event at the time,  the destruction of the Temple, which happened in 70 AD.  Note the dates of the canonical gospels.

That brings in the issue of life expectancy. Some estimate that men born during that time and living in that area had a life expectancy of something in late 30's or early 40's.  Considering that in the US in 1900 the average life expectancy of a white male was 46.6 years (CDC figures (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_21.pdf)), the estimate for ~1900 years earlier would seem reasonably accurate. 

So the dating for the canonical gospels requires the authors to either be many years younger than Jesus or that they surpassed the average life expectancy by 30% or more.  Matthew was probably close to Christ's age as he was already a publican and tax collector when he met Christ.  Mark was probably in his teens when he began to follow Christ.  Luke never knew Christ and only became a follower after his death, through Paul's teachings.  That would make any accounts Luke has about Christ hearsay.  John is said to have been born c.6AD which would have made him a very old man in those times if his writings are dated to c.80-85AD.  The point is accurate dating from 2000 years ago is very difficult to ascertain through information provided in the documents thus far discovered. However, the documents themselves, rather than their content, can provide pretty accurate dating.

QuoteThe common misconception is that Constantine formed the canon.  While this is a very popular opinion...

And I too have heard that opinion stated though it seems I may have mistakenly believed it to be fact.

Quotehistory paints a very different picture.  For instance, I am not personally convinced that Constantine was a Christian from his own accounts.

With all due respect, my dear friend, stating personal opinion says nothing about the picture history paints.  ;D However, it is commonly believed Constantine was Pagan going into this and he converted to Christianity, possibly during or after the Council of Nicea.

Quote... However, during his reign of 274 to 337 A.D. he not only legalized Christianity but made it official.  ...  He did, however, find a wonderful unifying force for his empire.  This is important to understand because it goes to his motives for calling the Council of Nicea in 325.

This first ever council was called primarily because he feared that the disputes he was beginning to see within the church might cause disorder within his empire.

And that is what was stated in the program and what I have read elsewhere.  (That is why I labeled him a power hungry emperor.  He did what he had to do to gain control of his empire which in turn gave him even more power.)

QuoteThe popular version of the council today talks of manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine.  However, historically there is no mention of such a thing actually happening at the order of Constantine or at the Council of Nicea.   The closest thing to this happened at the end of the debate concerning the Arian controversy.  The Arian  document claiming Christ to be a created being, was abandoned by them because of the strong resistance to it and was torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council.

If what you say is correct, the fact the Arian document was destroyed provides historical evidence there was an agenda at the Council and certain documents were not allowed to be passed on or published.  Thus the conclusion the Council hand picked what was and what wasn't going to be accepted as Christian truth, even if it was only a popularity thing.  Which, BTW, was stated in the program as being an agenda of Constantine's.  He wanted to present the most palatable versions for all Christians in hopes that would unite them (they would quit fighting about who's version is right) and subsequently place them under his power.

QuoteAlso contrary to your assertion, Constantine, and the Council of Nicea, for that matter, had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397, sixty years after Constantine's death.

Okay, my assertion, stated as I understood things to be based on what I've heard and read, stands corrected.  However, if what you say is correct, there was a council that did indeed influence Christian belief (which most likely influenced the Council at Carthage in 397AD).  Some three hundred bishops said to be from around the world gathered under Constantine's behest. They developed the Creed of Nicea which expressed what the great majority of bishops at the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox of the Christian faith.

QuoteHowever, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical—Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc

Twenty one books that were acknowledged by all, ten that were disputed.  And the heretical consideration attached to some.  It seems that, just like today, you can't get everyone to agree on anything.  And that creates an element of doubt.  Who is really right and who is really wrong?  More precisely, what is factually correct and what isn't?  The fact is, you can gather scientists and religious scholars together, all very well educated in this area, and will you never get them all to agree on a single version, unless the group is very small or hand picked.  There are too many elements, too many questions that can't be definitively answered, too many possibilities.  And there's always the very strong likelihood more documents will be discovered.  There's just no way of knowing with absolute certainty.  That's why they call it faith.

QuoteEvery writing has its own agenda.

And that, my dear friend, says it all.

One thing about my dear Julie, she does love a good heated discussion.

As far as Constantine and his actual conversion or not, as I stated, that is my opinion.  It is based on his own words of what he actually came to believe and his motives for it.  I do not claim this to be fact and realize others disagree with me there.  I would love for you to read them and make up your own mind.  However, if you are looking for someone to defend Constantine, sorry but I am not your girl.

You are also correct that the particular date of any manuscript neither proves nor disproves its historical lineage.  The papyrus fragments and other parchments are in generally terrible shape.  Most were written on what amounts, in today's vernacular, to be similar to toilet paper.  It is no wonder many of them did not last, and as far as we know, the original autographs of all books were lost long ago.

That being said, my discussion above had nothing whatsoever to do with the dating of manuscripts.  It had everything to do with dating of authorship, which is the point here.  Please forgive me if I did not make that clear.  There are a number of ways this is done, as I mentioned.  If reference is made to the destruction or rebuilding of the temple, we know it had to be after 70 AD.  That is the easy one.  All of the books in question, apart from their internal stylistic and cultural hints they provide, also have quite a lineage of secondary evidence.  In essence, the early church fathers wrote often about the letters which were being passed around and gave opinions of them.  This evidence was very important at Nicea and especially at Carthage.  In fact, much of the books can be recreated from those sources.  So the mystery is not quite as great as you seem to think.

Now as to forgeries, I am still not sure what the show said, so it is hard to reply directly.  They may have been addressing what is commonly known as the "pseudepigrapha" which means false writings.  These would include all of the books mentioned above.  In some Christian scholarly circles, some of the canonical books are also included.  Primarily these are a few of the writings of Paul and a couple of other minor books.  To my knowledge, not even the most adamant supporters of alternative authorship include the gospels in their list, at least not as a whole.  This is my only guess as to what they were talking about.

You are right about the bishops at Nicea developing the creed.  Unlike you I do not see a problem with this.  In a confusing time, it was necessary to clarify what they did believe.  I have yet to see any organization, religious or otherwise, who thought it unfair to say what they are about.  And no, just because someone went off on a tangent does not mean that their opinion was as good as everyone else's.  Who is to decide?  The answer is fairly easy.  Let the church decide for itself.  And it did.  This was a complex issue dealing with the dual nature of Christ, not easily articulated.  And the main part of the debate was concerning two Latin words, homoousia vs. homoiousia.  The debate, in the main, was how to articulate what had by then become common understanding.  I never said that the Arian writings were destroyed.  Rather a statement given to the council by them was torn as a sign of claiming it heresy.   Of course, this is a long way from the earliest creed, which we think was "Jesus Is Lord."  And no, other than calling for the council, Constantine himself had almost no direct input into the workings of the council.  He was not a leader of the church.

Julie, every religious group has its sacred writings.  Do you think this is unfair only for the Christian church to develop?  Or do you hold that all sacred writings of all people should never have come to pass?  I am not sure where you are coming from.  The Christian canon was essentially developed by use and tradition.  It was ratified later at Carthage and some choices were made.  I do not personally have a problem with that, as there was over 300 years of Christian community involved in that process.  Are you saying that it should all be included simply because it existed?  If so, then I would have to disagree with you.

As for differences between scholars, you do have a point.  Read a Greek New Testament and you will see what is commonly known as the critical apparatus.  There you will see all of the known variant readings for different verses.  Virtually all of them are quite minor and have to do with things such as word order, word spelling, and which variant has the greatest claim to authenticity.  Moreover, as you alluded to, for documents passed down in what was essentially an oral culture, I am amazed that there are not many more than we find.  And yes, I agree that in the final analysis, this is a matter of faith.  However you decide about it, I like to see people base their faith upon informed opinions.

I have very little respect for "most" anything on the National Geographic channel, there "experts" are seldom experts in anything.

Sarah L.

a couple of side points...

1. a lot of the things Julie is touching on can be addressed by a working knowledge of textual criticism. those who study ancient manuscripts in an effort to pin down origin date and authorship have MANY tools in their drawer, among which are mentions of the work in other writings, the geographical distribution of extant fragments, the actual content (writing stile, language and dialect employed, and so forth) and many others.

There's not nearly so much guess-work and assumption involved as the typical layman might assume.

That said, as in any field you can find "exerts" that will support virtually anything. I've seen shows with "experts" giving credibility to the whole Mithraism claim which has been debunked more than the fake moon landing.

2. "life expectancy" - you must remember that "average life expectancy" includes a huge number of children who die in the first coupel of years of life (including those purposely left to die) - in any population, early American or in Roman times, a better measure is the life expectancy of those who live to reach adulthood....and even then that number is skewed lower because so many die young in warfare.

For a person who reached adulthood and didn't go to war - those folks did NOT typically die in their 40's

That said, the dates cited forthe authorship of the various Gospels don't require any of those people except John to have reached even as old as seventy.

But John is reported from quite a few sources living at Ephesus until the very end of the century (and being in his nineties at least) - in fact there's a school of thought that his gospel might have been written that late.

But there's credible historical sources in the field of textual criticism that fairly certainly establishes a first century authorship for every book in the NT canon.

Less so for almost all the non-canonical books.


By the way, some think that Mark was, in essence, the Gospel of Peter as told to Mark

I thank you Kristi and Tammy for participating.  Your participation makes this discussion both stimulating and educational.

As for my motives, to me this is a mental exercise, brain calisthenics.  Just as the body does, the mind always feels good after a workout.  It is not intended to determine who is right or who is wrong or which religion is the best to follow, if there is one at all.  My hopes, in initiating this, were to get the more knowledgeable members here to engage in friendly discussion and maybe learn something along the way.  Please understand, I never intended this to be a heated discussion but I am learning things I never knew.

But I do want to understand how something that is so controversial, that brings about endless debate, even by the most learned scholars in the world, something that has so many variables, so many possibilities, can have so many passionate believers.  One of the possible answers I've come up with is our mortality scares the hell out of us (no pun intended) and we need to believe there is an afterlife so we pick whatever religious belief fits our personality and make that the right one.

Maybe the Catholic priests and nuns who taught me all through grade school and the Jesuit priests who had me through high school and college, didn't do a very good job getting me to click with the Bible.  I have a Bible in the drawer in the desk I am now sitting at.  It is more than 60 years old.  It is my family's Bible and in it is listed the births of me and each of my siblings and my children.  Growing up I referenced this Bible many times and each time it was to check on the birth information my mother added.  Reading anything else, for me, was boring.  So much for Catholic indoctrination!  :D

I have a scientific/mathematical mind.  It's the way I was born.  So facts and figures click with me.  I understand them.  And I'm able to utilize them when making my own conclusions.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but if that opinion comes from feelings, it loses a lot of its credibility as being a useful piece of information when compiling facts and figures.  So you have to be very careful when taking someone's opinion.  That's why I brought what I had gleaned from the NatGeo program here.  To further analyze it and discuss it as I interpreted it.  But for the most part, the authenticity of the Bible has no effect on who I am, on my spiritual beliefs or on my life.

But there is one exception.  I do have one big problem with the Bible.  But it's not with the Bible itself, it's with how people use it to justify their prejudice, their ignorance, their selfishness.  And by gaining knowledge about the Bible, it's origin, it's authors, etc, one can learn how to best combat the "Bible Abusers".  (I'll call them BABS  :D)

I, like many members here, like many people in the LGBT community, have seen and heard people justify their prejudices against us by saying, "It's God's will!" and following it with "The Bible says..." and extracting a quote from the Bible that, taken out of context, supports their prejudice.  And it is that, through educating myself, I'd like to be able to combat intelligently and knowledgeably.  And maybe someday I will be standing face to face with one of these misguided people and help them open their eyes and see we are all God's creations and we are all deserving of the best life we can make for ourselves, so long as we do not hurt one another.  Now on to the discussion...

Kristi, I misinterpreted your statement about the Temple.  I took it as the omission of that in writings meant the writings were dated before 70AD rather then the inclusion meant they were dated after 70AD.  Thank you for the clarification. 

Now, I'm coming from the standpoint that the really important part of the Bible has to do with what Christ stood for, what he said, what he did, what his beliefs were, the example he set.  After all, this is Christianity we are talking about and unless I'm mistaken, Christianity is all about following the example of Christ.  Right?

Christ is said to have died in 29AD.  So wouldn't it make sense to be looking at documents written about him that are closest to the time Christ walked this earth, before 29AD, as being the most reliable?  Remember, the older a man gets, the longer he walked to school.  So finding first hand accounts about Christ that were written when he was alive would be the ideal.  From what has been said here, it seems there are none.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Next best would be anything written post-mortem that are first hand accounts.  The writings of the Apostles, Mary Magdalene and anyone else who knew Christ personally, especially those closest to him.

Of course the best information would be the personal writings of Christ himself but it appears there are none.  Masters before him, such as Lao Tzu, did their own writings and there is very little debate about what they stood for.  I guess it's possible Jesus, like many people of his time, could not read or write.

So first, take the writings of Jesus and make them most credible.  Since there are none we have to move to the first hand accounts, written while Christ was on this earth but it seems these too do not exist.  So we have to go to post-mortem accounts by those closest to Jesus which would mean the Apostles and Mary Magdalene.  Their accounts become the most credible.

After that, you would work your way down the degrees of separation beginning with people who actually heard Christ speak or watched him from a distance and on down.

That, to me makes most sense.  But apparently, that's not what happened.  At least not exactly.  It appears certain writings were hand picked, for whatever reason, and others were discarded.  I would think the writings of Mary would be front and center.  Even if she was painted as a whore (I don't buy that), she was still right there beside Jesus, until the very end.  And if my memory serves me correctly, the Bible says she repented and became a follower of Jesus so that should lend some credibility to her writings.

Even further, we should look at an alleged whore who could read and write!  How did she become so educated?  Why would someone so educated take to street walking?  That simply doesn't make sense.  And that lends even more credibility to Mary's gospels.

Okay, if I were to place importance on the information available at the time (and I'm sure there was a lot more than what's available today) I would rank them in importance like this:

During Christ's life:
It appears we have nothing

Post-mortem:
Mary Magdalene
The Apostles
Others close to Jesus
Those who heard him speak
Those who watched him from a distance
Those who heard about him
And so on...

Does that make sense?  Or am I just a silly girl?

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 01, 2010, 08:58:23 AM
I never intended this to be a heated discussion but I am learning things I never knew.[/font]

I did not mean that is a bad way, silly girl.  I know you get passionate about your discussions and enjoy it.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 01, 2010, 08:58:23 AM
I have a scientific/mathematical mind.  It's the way I was born.  So facts and figures click with me.  I understand them.  And I'm able to utilize them when making my own conclusions.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but if that opinion comes from feelings, it loses a lot of its credibility as being a useful piece of information when compiling facts and figures.  So you have to be very careful when taking someone's opinion.  That's why I brought what I had gleaned from the NatGeo program here.  To further analyze it and discuss it as I interpreted it.  But for the most part, the authenticity of the Bible has no effect on who I am, on my spiritual beliefs or on my life.[/font]

As do I, Julie.  My first degrees were in science.  NatGeo appears to have come a long way since the days of Jacques Cousteau.  Today you can find "experts" who will espouse anything you want to hear.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 01, 2010, 08:58:23 AM

I, like many members here, like many people in the LGBT community, have seen and heard people justify their prejudices against us by saying, "It's God's will!" and following it with "The Bible says..." and extracting a quote from the Bible that, taken out of context, supports their prejudice.  ...[/font]

On this, of course, we are agreed.  I would only caution that repeating inaccurate information would be counterproductive both for your own though process, and for the point you are trying to make.  So be careful.  If you want to run anything by us, please do, as we would be happy to help.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 01, 2010, 08:58:23 AM   Christianity is all about following the example of Christ.  Right?

Technically, no.  It is about having a relationship with God.  But I will agree that this part of the deal.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 01, 2010, 08:58:23 AMChrist is said to have died in 29AD.  So wouldn't it make sense to be looking at documents written about him that are closest to the time Christ walked this earth, before 29AD, as being the most reliable?  Remember, the older a man gets, the longer he walked to school.  So finding first hand accounts about Christ that were written when he was alive would be the ideal.  From what has been said here, it seems there are none.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Just a little clarification:  Christ was born in 4 B.C.   He was 30 years old when he started his public ministry, which lasted a little over 3 years.     Just so we are on the same page......

Now do we have firsthand accounts still existent from those who walked with him?  Contrary to what you might think, this is not an easy question to answer.   Mark, being the first gospel actually written, is very crude in its language and not meant to be a scholarly piece.  You may ask where Mark got his materials.  What is the source material?  Most postulate that much of it comes from the "Q" source, which you can research if you wish.  This is a set of writings very close to the time of Jesus, which must have been available in order for Matthew, Mark, and Luke to draw upon.  Sorry if this gets a bit confusing, but even the most liberal theologians assert that much of the source material comes from the time of Christ, or very shortly thereafter.  You may wish to search for The Jesus Seminar if you are interested for the most extreme view of non-inclusion of parts of the gospels.  But the main point is simply that trying to understand the origin of the scriptures from a distance of 2,000 years is anything but an exact science.  Which are the most credible?  Personally, I think those closest to the time of Jesus had a lot better chance of choosing than we do in this day and age.  Do remember that by the time even the earliest writing were appearing, there would have been literally many thousands of first-hand witnesses to Jesus.  The question is not whether or not some writings should have been picked, as that was bound to happen.  Rather, the question, is who is in the best position to choose them?  Also remember, in your historical situation you paint, that most women at that time did not read or write.  And it was quite illegal to be a Christian.  Little bits of knowledge were shared secretly from the apostles to groups of disciples, primarily through letters.  They were copied hastily on poor materials.  They had no phones to converse with, no CNN to record, no Youtube to post to.  I would be exceedingly suspicious if any firsthand eyewitness accounts did survive intact.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 01, 2010, 08:58:23 AM Even if she was painted as a whore (I don't buy that), she was still right there beside Jesus, until the very end.

No, I do not believe that Mary was a whore,  But I am just radical enough to wish that she had been.  ;)  She would have been in good company with Jesus' relative Rahab the harlot.  Moreover, Mary aside, Jesus was often criticized for eating and partying with outcasts and those outside the faith.  "Sinners" as they were called.  Look how far in the wrong direction the church has gone!

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 01, 2010, 08:58:23 AM Does that make sense?  Or am I just a silly girl?

Yes it does make sense, and yes you are a silly girl.  That's why I love you so much!

And also, thanks, Tammy, for your comments on textual criticism and life expectancy.  They were right on the mark!

Kristi

The bible was written over a period of 1500 years by forty different authors. The authors were inspired by God to
write down what he revealed. I have read the gospel of Thomas and Judas Iscariot. From my understanding bible
scholars of that day determined that these writings were not divinely inspired or they may have been written by
someone else.

What Constantine did was institutionlize the church. This decision affects us even today. What I believe Constantine was
trying to do was bring all the factions together. Instead, he created a morass of hierarchal and patricarchal orthodoxy which
took away the spirit of the gospel. Instead there was legalism and fundamentalism. Note how people use the gospel to justify discrimination regarding slaves, African-Americans,
Native-Americans, women, and LGBT people. There was actually only one institutional church. Today, there are around 34,000
different denominations. THis isn't what God had in mind, that's for sure.

One of the hallmarks of the early Christian church was its inclusiveness. Women, the poor, lepers, slaves, and common people came
to this fledgling new church because the spirit of the law was in evidence in Jesus and later his apostles and those who followed.




I have read a little about the Gnostics and I will read more about them.

Gennee

Quote from: gennee on September 14, 2010, 04:03:39 PM
What Constantine did was institutionlize the church. This decision affects us even today. What I believe Constantine was trying to do was bring all the factions together. Instead, he created a morass of hierarchal and patricarchal orthodoxy which took away the spirit of the gospel. Instead there was legalism and fundamentalism.

And the church and Christianity became a business.  And like almost all businesses, it's operations are motivated by money and power... and run by men.

There is a school of thought, to which I subscribe, which says that when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire the church died and the Roman Empire lived on in borrowed clothes.

For example look at the power structure: 
The Pope = Emperor
The cardinals = senators
The Bishops = Patricians
The Clergy = Freemen
The laity = Slaves

The whole way that the church began to run its affairs owed far more to the empire than to the original vision. I could go on but I won't because I don't want to be a bore.

As a scientist, I come across lots of lay-people (yes, that's really what we call non-scientists) who think "OMG! Einstein was wrong! And the scientific establishment refuses to accept that simple fact!" We call those people "crackpots." As a lay-person, myself, when it comes to religion, I try to avoid being a crackpot, whatever problems I might have with particular tenets of established Christian doctrine.

I know that I know far too little of the history of the Church to know all the reasons behind the issues I have, however "deeply" some TV show I might have seen delved into the subject. And whatever the question I might have about the tenets of Christianity, I'm fairly certain I'm not the first person to have asked it. That's not to say I have some kind of blind faith -- certainly not! But if I have a problem, I try talking to people who know more about it than I do, say, priests, deacons, people who went to a seminary where they actually studied the subject in some greater depth than I have anywhere near the time to do, including some who are quite close friends -- not random people on some unrelated Internet forum.

Quote from: Kristi on August 30, 2010, 10:06:00 PM
  He did, however, find a wonderful unifying force for his empire.  This is important to understand because it goes to his motives for calling the Council of Nicea in 325.

I sadly, can't contribute to any of the accademic questions on this matter. Like most people, I've heard so many different versions and am left feeling that any can be interperted to say whatever you want.

But I have read a number of accounts of early Christians being killed, being sent to lions, being covered in pitch and set on fire on street corners and such.

I wonder if anyone can suggest why this cult became so powerful that Constantine felt it would be a unifying force for the empire?

What exactly did Christianty teach that was able to unite the Roman empire, especially at that time?

What was so captivating that people were, apparently ready to reject their old gods and risk a pretty horrible death?

Quote from: Alyssa M. on September 21, 2010, 06:21:36 PM
As a scientist, I come across lots of lay-people (yes, that's really what we call non-scientists) who think "OMG! Einstein was wrong! And the scientific establishment refuses to accept that simple fact!" We call those people "crackpots." As a lay-person, myself, when it comes to religion, I try to avoid being a crackpot, whatever problems I might have with particular tenets of established Christian doctrine.

I know that I know far too little of the history of the Church to know all the reasons behind the issues I have, however "deeply" some TV show I might have seen delved into the subject. And whatever the question I might have about the tenets of Christianity, I'm fairly certain I'm not the first person to have asked it. That's not to say I have some kind of blind faith -- certainly not! But if I have a problem, I try talking to people who know more about it than I do, say, priests, deacons, people who went to a seminary where they actually studied the subject in some greater depth than I have anywhere near the time to do, including some who are quite close friends -- not random people on some unrelated Internet forum.

As an ex physicist, who is at least by inclination a hyperspatialist, I think the contention that Einstein was wrong is a bit of an oversimplification of an actual truth, namely that all science is limited by the theoretical models available at the time.

Was Newton wrong? Of course not, he just had a limited theoretical model and a few less mathematical tools to work with. So with Einstein - its a question of right or wrong, but vanilla general relativity will eventually be superseded by more comprehensive models, indeed it has to some extent already happened as I am sure you are aware. So perhaps those who shout Einstein was wrong may well just be showing a limited grasp of the way that science evolves. At the same time in a sense they are partially correct in so far as Godel's theorems of incompleteness almost predict with certainty that all scientific theories will eventually give way to a better model.

Now to theology... you comment that people are "lay" - it may surprise you to know that for some years of my life I was actually an auxiliary minister in the United Reformed Church, (I have preached and led services even whsn postop) and as such I have indeed studied theology and indeed church history. Indeed if you maintain that once ordained a person is ordained for life I am theroretically at least not lay! However I digress. The thing is any history or theological doctrine will be written from a Point of View - so I think in relativistic universe (we're strangely back to Einstein) in fact it is not a question of whether the church view or the alternative view is right or wrong.

Just as general relativity allows that two people passing at near light speed will exist in different inertial frames of reference and will therefore observe derived effects like time and spacial dimensions differently, so two people in differing theological frames of reference may have apparently differing interpretations of the facts without either of them being actually wrong.

I have made a study of the gnostic gospels. In fact the theology within them form the basis for a lot or my current fiction writing. In this regard I have had many interesting dialogues with established theologians who actually take parts of these writings very seriously indeed. So it is a brave person who would apply the epithet of crackpot to such things. They may not be orthodox, but they are far from crackpot.

Sorry for the threadjack...

Wait Einstein was wrong? About what? My whole world is in suspension! Fill me in, you science types! :icon_nervious:

Quote from: Nero on September 22, 2010, 07:27:11 AM
Sorry for the threadjack...

Wait Einstein was wrong? About what? My whole world is in suspension! Fill me in, you science types! :icon_nervious:

No he wasn't wrong - just incomplete. Just as Godel predicts.

Modern Hyperspatial theory and superstrings have built on his work and refined it. Seen from a very simplistic POV some might say that his theory contains errors, but that is a misunderstanding of the situation.

It is more accurate to say that his theorems contained some necessary approximations some of which are now being exploited and explored to produce more comprehensive and satisfactory models.

The work being done at the LHC to attempt to find the Higgs Boson is an exmaple because it will help to produce a satisfactory unified field theory - something which eluded Einstein all his life. Similarly Hawking started on the path towards developing Superstings partly in a search to explain limitations in the predictions of general relativity around the event horizon of a black hole. (that is a huge simplification - but believe me you don't want the full version...)

Now to try to get us marginally back on topic the point of all this is that all theories and understandings whether scientific or theological evolve over time!

Quote from: Alyssa M. on September 21, 2010, 06:21:36 PM
I try talking to people who know more about it than I do, say, priests, deacons, people who went to a seminary where they actually studied the subject in some greater depth than I have anywhere near the time to do, including some who are quite close friends -- not random people on some unrelated Internet forum.

Well, first of all, I know at least one member here is a Biblical scholar with a PhD.  So I wouldn't be so quick to dis the idea you can't find reliable information on an unrelated forum.

As for the people I'd go to for information, I'd have to include non-clergy, non-religious and any scholar/expert who would not benefit personally.  Religion is a business and needs cash flow to keep running.  So keeping alive the teachings in the Bible, Koran, Talmud or whatever is in their best interest.  That's why I need information from people outside organized religions too.

Whatever source we obtain our information from, there always has to be some filtering we have to do before we arrive at our own conclusions.  We have to think for ourselves and not take what someone says as the absolute truth.

Quote from: rejennyrated on September 22, 2010, 07:40:17 AM
No he wasn't wrong - just incomplete. Just as Godel predicts.

Jenny, are you referring to Gödel's theology - that he rejected the notion that God was impersonal, as God was for Einstein?  Einstein had a number of things to say about religion, as did his friend, Kurt Gödel.  I was just wondering what was incomplete and what Gödel predicted correctly.

Quote from: rejennyrated on September 22, 2010, 07:40:17 AMNow to try to get us marginally back on topic the point of all this is that all theories and understandings whether scientific or theological evolve over time!

I couldn't agree more.  As more information is gained, better conclusions can be made.  I guess that's why I have such a hard time with firm believers in the Bible, especially when everything after that is ignored.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 22, 2010, 05:21:03 PM
Jenny, are you referring to Gödel's theology - that he rejected the notion that God was impersonal, as God was for Einstein?  Einstein had a number of things to say about religion, as did his friend, Kurt Gödel.  I was just wondering what was incomplete and what Gödel predicted correctly.

I couldn't agree more.  As more information is gained, better conclusions can be made.  I guess that's why I have such a hard time with firm believers in the Bible, especially when everything after that is ignored.

Godel was also a mathematician. I was referring to the two great mathematical theorems of his life his two incompleteness theorems, published in 1931 when he was 25 years of age.

His theorems of incompleteness in a grossly simplified form basically predict that to be provable within a a closed system like the cosmos a theory must of necessity be incomplete.

That is to say that there is no such thing as an absolute proof. Also if an absolute truth exists it is by definition unknowable.

Thus by implication any demonstrable scientific proof must contain within itself the seeds of its own destruction and eventual downfall.

Or to put it another way no sooner has your theory been accepted by everyone as correct than some young smart-ass will come along with an even better one and promptly show up all the holes in yours that no one other than you had noticed!

However it has always seemed to me that the same principles can also be applied with equal success to theology

Oh yeah - and though I am not a Phd in it I have studied theology as I said... so count me in with your (moderately) educated correspondents.

I lov discussions on Physics as much as theology.

But would anyone mind if I repeat a question I posed on page 1 of this thread? Assuming no-one, I will.

Quote

Quote from: Kristi on August 30, 2010, 10:06:00 PM
  He did, however, find a wonderful unifying force for his empire.  This is important to understand because it goes to his motives for calling the Council of Nicea in 325.

I sadly, can't contribute to any of the accademic questions on this matter. Like most people, I've heard so many different versions and am left feeling that any can be interperted to say whatever you want.

But I have read a number of accounts of early Christians being killed, being sent to lions, being covered in pitch and set on fire on street corners and such.

I wonder if anyone can suggest why this cult became so powerful that Constantine felt it would be a unifying force for the empire?

What exactly did Christianty teach that was able to unite the Roman empire, especially at that time?

What was so captivating that people were, apparently ready to reject their old gods and risk a pretty horrible death?

Quote from: spacial on September 22, 2010, 06:00:30 AMI wonder if anyone can suggest why this cult became so powerful that Constantine felt it would be a unifying force for the empire?

What exactly did Christianty teach that was able to unite the Roman empire, especially at that time?

What was so captivating that people were, apparently ready to reject their old gods and risk a pretty horrible death?

Based on what I've read and heard over the years (and feel free to apply the incompleteness theory to this), the sheer numbers of the Christian population made them an attractive group to gain their favor.  But there were so many different beliefs out there they had to be united under one belief or it would be impossible to control them.

At the time Christ walked the earth there wasn't much in the way of organized religion.  In fact I don't recall ever hearing anything about any kind of religion at all.  Catholic teachings say Paganism was rampant and painted Pagans very poorly, kind of like a of drunken hedonists that worshiped things like bronze bulls.

The stories I've heard is there was a need for a Messiah, a Savior to help take them from their sinful ways.  I would imagine if the entire world was like Vegas there would be a number of people who would want salvation from that life.  Christ was one of the Masters and as such taught humanity, kindness, selflessness and other things that weren't prevalent at the time.  And many people needed that.  So he was raised above humankind and made the Savior.

Three hundred years later, the need for that kind of life was still there, just as it is today.  I doubt anyone thought THEY would be thrown to the lions or THEY would be tortured and killed.  After all, they practiced their religion in secrecy.  If you don't get caught, everything's cool.

Obviously many people need to believe in a God, in heaven and in the afterlife.  Few want to believe this life is all we get and after that the lights go out.  Life back then was pretty dismal if you weren't rich, and few were.  So there HAD to be something more than this life or life wouldn't be worth living.  Thus the strong belief in God and Christianity.

Scholars, how did I do?

Understand Julie and thank you so much for responding.

However, Rome had a number of different deities and these allowed living humans to be made into gods as well. Caligula made his horse a god, I seem to recall.

I appreciate the notions of Christianity, not least aestheticism. Neitzche pointed out that Christianity is essentially a slave religion, teaching people to accept their lowley positions in return for a greater reward after death.

If the Christianity that was being promoted up to the time of Constaintine was the same, I don't really understand how it was more attractive than the various deities they had which promoted sexual activity, celebration and gluttony, the spectacle of killing and so on.

Yet the evidence is quite clear, that many did, willingly accept the Christianity of that time. I read once an account by a Roman who witnessed Christians being thrown to lions. They were said to be singing as they were being killed.

Strange that so many would accept a slave religion, as described by Neitzche over what they had.

I have to say from what little I know of Constantine, that he seems to me to have been motivated by his desire to control this cult, rather than embrace its teachings. But the question remains, what was so enticing about early Christianity?

To be clear: I was speaking for myself. I am a lay person (in the religious sense), and therefore I insist on self-scepticism in those areas where I find accepted doctrine troubling. And all the more so when those doubts come from others. Basically, I know when I know something, and I know when I just simply don't. Sure, maybe the Council of Nicea was a corruption of the church; maybe the process of determining the New Testament canon was wrong in some way or another.  But centuries of theologians disagree, and I'm just saying it's worth trying to understand why first before coming to a decision.

That doesn't mean I just accept church doctrine, either, and I'm quite open to other viewpoints from heretics, atheists, people of other religions, scholars of whatever sort. But I just can't bring myself to be a heretic about questions I don't really understand.

If any of you feel you understand the issues enough to have a strong opinion, then good for you. I'm just saying that strong statements require strong evidence. I'm a fundamentalist sceptic; it's just in my nature, okay?

Quote from: rejennyrated on September 22, 2010, 05:42:07 PM
His theorems of incompleteness in a grossly simplified form basically predict that to be provable within a a closed system like the cosmos a theory must of necessity be incomplete.

Okay, this is something I know about. You are implicitly making the statement that the universe is an omega-consistent recursive class of formulas (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html). I think that is far from an obvious statement. Gödel also had a completeness theorem (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsCompletenessTheorem.html); it's entirely possible (and it's my hunch -- but only a hunch) that the universe is simple enough to be completely described by some mathematical model.

But more importantly, "complete" in the sense I'm using it and the sense physicists use when they say GR and the Standard Model are "not complete" is quite different from the sense in which it is used in number theory.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on September 23, 2010, 05:19:38 PM
Okay, this is something I know about. You are implicitly making the statement that the universe is an omega-consistent recursive class of formulas (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html). I think that is far from an obvious statement. Gödel also had a completeness theorem (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsCompletenessTheorem.html); it's entirely possible (and it's my hunch -- but only a hunch) that the universe is simple enough to be completely described by some mathematical model.

But more importantly, "complete" in the sense I'm using it and the sense physicists use when they say GR and the Standard Model are "not complete" is quite different from the sense in which it is used in number theory.

Yeah ok it's a fair cop - I'll come quietly - I was indeed playing fast and loose with my analogies in pursuit of making my point.

But I'm sure you got where I was going anyway which is that the Standard Model and indeed any other current science will one day almost certainly be superseded or refined. So no understanding or knowledge, be it science or theology should ever be cast in stone.

Quote from: spacial on September 22, 2010, 06:30:11 PM
I wonder if anyone can suggest why this cult became so powerful that Constantine felt it would be a unifying force for the empire?
What exactly did Christianty teach that was able to unite the Roman empire, especially at that time?
What was so captivating that people were, apparently ready to reject their old gods and risk a pretty horrible death?

I think this can only be answered when one looks at the history of the empire.
The first Roman Emperor Augustus made it his life work to unify the Roman Empire (Then still called the Roman Republic). The century before him was filled with bloody civil wars of generals fighting each other for control of just a tiny piece of this planet. The people got so war weary that they were ready to give anything -even their political freedom- to a man who found a way to end this bloodshed. Instead of solely relying on violence Augustus took a more sneaky and subtle approach. He eliminated all opposition by murdering them and hired poets to write songs about his deeds: becoming one of the first statesmen relying heavily on propaganda and silently eliminating adversaries.
The end of the conflict resulted in more than 200 years of peace. About the longest time Europe hasn't seen war. For this the common people were ready to worship him as a god. So Augustus created an emperors cult, everywhere in the empire temples were built where the emperor was to be honored as a god. His statues were placed everywhere. Before a play or fight in a theatre a lifelike statue of the emperor was carried around to remind everyone who made this quiet life possible. Even a month was named after him: August (divine). The triumph arch in Orange is filled with pictures of fighting legionnaires to remind people of the sorrow of war.
So using religion and propaganda Europe was united and at peace. Foreign religions and customs were tolerated, you could pay homage to any god you wanted as long as you paid tribute to the emperor. This is why the Romans disliked the Jews and Christians. Both groups had a monotheistic religion and refused to praise any other god, attacking the fundaments of the Roman Empire. The Jews were more or less tolerated because Romans had great respect for ancient traditions, but the Christians were different. Their refusal of honoring the emperor was not justified by tradition, it was only insulting. So the Romans started slandering them and blaming them for any misfortune.. A North African governor said: "Listen, Christians. We don't want to kill you, we only want you to pay tribute to the emperor." It was too much to be asked and the Romans were fascinated by the attitude of the Christians when facing death.

Eventually the Christians would prevail. Some say it was because "it is true", but there are other possibilities.

The Roman culture was based on pride and honor, an unending competition between men. But what about the slaves, the women, the homeless, the losers? What about the times Rome did not do so well? It is understandable that Christianity offered an alternative ethic where miseries in life were compensated for in heaven: the losers would be rewarded. Christianity profited each time the Empire did not do so well. This caused people to be more skeptic about the emperor. In the 3rd century Rome found itself in an economical crisis. What happened? The population did not grow as fast anymore, but the borders were more frequently attacked by people arriving from the east. A stronger army was needed, but this required a lot of money. During the first century the amount of silver in a Sestertie was 97%. It declined to 40% in 250AD and in 270AD it was only 4%. Because coins had the image of the emperor, his influence would also decrease with the decreasing value of money causing a political crisis.
Augustus was very carefree and had a minimum of security: so great was the respect he had among the people. In the 3rd century a wide range of guards was needed to keep the emperor safe from the public. With the increasing social unrest Christianity grew together with the Roman hate against Christians.
It could have continued like this if not 1 man decided to get baptized. His motives are still unclear, did Constantine really saw a cross in the sky in 312AD? Was  "IN HOC SIGNO VINCES" (In this sign you will conquer) written below it? Or was Constantine just clever enough to use this new theology to power his own goals?

Quote from: rejennyrated on September 23, 2010, 05:28:46 PM
Yeah ok it's a fair cop - I'll come quietly - I was indeed playing fast and loose with my analogies in pursuit of making my point.

But I'm sure you got where I was going anyway which is that the Standard Model and indeed any other current science will one day almost certainly be superseded or refined. So no understanding or knowledge, be it science or theology should ever be cast in stone.

Yes, I mostly agree. The question is how to go about finding useful ways to refine current knowledge. In my experience in science, I've had plenty of times I thought things didn't make any sense (in particular, special relativity -- yes, I used to think Einstein was wrong, and in the crackpot way, not in the "SR and GR are approximations of some more fundamental theory we don't know yet" way). But even then, I figured "well, it doesn't make any sense to me, but maybe there's just something I'm missing," and eventually I learned what that something was; my doubts and the irritation they caused me were a source of motivation. I've had similar experiences with theological questions. So those crackpot doubts can be useful in helping one to learn.

I think math can be cast in stone -- I simply don't know how to doubt that 1+1=2, or that { p , (p->q) } |= q. I have complete faith in proven theorems (once I see and understand the proofs); incompleteness just means we'll never be able to come up with an axiom system which can prove or disprove all statements; I also think unprovable statements are actually either true or false within the context of a given model -- incompleteness just means there are multiple (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalNumber.html) models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural_numbers) that satisfy the Peano axioms (etc.).

But I agree that for anything else there will always be some doubt. I think that there exists, whether we ever find it or not, some mathematical model that perfectly describes the universe at a reductive level, though it might be impossible to use it to make predictions (for practical reasons; sort of like the current situation with QCD at low energy scales -- i.e., "I could tell you the answer, but I would need a 10 trillion years and a computer the size of the universe.") But even if I'm right, and we find the theory, and it turns out to be testable, then we would still never be able to have complete faith in it.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that no such model exists -- or that no such model can exist. Only time will tell ... well, maybe ...

Quote from: Octavianus on September 23, 2010, 06:57:25 PM

Eventually the Christians would prevail. Some say it was because "it is true", but there are other possibilities.

This is where I have my problem.

If early Christianity survived because it was more attractive than the other religions of the time, what had seeming disappeared by the 19th century that it was dubbed a slave religion?

I make this point because I can't really find a lot to argue against in Neitzche's assertion. The dogma of most Christian groups, especially in the 19th century, did indeed encourage acceptance. Such resistance to this notion, for example, Marx, continue to be the subject of attacks from many Christian groups. Modern medicine, which began in the early 19th century, of course, did offer some promise of relief in the immediate term, yet somehow managed to avoid the same fate as Marxism.

I appreciate your illustration of the decline around the 3rd century onward. I also appreciate your descriptions of the refusal of early Christians to pay tribute to the emporer and the reasons for the Roman's intolerance to this. These matters are emphasised by historical record and fit well into what can be expected of human behaviour.

But there remains the question, what was so attractive with early Christianity that so many were prepared to identify with it and not any other cult, of which there were many?

If I may contruct an alegory. There's a resturant offering free food. Everyone goes to that resturant and others go out of business.

Many years later, people are still going to that resturant, though it no longer offers any food.

There were many rebellions against Roman rule. In almost every case, the sources of these died out. I appreciate Judaism didn't but there are many other factors.

Yet this single cult survived. Not only survived, but was eventually nationalised by the Romans and adopted in place of all others.

Yet today, such is the mystery of whatever this was, that we are even now arguing over 'lost gospels' and other conspiracies.

I apologise if I appear to be making a statement here. I am really curious about this.

If anyone has any insights, perhaps mor information, or even anoter perspective on the human behaviour aspect, I will be most grateful

Thanks for prompting me to chuck in my two bobs worth spacial!

This is all starting to sound like a theological discussion, so I I'll just stick to Jesus' summary of belief.

Love God totally and love your neighbour as yourself. 

The rest is just commentary,( or Pharisaic hair-splitting if you must be pedantic  ;D).

Throughout grade school I was taught by Dominican nuns (6 years) and the Sisters of St, Francis (2 years).  Through high school and college it was the Jesuits.  I heard a lot of stuff about Christianity and a lot of contradictions, all from people of the same religion.  (scratches head)

I never met Jesus Christ.  I've never read a single word he wrote.  To the best of my knowledge no one else has either.  Maybe he was illiterate.  Doesn't matter, most people were then.  But the spirit of the man I think I understand.  I think if he were alive today he'd be a civil rights activist. 

I appreciate there were people alive back then who took the time to write their stories.  Be it Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Thomas, Judas, Peter and Mary Magdalene, it doesn't matter.  Each had something to say and each was written according to their individual perspective.  All deserve the same respect.  For us to say hundreds or even thousands of years later "this is right and that is wrong" seems a bit closed-minded.  And even if the authorship is in question, you still have a historic document that tells a story about the past.

This world is filled with historic information and we continue to discover more and more each day.  Why not embrace the opportunity to learn from these discoveries rather than holding on to "traditional" beliefs.  I've never understood the benefit of traditional beliefs. 

When you're green, you're growing.  When you're not, you rot.

Thank you Oz. Reality checks are always a good idea.

But I'm attempting to avoid theology.

We have a number of people here with quite extensive knowledge of the period. I'm attempting to pick their minds to hopefully get an answer to something that's been bugging me for years.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 21, 2010, 04:38:59 PM
And the church and Christianity became a business.  And like almost all businesses, it's operations are motivated by money and power... and run by men.

One reason Jesus was killed was because He upset the business as usual approach. The religious hierarchy ignored the spiritual needs of the people. Jesus didn't mince words when he rebuffed them about their negligence. The society was patriarchal at that time and women were considered property. Jesus upset the apple cart because women were welcome and often the most receptive to his message.

Gennee

Quote from: spacial on September 24, 2010, 10:05:36 AM
We have a number of people here with quite extensive knowledge of the period. I'm attempting to pick their minds to hopefully get an answer to something that's been bugging me for years.

I'm guessing you also have a hard time trying to understand why the Heaven's Gate people took their lives or why over 900 of the followers of Jim Jones would drink cyanide-laced Kool Aid.  Me too.  But, like the early Christians, they thought there was a better life waiting for them on the other side.  I believe it is as simple as that.  You don't need a scholar to explain it, only to be able to understand the power of faith.  Sometimes that power compels us to do irrational, hurtful or selfish things.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 24, 2010, 01:49:02 PM
I'm guessing you also have a hard time trying to understand why the Heaven's Gate people took their lives or why over 900 of the followers of Jim Jones would drink cyanide-laced Kool Aid.  Me too.  But, like the early Christians, they thought there was a better life waiting for them on the other side.  I believe it is as simple as that.  You don't need a scholar to explain it, only to be able to understand the power of faith.  Sometimes that power compels us to do irrational, hurtful or selfish things.

That's as good a response as any I suppose.

Though I suggest the suicide cults of recent US history have more to do with the pressures of forcing intelegent people to accept paradoxical notions for fear of appearing unpatriotic. The resultant paranoia is an expected and predictable consequence.

The rarity of such cults in history and in other parts of the world doesn't seem to have become apparent to the average US citizen as they wave their flags and obediently martch off to kill and die for other people's causes.

Thank you for the irony.  :D

I'll take it as irony. Love ya!

Quote from: spacial on September 24, 2010, 06:05:10 AM
If early Christianity survived because it was more attractive than the other religions of the time, what had seeming disappeared by the 19th century that it was dubbed a slave religion?

I appreciate your illustration of the decline around the 3rd century onward. I also appreciate your descriptions of the refusal of early Christians to pay tribute to the emporer and the reasons for the Roman's intolerance to this. These matters are emphasised by historical record and fit well into what can be expected of human behaviour.

But there remains the question, what was so attractive with early Christianity that so many were prepared to identify with it and not any other cult, of which there were many?

There were many rebellions against Roman rule. In almost every case, the sources of these died out. I appreciate Judaism didn't but there are many other factors.

Yet this single cult survived. Not only survived, but was eventually nationalised by the Romans and adopted in place of all others.

I am not really familiar with 19th and 20th century phylosophy because I just started to look into it. So you will have to forgive my ignorance in this field. I think religion as a whole lost its appeal due to the advance of science. In the last few ages we have made such progress in understanding nature that we don't grasp to supernatural explanations to fill the unknown. What we don't understand today will be explained tomorrow. The Greek physician Hippocrates saw this early on. He wrote: "Men think of epilepsy as divine because they do not understand it. One day we will know what causes it and we will stop calling it divine"
I think that with the rise of logic empiricism with the Wiener Kreis the separation between belief and science was complete

Whey you look at the Roman Empire, I don't  think there was that much resistance against it. The brave tales of resistance to the Roman oppressors are mostly exaggarated due nationalism.  This is because the "conquered" tribes were slowly assimilated. The Romans respected their way of life: they could keep their gods and customs and the locals were mostly eager to romanize. One of the few interventions of Roman rule on local tribes was for example the ban on human sacrifice in Britania.
Parts of Gaul were so peaceful that many never saw a soldier in their entire life. This peace was called the "Pax Romana" ("Roman peace", the 200 year peace created by Augustus), and was maintained by use of propaganda. This peace ended by the rule of emperor Commodus (You may know him from the movie Gladiator). The most unruly parts were the German border and Judea. At the German border it was due to cruel oppression by general Varus, In Judea it was because of the oppression of Christians and Jews.

If we are to believe Roman historians, early Christianity was identified by true fanaticism. They were standing on the streets offering passing men to cut their throats. It reminds one of some Islamic cults today. This willingness to sacrifice themselves, this martyrdom made a great impression on the common people. The reason Christianity had an appeal to the common people was because of this fanaticism, and because it offered a great reward in the afterlife for the common people. A slave would be free in heaven. This was in contradiction with the Roman belief that the afterlife would be a reflection of daily life: a nobody would still be a nobody. Only by climbing the social ladder or by acts of braveness on the battle field could a Roman achieve a better afterlife.
Christianity was never used to unify the Empire. At the time of Constantine the empire was carved up in 4 regions with their own rulers as an attempt to create a better management to combat the political and economical crisis. But instead this resulted in the 4 "emperors" fighting each other for power. Constantine was 1 of them. According to legend Constantine saw a cross in the sky and recieved a dream in which Christ appeared telling Constantine to fight in his sign just before the battle Maxentius. He ordered his legionaires to paint the Chi-Rho sign on their shield. Constantine won the battle, effectively converting him and his army to Christianity. Eventually he became the emperor of the entire empire making Christianity the state religion and forcing it on the people. But this came with a lot of resistance.
I think it is safe to say that the conversion to Christianity was due to luck. No one knows what would happen if Constantine would have lost the battle against Maxentius.

Quote from: Octavianus on September 25, 2010, 10:37:13 AM
I think it is safe to say that the conversion to Christianity was due to luck...

Well, bad luck I would say then.  In the main, the church did not thrive after it became "official."  The institution perhaps became much more powerful, but that is a far cry from saying that the church thrived.

This conversation has run a lot of different courses, but I think the secondary question asked was why the church survived and grew in the environment of the Roman empire.  And no, the persecution of the church at the hands of both the Jews and the Romans was not some kind of fanciful invention.  If you really believe that, then I suggest you read the excellent work Martyrs Mirror by Thieleman J. van Braght which is the story of Christian martyrdom from the time of Christ through approximately 1660.  (I am also sure that another volume could fill the time to the present.)  It is just shy of 1200 pages and is very revealing.  Each page contains approximately 3 different martyrdom accounts, and each account may be an individual or an entire group.  To make a long story short, persecution was very real and gruesome according to actual eyewitness accounts.

What would possibly make people attracted to follow something like Christianity in those early days?

Before I give my answer, I want to make it very clear that people's willingness to follow a certain ideal, or perhaps even die for it, does not, in and of itself, make it a truth.  Observe things such as Adolph Hitler, Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, etc.   All of their leaders, and most of their followers even gave their lives to follow that belief. 

Nor can we assume that just because an organization grows, it is the truth.  I think of many of the holiness hucksters out there with megafollowings who are into little beside megabucks and manipulation in the name of their religion.  These are, IMHO, charlatans of the worst kind.

However, it cannot be denied that, despite all of the persecution and  attempts to eradicate the church, it has continued to grow.  Most notably, it has always grown in times and places of persecution.  What would make 11 disciples give their lives as martyrs?  What would make Paul give up his position of power and wealth to serve this risen Jesus, enduring immeasurable hardships along the way?  In our own day, what would make people in countries such as Iraq, China, Colombia, Iran, Pakistan, Cyprus, Algeria, Sudan, North Korea, (and many more) follow Christ at the risk of being killed?  In fact, an average of 171,000 Christians worldwide are martyred for their faith per year.   So why follow this way of life?

For me the answer has always been the same.  And it is quite simple actually.  The early church father Tertullian quotes an investigation into the faith by those outside trying to figure out just this question:
"Vide", inquiunt, "ut invicem se diligant"  "et ut pro alteruto mori sint parati"
"Look," they say, "how they love one another" "and how they are ready to die for each other"
(Text is CSEL 69; translation is Glover, Loeb edition.)

Jesus told his followers, according to John 15:9-11,  "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full."

Loving one another?  Giving up of ourselves for one another?  Being willing to lay down our very lives to love another, and to testify to this love?  Forgiving one another and being forgiven?  Yes, it is a radical way of life, the way exemplified by Jesus.  And in a time of persecution, it seems that this need is so powerful that the legalism is stripped away from Christianity, and this amazing core remains.  Moreover, this core truth is so strong that it attracts people to it.

How would the world be different if we really took to heart the things Jesus said, rather than some kind of cultural religion?  For example,
"But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you." Matthew 5:44

Who would want to follow such a practice even in the face of persecution? ? ? ?

Obviously the early Christians did.  Obviously, some of still do today.

Thank you Octavianus. That is begining to make a lot more sense now.

Your point:

QuoteThis was in contradiction with the Roman belief that the afterlife would be a reflection of daily life: a nobody would still be a nobody.

I feel I should have noticed. The pieces are now fitting together.

The philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuaries is marked by its enormous diversity. Like most other fields, there was a huge amount of work done by so many.

I know you to be a pretty studious person so I have a feeling you will probably take a much more catholic approach to it. I tended to treat it as I treat most areas I've looked at, by finding those which have the information I need for the objectives I have.

As you can imagine, its a bit of a ragged approach to study, but I convince myself that, since I'm pnly trying to satisfy myself, I can break rules. Kinda like cheating at patience.  :laugh:

I don't generally recommend books. When people do so to me, I usually respond by saying I already have a book.

But Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosphy is an excellent taster. He was a long time pacifist activist and was consequently imprisoned during WW1. Then, with the logic only Russell could manage, found a way to come to some sort of terms with WW2.

As a result, his name is frequently held in some disdain her in the UK. If you ask people why, they rarely know. My mother threw out a copy of a Russell book I had when I was in my teens. She said she wouldn't have it in the house.

Anyway. Thanks for the insights. It's given me enough to look into the matter more carefully

Thank you so much for your post Kristy.

I personal find one of the problems in discussing Christianity in a mixed group is that the essential notions are frequently jaded by repitition. I actively avoid quoting from the Gospels for this reason, for this reason, insisting they can only be read in context.

This statement does neatly sum up early Christian practice.

Quote"Look," they say, "how they love one another" "and how they are ready to die for each other"

Thank you very much for your comments Kristi and Spacial, I will take a look at the lecture you have recommended as soon as I can find the time. It looks promising as this is a very interesting subject. It explains how whe have come to this point and why we believe what we believe. But there are too many things going on right now which I need to understand and have the absolute priority that I have to save it for later. So please forgive my limited understanding of the subjects covered in this discussion.

History tells us Christians were persecuted, tortured and killed.  History also tells us Christians persecuted, tortured and killed.  History is also filled with stories of Christians "saving" the savages, pagans and anyone else who practiced a religion they didn't believe in or accept, by brute force if necessary.  Many people who refused to accept the Christian faith were executed.  How many other religious faiths can claim campaigns like the Crusades, the Inquisitions or Holy Wars created to stomp out apostacy and heresy or whatever else got in the way of their religious beliefs?

Christianity was often "spread" by the sword, forcing people to accept, or else.  Is it any wonder people didn't feel so loving toward Christians?  It was their way or the highway.  What about MYOB!?!

Today, at least in the US, Christians (many, not all) continue to persecute, discriminate and torture those who don't accept their beliefs.  And we are on that list.  I don't think Jesus Christ ever envisioned that for his "followers".

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 25, 2010, 06:33:50 PM
History tells us Christians were persecuted, tortured and killed.  History also tells us Christians persecuted, tortured and killed.  History is also filled with stories of Christians "saving" the savages, pagans and anyone else who practiced a religion they didn't believe in or accept, by brute force if necessary.  Many people who refused to accept the Christian faith were executed.  How many other religious faiths can claim campaigns like the Crusades, the Inquisitions or Holy Wars created to stomp out apostacy and heresy or whatever else got in the way of their religious beliefs?

Christianity was often "spread" by the sword, forcing people to accept, or else.  Is it any wonder people didn't feel so loving toward Christians?  It was their way or the highway.  What about MYOB!?!

Today, at least in the US, Christians (many, not all) continue to persecute, discriminate and torture those who don't accept their beliefs.  And we are on that list.  I don't think Jesus Christ ever envisioned that for his "followers".

while there is a sordid history, i think it is often too easy for people to mix the failings of human lust for power with the failings of a belief system

there is no legitimate way to read the words of the new Testament and find there the philosophy "take up the sword and conquer in my name"

THAT is not true Christianity, nor what powerless Christians practiced.

What happened once the church had state power was FAR more a function of human power-lust, not religion. Organized Religion is prey, just as any other human organization, to the baser instincts of the men who make it up. "power corrupts" and all that.

It is true that after hundreds of years of false indoctrination by church leaders, there was a culture created which we (in particular) still suffer from, because the powerless all too often trusted those who held power over them until it became a situation in which no one could remember a time when anyone thought anything other than, for instance, that god hates gays.

But i still maintain that the problems that are "caused by religion" in our society are not in fact caused by religion, they are caused by "power corrupts"

the faith itself, true or not, doesn't contain the hatefulness that is often manifest in some of the faithful.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 25, 2010, 06:33:50 PM
History tells us Christians were persecuted, tortured and killed.  History also tells us Christians persecuted, tortured and killed.  History is also filled with stories of Christians "saving" the savages, pagans and anyone else who practiced a religion they didn't believe in or accept, by brute force if necessary.  Many people who refused to accept the Christian faith were executed.  How many other religious faiths can claim campaigns like the Crusades, the Inquisitions or Holy Wars created to stomp out apostacy and heresy or whatever else got in the way of their religious beliefs?

Christianity was often "spread" by the sword, forcing people to accept, or else.  Is it any wonder people didn't feel so loving toward Christians?  It was their way or the highway.  What about MYOB!?!

Today, at least in the US, Christians (many, not all) continue to persecute, discriminate and torture those who don't accept their beliefs.  And we are on that list.  I don't think Jesus Christ ever envisioned that for his "followers".

Backing up Tammy's point, sadly, people misuse many terms and distort many things to gain power.

N Korea calls itself democratic for example.

It's significant that, from around the time of Constantine until the reformation the Gospels were kept from almost everyone. Partly by the insistance of them being distributed in Latin but also restrictions on their distribution.

We should also remember that the issue that brought about the reformation was the sale of indulgencies, which the corrupt leaders claimed, along with almost everything else, was justified by scripture.

Even following the reformation and even today, there remains enormous misunderstanding and corruption of the teachings of Jesus. Both Bush and Blair claimed to be inspired by the Bible to order the mass murder in Iraq and Afghanistan!

But those that misuse the Gospels for their own ends are on the same level as those in N Korea who claim to be democratic.

In recent years, expecially in the last 50 or so years, there seems to be an increasing number of claims seeking to pour doubt on the authenticity of the Gospels especailly, but much of the Bible as well.

When I was a child I recall the claims that none of the texts had been written at the time of Jesus, the earliest being written some 70s years after He died.

The reality, of course, is that that is simply the oldest surving text, not the same thing at all.

Another was the Secret Vatican Archives and what they might contain. In the late 60s, that caused quite a stirr.

The so call rejected texts conjour up notions of a cover up.

Yet, those who take the trouble to actually read the texts can find little to really object to.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 25, 2010, 06:33:50 PM
History tells us Christians were persecuted, tortured and killed.  History also tells us Christians persecuted, tortured and killed.  History is also filled with stories of Christians "saving" the savages, pagans and anyone else who practiced a religion they didn't believe in or accept, by brute force if necessary.  Many people who refused to accept the Christian faith were executed.  How many other religious faiths can claim campaigns like the Crusades, the Inquisitions or Holy Wars created to stomp out apostacy and heresy or whatever else got in the way of their religious beliefs?

Christianity was often "spread" by the sword, forcing people to accept, or else.  Is it any wonder people didn't feel so loving toward Christians?  It was their way or the highway.  What about MYOB!?!

Today, at least in the US, Christians (many, not all) continue to persecute, discriminate and torture those who don't accept their beliefs.  And we are on that list.  I don't think Jesus Christ ever envisioned that for his "followers".

Which is precisely what I mean by saying that Constantine did the church and the world no favors by giving it legal standing.   Forced conversions are no more conversions than what Constantine did when he marched his army through the river and supposedly baptized them, making them Christians.  I have never tried to justify those things, nor did I in my post, Julie.  I know the crusades are a major point with you, and I agree that they are one of the major blights on history.    They had zilch to do with Christianity and everything to do with the thirst for power.  The vestiges of that still live on in subtle ways, but that is another discussion.

I also know you also have major disagreements with one segment of the population of American Christians, including the segment of your origin.  I share those disagreements, of course.  But I do not see this as the view that what most Christians believe, only some of the well funded big mouths and the Roman church.  That is just not my world.  Nor is it the essence of Christianity.

I do have a question for you:  Where in the US are Christians engaged in torturing people?

Quote from: Kristi on September 26, 2010, 08:28:18 AMI do have a question for you:  Where in the US are Christians engaged in torturing people?

It's all around us my friend.  Every time someone abuses the Bible or makes the claim. "It's God's will!" when promoting bigotry, denying people their civil rights or pressuring people to cave to their beliefs, that's torture because there's a punishment that follows.  It may be emotional at first but it can become physical through social punishment and the subsequent affects it has on one physicaly.

There are good Christians and bad christians.  I know many here have stated bad christians aren't real Christians and I understand that.  Unfortunately, many of the bad christians are also Christian leaders, the ones in power, the ones initiating campaigns against civil rights, the ones pouring millions into keeping their particular beliefs on the forefront and an integral part of politics.  And innocent people are hurt, most times intentionally.

Sure, Christians don't engage in beheadings, public stonings or murder today but many organized Christian religions are engaged in a modern form of a Holy War, the war against gays, the war against teaching evolution, the war against separation of church and state, the war against other beliefs, to name a few.  And the primary reason is to force their beliefs on everyone else by pressure and social punishment. 

Pity the politician who says he/she is not Christian.  They will be punished by not being elected, no matter how well they would have done their job.  And all politicians know that.  Go on national TV and speak out against Christianity and you will be persecuted.

I feel the Bible needs a total revamping.  Include the gospels that were thrown out.  Include the gnostics and tell the truth about their beliefs and faith.  Add the things we have discovered along the way about Christianity, Jesus Christ and his belief system.  Make it a complete history, without prejudice.

I did what I could and stopped supporting the bad christians, I stopped going to church and donating money.  And while good Christians could be hurt by this, if it was done en masse, maybe eventually the bad christians would be removed from power.  Until then those of us who refuse to tolerate the abuse have only science and the facts they present to fall back on in an effort to stop the bigotry and hatred and expose the hypocrisy.

Make the Bible current and it could change the world, for the better.

"Today's reading will be from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene."

Peter said to Mary, "Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than other women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you have in mind since you know them; and we do not, nor have we heard of them."

Wouldn't that be something?

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 26, 2010, 10:01:51 AM
Pity the politician who says he/she is not Christian.  They will be punished by not being elected, no matter how well they would have done their job.  And all politicians know that.  Go on national TV and speak out against Christianity and you will be persecuted.

That's the point though. If Bush and Blair had told the real reasons they ordered mass murder, or some southern politician said the reason he hates gays and transgendered people is because he's a biggot, who would listen and follow?

As for revamping the Bible, you can do that.

I and I know many others have done it by taking the Gospels and treating the rest as padding.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 26, 2010, 10:01:51 AM
It's all around us my friend...   Sure, Christians don't engage in beheadings, public stonings or murder today but many organized Christian religions are engaged in a modern form of a Holy War, the war against gays, the war against teaching evolution, the war against separation of church and state, the war against other beliefs, to name a few.  And the primary reason is to force their beliefs on everyone else by pressure and social punishment. 

I guess we have a very different definition of torture.  In fact, the physical things you mention are being done to Christians in many parts of the world as we speak.  Do you consider this right, or are you glad to see the Christians paid back for their wrongdoings?  Mostly today these are Christians who are simply wishing the right to worship as they please without interference and are standing up for human rights.    But I simply say that if it is wrong, it is wrong, no matter who is doing it.  Ethically, it cannot be any other way.

I know that in our society we have the freedom to advocate for what we believe.  When someone disagrees with me and works very hard at something I oppose, I do not consider it a holy war.  If either side does wrong, then we are usually treated to a version of  "the end justifies the means" which is, of course, ethically bankrupt. 

True, my sweet Julie, you do not run in the circles I do, nor do we share much in the way of our backgrounds, but I have seen things done so badly by both sides of this argument that I cringe when either side tries to look holy and begins to cast stones.  I suggest that a better way is to exemplify what we believe and use nonviolent methods to call attention to just causes.  A better way is to attempt to build bridges and begin dialog.  A better way is to put actual faces and lives with those we seek to vilify and begin to build trust between those with diverging opinions.  A better way is to realize that we are not responsible for other people's wrong actions, but we sure are responsible for our own, even when they are in reaction to a perceived wrong done to us.  A better way is to seek to form relationships, which is always the beginning of any real change.

I am not saying that this way is easy.  It may not be quick.  But I believe that if we want a real shot at justice this is the only one we have.   And those who scoff at such ideas only want a victory at any cost.  But such a victory is temporary at best.  It is like knocking a hornet's nest out of a tree.  Defensiveness is automatically called for, reprisals happen, and the angry pendulum will shift back and forth and back and forth.

So you want to change the Bible?  Is that the basis for where this is going?  Tell me, what specifically is there in the Gospel of Thomas or of Mary Magdalene that you think would so revolutionize things?  Personally, I see very little, if any, that would change.  The chance for veracity of either of the texts you mention is practically nil, though I have covered that earlier.  I think the better answer is to go ahead and open the Bible and read it.  Really read it.  Strip off the cultural bias you have heard before and really read it.  As Marcus Borg said, it is like meeting Jesus again for the first time.  I personally think you would be amazed at things you never knew were there.

However, if you want to believe the gospel of Mary or of Peter, or of Bozo the Clown, for that matter, it is certainly your right to do so and you know I will support you in doing it, so long as you know I have a right to expect you to respect my beliefs as well.

Peace,
Kristi

Quote from: Kristi on September 28, 2010, 02:36:29 PMHowever, if you want to believe the gospel of Mary or of Peter, or of Bozo the Clown...

That, my dear friend, was a bit condescending.  Don't ya think?

I agree with Kristi, read the Bible for what it says, not for what demoninations want you to see in the words.

The Bible is perfectly capable of speaking for itself and does not need the "enlightened" interpretaions of scholars (who all have their own axes to grind).

I have read some, not all, of the books that were left out of the "official" version of the Bible and don't feel they really have anything to add to my beliefs.

My faith isn't between me and a denomination or a "great christian scholar/teacher" but between me and God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Sarah L.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 29, 2010, 10:35:44 AM
That, my dear friend, was a bit condescending.  Don't ya think?

Oh dear, no it wasn't supposed to sound condescending.  It means that even if I do not agree with you, I will still love you and accept you.  Sorry if it came out all wrong.