 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / May 2006How Did Christianity Gain Political Power (Originally)?
And how has it been maintained? Was it specific qualities of the philosophy itself, or was it just a lucky (for the movement) that Constantine took his dream literally, and had some military victories afterwards? If you simply say "because it's right" and you expect me to acept that then I guess you'd have to accept the same reason if someone offered it as an explanation for chinese communism or american corporatism, or islamic fundamentalism. All these have gained and held political power. I don't think wars decide which religion is correct. Even if it is correct, what specifically about it at what particular points in history, made the practical difference? Is christianity a war-based religion? That is, has it colonised the world mostly through violence and domination, or has most of its expansion been through free and sincere acceptance of its core beliefs, by those who come in contact with it? > And how has it been maintained? > > Was it specific qualities of the philosophy itself, or was it just a > lucky (for the movement) that Constantine took his dream literally, and > had some military victories afterwards? Why your obsession to religious mysticism when irrationality ANY and every WHERE in the world is the REAL enemy of the free man? Why not put your own cards on the table? Define your own philosophy, if you can? I suspect conservatism at best, socialism most likely. In either case you are a f.cking hypocrite to be having a go at the religious mystics while holding onto an equally as mystical anti-reason philosophy yourself. Michael Gordge > > And how has it been maintained? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why your obsession to religious mysticism when irrationality ANY and > every WHERE in the world is the REAL enemy of the free man? It's a historical interest, not an obsession. > Why not put your own cards on the table? > > Define your own philosophy, if you can? I'm a pragmatist, but you are wrong in thinking it means, simply, "anything goes". > I suspect conservatism at best, socialism most likely. In either case > you are a f.cking hypocrite to be having a go at the religious mystics > while holding onto an equally as mystical anti-reason philosophy > yourself. Firstly, it was an honest question. Secondly, you're accusing me of being a hypocrite for something you suspect I believe. > Michael Gordge Answer is simple: then, as now, He provides a way for preachers to make a buck. Money drives everything. > Answer is simple: then, as now, He provides a way for preachers to make > a buck. > > Money drives everything. I doubt that most of the preachers earn more from religion then they could on a job or even the dole.  SignatureBe careful, what you predict with the theory of human-caused global warming as it will be tested soon enough as we aren't going to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Observations of Bernard - No 99 >Answer is simple: then, as now, He provides >a way for preachers to make a buck. > >Money drives everything. Really? Two questions. 1) Are you sure every preacher "makes a buck"? 2) Why would it be wrong for a preacher to be paid? Signature"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. - Joshua 24:15 > Money drives everything. Would you rather guns did? Not a socialist or pragmatist by any chance? Michael Gordge > It's a historical interest, not an obsession. You're using religion as a Strawman and you know it, you want to divert attention away from your own equally as mystical idiotic philosophy. > > Define your own philosophy, if you can? > > I'm a pragmatist, but you are wrong in thinking it means, simply, > "anything goes". f.ck you are a hypocrite, you've just been crapping on in another thread about how other people dont know what other people are thinking. As it happens, stating pragmatism as your philosophy, without FIRST stating the principles that you want pragmatisim to be used for, most certainly is a philosophy of *anything goes*, at best, **what ever the bigger mob says.** Pragmatism as a philosophic premise, means to compromise even your principles, (that is true or you would have stated your principles first) here is what the objectivist says about compromise. Any compromise between food and poison can only result in death, any compromise between good and evil results in a victory to evil. Good gains nothing from a compromise. > Secondly, you're accusing me of being a hypocrite for something you > suspect I believe. It was not an accusation it was a qualified statement of fact based on your previous posts. A hypocrite is the correct name for a pragmatist who calls other kettles black. So leave the religious mystics alone until you sort your own trashy and equally as mystical ideas out, you hypocrite. Michael Gordge > > It's a historical interest, not an obsession. > > You're using religion as a Strawman and you know it, you want to divert > attention away from your own equally as mystical idiotic philosophy. No I always want to divert attention to my philosophy, it's the best in the world (as far as I can see). I just don't feel any strong urge to discuss it with you because you seem quick to insult and unlikely to entertain the idea that you might be misinterpreting someone you disagree with. Witness for example, the accusation that I am hiding (or trying to divert attention from) something, in response to pointing out the mere fact that I'm interested in, rather than obsessed with (another conclusion you reached about me very quickly) Christianity. > > > Define your own philosophy, if you can? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > f.ck you are a hypocrite, you've just been crapping on in another > thread about how other people dont know what other people are thinking. Except that you admit that's what you think pragmatism is, in the next sentence... > As it happens, stating pragmatism as your philosophy, without FIRST > stating the principles that you want pragmatisim to be used for, most [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Good gains nothing from a compromise. Pragmatism, as it applies to my philosophy, is a principle in itself. It means to base all other principles/rules/systems/plans/theories on usability, and test them accordingly. Given that consistency ("non-contradiction") and predictability make a system more usable (I think you'd agree), then a pragmatist of this school wants a set of useful working theories, and the means by which to improve them further. It's like a strategic hedonism, informed by whatever view of human nature is best supported at the time, such as Neo-Darwinism. Rand explicitly states her own pragmatic motives "Objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth". Christians often deny being pragmatists or selfish in their decisions, but may nonetheless take joy in pointing out that others are going to burn in hell while they are earning, through their deeds or faith, a place in paradise.. > > Secondly, you're accusing me of being a hypocrite for something you > > suspect I believe. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > until you sort your own trashy and equally as mystical ideas out, you > hypocrite. I said nothing about their mysticism, so what am I doing that's hypocrticial? If I accuse another man of being rude, for example, does that mean I'm a hypocrite because I'm also a man? That would be assuming for argument's sake that I'm a mystic, which I'm not. > Michael Gordge > No I always want to divert attention to my philosophy, it's the best in > the world (as far as I can see). Seeing is not good without logic. > > f.ck you are a hypocrite, you've just been crapping on in another > > thread about how other people dont know what other people are thinking. > > Except... No exceptions, you are a hypocrite. Point being of course but it IS possible to have a calculated guess and often with a great deal of accuracy at what people are thinking based on your previous experience with them. > Pragmatism, as it applies to my philosophy, is a principle in itself. I take it you dont use or have a dictionary? Inventing your own definitions. 1. way of thinking about results: a straightforward practical way of thinking about things or dealing with problems, concerned with results rather than with theories and principles 2. philosophy way of evaluating theories: a philosophical view that a theory or concept should be evaluated in terms of how it works and its consequences as the standard for action and thought. Pragmatism therefore is a *means to an end* it is NOT an end in itself, it CANT be by its definition. You will note that the definition talks of the fact there IS something that pragmatism is aimed at doing. **a straightforward practical way of thinking about things or dealing with problems,..** You can try all you like but you can not change the fact that pragmatism is a means to an end. Even pragmatists require principles to be pragmatic about. > It means to base all other principles/rules/systems/plans/theories on > usability, and test them accordingly. Given that consistency > ("non-contradiction") Ummmm, calling pragmatism something it aint IS a contradiction. > That would be assuming for argument's sake that I'm a mystic, which I'm > not. That's an accident not a consequence of a philosophy of pragmatism. Plenty of people believe in that mystical nonsense for no other reason than others do. Michael Gordge [...] > > Pragmatism, as it applies to my philosophy, is a principle in itself. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > thinking about things or dealing with problems, concerned with results > rather than with theories and principles Dictionaries have a superficial recording of how people use a word, try a few different encyclopedias of philosophy and some histories of pragmatism, and then you will know what it means. That first definition above, for example, should read "...concerned with results as the final test for theories and principles". > 2. philosophy way of evaluating theories: a philosophical view that a > theory or concept should be evaluated in terms of how it works and its [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You can try all you like but you can not change the fact that > pragmatism is a means to an end. Yes, the end is peace of mind and satisfaction, that's the same for any philosophy. > Even pragmatists require principles to be pragmatic about. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Michael Gordge re: Roman Empire --->Holy Roman Empire: philosophy of its politico-religio role http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire My putrid, terrific, fantabulous, humble subjective takes/ observations/perceptions: The poster is apparently somewhat rhetorically asking about dynamics in the development of western history. Nobody--especially me--gets his question. So glibly breaking-complex reality apart into absurd fragments of true non-explanation is thus part of the perverse fun in response to such a question/challenge Herein's inanities explain the base of western civilization as: 10. HEY: Discover it fer yerself with Thomas Gibbon, the Durants, and the thoughtful unaccredited/anonymous/sneaky WIKIPEDIANS 9. Hail Caesar, Hell yes <Dave Gardner's parody> 8. Emperors may come & go, but its the romance languages & badly accented English one can't get rid of 7. The spaghetti trees of Italy are harvested by slaves who stamp-em with their feet 6. Air Italia: Reputedly the World's most dependable for shutdowns/walkouts 5.--1. Machiavelli 0. What's "ice box" in Italian? ica boxa -1. And for duly traumatized latin students: We tried to convince ourselves that it would be useful, as self-evidently is: Hic, hike, hoke IMHO you have to look at the context: the Mediteranean 2000 years ago. There was not really a religion that was accessible or acceptable to everybody. But the simplest peasant could understand the basics of Christianity, and at the other end of the scale the educated man who'd read Plato etc. would find much in it that he agreed with. On top of that, no other religion had quite such a compelling message. And so it simply became very popular, not because it was "right" in any objective way, but because it was "right" for us, in the same way that other religions are "right" for other people in other parts of the world. Communism made some overly optimistc assumptions about the altruism of human beings & it has never worked on a large scale. I suppose that makes it "wrong". All of the surviving religions are moderate, because most people are moderate most of the time. But Judaism, Christianity & Islam do have something warlike about them, in a way that Budhism and some other religions do not. In short, it could be said that in Christianity & Islam the warlike bit comes out most often in the various fundamentalist movements that both have suffered from. But these movements never last long because the general population never wants to live that way. I suppose that makes fundamentalist religion "wrong" too. Christianity has dominated the world for a short time, basically because Europeans discovered America & got very rich very quickly. In the long view India & China have been the the wealthiest & most technically advanced places & will be again soon. Expect Confucius soon! >And how has it been maintained? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >expansion been through free and sincere acceptance of its core beliefs, >by those who come in contact with it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_%28emperor%29 A weak Roman empire, a religion that was suitable as opium for the masses and finally a Roman emperor that was willing to utilize the religion to forward his policy. > And how has it been maintained? One of the requirements for an empire are the barbarians outside: The are representing a danger and as such constituting the outer pressure that keeps the empire together. Rome couldn't use it's religion to define itself, but it used it's laws and the order in the Roman empire. Christianity was able to define itself by means of religion, so the barbarians were the people with different faith. I'd guess independent of all otehr factors and independent of all the political tensions and even wars between Christian nations, Christianity shaped kind of an empire. In addition Catholic church is based on roman structures - well tested to shape a long-living empire. > Was it specific qualities of the philosophy itself, or was it just a > lucky (for the movement) that Constantine took his dream literally, > and had some military victories afterwards? I'm not sure anything of these things should be taken literally. Number of Christians was sufficiently large not to ignore them and even to support them for political reasons. > ... > Is christianity a war-based religion? It's pretension to represent the only truth makes it simpler to abuse it for wars and prosecution of different faiths, than for example ancient Greek or Roman religions. > That is, has it colonised the world mostly through violence and > domination, or has most of its expansion been through free and sincere > acceptance of its core beliefs, by those who come in contact with it? I don't think it's very different to other empires: Surely Rome needed it's legions to conquer large parts of the world, but it was the roman idea of order and the fact people became part of the empire instead of staying occupied nations that kept it together. Christians occupied large parts of the world with fire and sword, but it was Christian religion and Catholic structures and the ability for everybody to become Christian that kept it together. >A weak Roman empire, a religion that was suitable as opium for the >masses and finally a Roman emperor that was willing to utilize the >religion to forward his policy. What??? The truth is, that the Roman culture looked down on Christianity, because it only had one God. And there was plenty of "religion" around already. It would have went against the grain, to promote the idea of one God and Constantine didn't have to worry about "promoting his policy". He could have done that better, by promoting a religion with many gods, instead of just one. "Opium for the masses", would have been to give them some gods of war and prosperity and different gods, for each one of their desires. >> And how has it been maintained? > >One of the requirements for an empire are the barbarians outside: The >are representing a danger and as such constituting the outer pressure >that keeps the empire together. Even if that inane rambling were true, that would have nothing to do with Christianity, which btw, promoted the idea of peace, not war. It is obvious that you are either inventing this stuff as you go along, or you are repeating the inane ramblings of others. (: Signature"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34 / o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> \ "For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword." http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/bryanp/Evolution/Gre.Sci..htm > > A weak Roman empire, a religion that was suitable as opium for the > > masses and finally a Roman emperor that was willing to utilize the > > religion to forward his policy. > > What??? The truth is, that the Roman culture looked > down on Christianity, because it only had one God. Well, in 3rd century the idea of one god was wide spread in Rome. Since 270 the monotheist religion of Sol Invictus was Roman state religion. It was a fairly smooth conversion from Sol invictus to the Christian God, and it's not by accident that xmas was placed on 25th of December. > And there was plenty of "religion" around already. > It would have went against the grain, to promote > the idea of one God and Constantine didn't have to > worry about "promoting his policy". He could have > done that better, by promoting a religion with many > gods, instead of just one. Not at all: As mentioned number of Christians was large, and Constantin's policy of openness to Christianity was surely very popular. The old Roman religion didn't have an integrative effect on the empire any more, so why not start over and integrate instead of fight what can't be stopped anyway? > "Opium for the masses", would have been to give them > some gods of war and prosperity and different gods, > for each one of their desires. No. They didn't want war and they didn't want gods for the rich ones. What they needed was a god for the poor ones, that gave them hope for a better afterlife while reality got worse and worse in the late empire. >>> And how has it been maintained? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have nothing to do with Christianity, which btw, > promoted the idea of peace, not war. Yes, Christianity speaks a lot about peace, but actually it's completely intolerant against all other believes, so it's the perfect base for religious wars. > ... >> > A weak Roman empire, a religion that was >> > suitable as opium for the masses and finally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Well, in 3rd century the idea of one god was wide spread >in Rome. The idea of one God, was well known long before that. Thus, your statement is irrelevant. You are trying to place the spreading of monotheism with the third century, but in reality, monotheism was known before that. That doesn't mean it was accepted in the Roman culture. It just means that it was already known and so, like I said, what you are trying to imply by your statement, is in error, due to the time frame that you are trying to imply for monotheism being known to the Roman culture. >Since 270 the monotheist religion of Sol Invictus >was Roman state religion. Where do you get your information?! It is absolutely incorrect! "Sol Invictus" was not about monotheism! In fact, in its basic form, it was Sun worship. And the term means, "the unconquered Sun". I used to be a pagan, so trust me, there isn't much you're ever going to teach me about it. :) This celebration was one of many celebrations, for different pagan gods. And FYI, Sol Invictus itself, was not a monotheist religion. In fact, Sol Invictus was not a religion, but rather, was a celebration that was held during a certain time of year. Now if you wish to discuss this intelligently, then we can do that. But I will tell you that when you assume that my title (pastor) equates to ignorance, then you will be a foolish man, who tries to promote himself as wise and yet, makes himself look the fool. (: I am well studied in this area and I am not someone who is uneducated. So be VERY CAREFUL with how you proceed, because I simply do not tolerate hatred combined with stupidity. That's why God invented kill files. :) >It was a fairly smooth conversion from Sol invictus >to the Christian God, and it's not by accident that >xmas was placed on 25th of December. No, it was not a "smooth transition". The reality is, that the church did not want to do that. But they found that they had a hard time getting people to shake off their pagan habits and so, they finally caved. It was kind of like Christians who celebrate Christmas today. So just like the church today, they had incorporated these pagan practices into the church and supposedly, "Christianized" them. Yea, right. :) Thus, you are correct when you say that it was no accident that Christmas was placed on Dec 25th. It was the incorporation of a pagan custom into the Christian church. But you stated incorrectly, that it was a "religion" that was incorporated into the Christian church. As I said, this was a holiday for one of many pagan gods and not the religion itself. Personally, I do not celebrate Christmas and in fact, the subject of Christmas is one of the chapters in the book I am writing, which is currently titled... "Operation Earthquake: It's time to shake up the churches!" I would be happy to send you a copy of that chapter, if you so desire. It would be in Word format. If you would like to read it, then just email me (remove the dashes and the spaces from my email address) and I will send a response with it attached. And don't worry, I won't harass you with preaching in your email, unless you ask me to, although I will confess that I will send ONE email with some information, but I can do that with the chapter I will send you. :) After that, you won't hear from me, unless you ask me some questions. >> And there was plenty of "religion" around already. >> It would have went against the grain, to promote [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Not at all: What I said is true and your response won't change that. I spent YEARS VERY CAREFULLY STUDYING the various peoples involved in these time frames. There is absolutely zero support for the idea that monotheism would have been the preference of the people in that culture, at that time and in fact, it wasn't, as is know by the history involved. >> "Opium for the masses", would have been >> to give them some gods of war and prosperity >> and different gods, for each one of their desires. > >No. Yes. >They didn't want war and they didn't want gods >for the rich ones. I didn't say that they wanted war. I said that various gods, including a god of war, would have been more so, "opium for the masses". I specifically pointed out various subjects to have gods for. War was just one of them. >What they needed was a god for the poor ones, What you think they needed, looking back, is completely irrelevant. When dealing with history, the ONLY relevant thing is, "what was", not "what should have been". What was preferable to Romans, regardless of financial status, was not monotheism. Or did you forget that both Jews and Christians, most of which were Jews, were held in derision because of their belief, which directly clashed with paganism? You are making arguments that you cannot possibly prove from history. Christianity was a forced move on the Roman culture and was not something that the people were jumping up and down, shouting for. Constantine supposedly had a vision and later, he declared Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire, above the clamor of the Roman people, who wished to reject it. You seem to forget that the Emperor does not need, nor does he ask for, permission to do something. And don't bother responding with how "you feel" about the subject. This is about what was, not what you think should have been. >that gave them hope for a better afterlife while >reality got worse and worse in the late empire. The Roman Empire began to fall, after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. That is a fact. It began a slow and steady decline after that, at times, almost barely noticeable, but a decline, none-the-less. >>>> And how has it been maintained? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >it's completely intolerant against all other believes, so >it's the perfect base for religious wars. And this is where you again show your ignorance. There is no such thing as a "tolerant religion". All religions will accept you, if you buy into their brand of truth and reject those who don't, regardless of the "cover story" they give. And FYI, more slaughter has been done at the hand of atheistic nations, than any other and yet, we don't see you telling that fact. (: But that's another discussion. :) And btw, if you do choose to actually view more than anti-Christian propaganda, I would recommend that you pick up a copy of... "The Gospel and the Greeks", by Ronald H. Nash. ...from which you will learn a lot. I will look forward to your reply and I will hope that you will speak of things that show that you have taken the hint and studied some and wish to bring knowledge to the table, instead of "feelings" based on your ignorance of this subject in history. Don't get me wrong... There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with ignorance. Ignorance does not mean stupid. It simply means, "uninformed". It is when you have been informed that you are off base and choose to REMAIN IGNORANT, that stupidity comes into play. :) Until then... Signature"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34 / o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> \ "For the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword." The Last Days were in the first century: James 5:8-9 8) Be YE also patient; establish YOUR hearts: for the coming of the Lord DRAWETH NIGH. 9) Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest YE be condemned: behold, the judge STANDETH BEFORE THE DOOR. > AE thusly: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The idea of one God, was well known long before that. Indeed. The most famous example might be Akhenaten, as well worshiping sun. > Thus, your statement is irrelevant. You are trying to > place the spreading of monotheism with the third [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you are trying to imply for monotheism being known > to the Roman culture. Nonsense (see below). >> Since 270 the monotheist religion of Sol Invictus >> was Roman state religion. > > Where do you get your information?! 272 Aurelian built a temple for Sol Invictus in Rome, made him the patron of Rome and his cult the state religion of Rome. > It is absolutely > incorrect! "Sol Invictus" was not about monotheism! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This celebration was one of many celebrations, > for different pagan gods. Yes, Mithraism is old and not necessarily monotheist. Nevertheless it became a monotheist religion in late Roman Empire. I don't doubt your knowledge of the cult you followed in the past, but I'm questioning your knowledge of history. > ... > I am well studied in this area and I am not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with stupidity. That's why God invented > kill files. :) Actually it doesn't matter whehter you read my postings or not, since according to your postings so far you didn't qualify as an adequate counterpart. The purpose of answering your posting is merely to correct your statements, since they might be read by others that could accept your statements without comparing them with other sources. >> It was a fairly smooth conversion from Sol invictus >> to the Christian God, and it's not by accident that >> xmas was placed on 25th of December. > > No, it was not a "smooth transition". The reality is, > that the church did not want to do that. Who or what is "the church"? Actually the best if not the only example for _the_church_ is Catholic church with it's strong Roman roots. > But they > found that they had a hard time getting people to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > incorporated these pagan practices into the church > and supposedly, "Christianized" them. Or maybe other way around: They "Romanized" Christianity? Original Christian religion was not very useful as a state religion, but Catholic church was. Rome used the large number of Christians and absorbed them into their system, similar to what they did when the absorbed the Greek religion centuries before. It didn't matter at all whether this religion was Christian or pagan. > ... >>> "Opium for the masses", would have been [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I specifically pointed out various subjects to have > gods for. War was just one of them. You are showing that you are not aware of the purpose of religion. It's about giving people an illusion where reality doesn't fit their needs. >> ... > >>>> And how has it been maintained? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > brand of truth and reject those who don't, > regardless of the "cover story" they give. A former pagan should know better, but maybe you forgot the very base of pagan believes when you converted to Christianity? > And FYI, more slaughter has been done at the hand > of atheistic nations, but never for the sake of religion. Only the religions of the book are promoting religious wars the way they did and do. > ... > > AE thusly: > > > Since 270 the monotheist religion of Sol Invictus [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 272 Aurelian built a temple for Sol Invictus in Rome, made him the > patron of Rome and his cult the state religion of Rome. I do not see how this answers "where do you get your information." Aurelian founded the cult of Sol Invictus in 274, built a temple of the sun, and created games of the sun. (So Jerome's version of Eusebius' Chronicle, online at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers). However the state religion was and remained paganism. What he did do was create a state cult for the new religion (if new it was). > > It is absolutely incorrect! "Sol Invictus" was not about monotheism! If it was about monotheism, I would like to see the ancient source that says so. I have been collecting ancient testimonia on the cult: an (unfinished) set is here: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/sol_invictus.htm The solar cults of late antiquity were not monotheistic, since they coexisted with paganism and senators could hold positions in several priesthoods. But of course one might suggest that the move to a solar deity did have monotheistic overtones, incorporating early polytheism. That would be a matter of opinion, rather than of fact, but is possible. > Yes, Mithraism is old and not necessarily monotheist. Nevertheless it > became a monotheist religion in late Roman Empire. There is no evidence for this. > The purpose of answering your posting is merely to correct your > statements, since they might be read by others that could accept your > statements without comparing them with other sources. The best of reasons to post. > >> It was a fairly smooth conversion from Sol invictus > >> to the Christian God, and it's not by accident that > >> xmas was placed on 25th of December. There is in fact no documented evidence of any festival of Sol Invictus on 25 Dec. before 354, after the start of the celebration of Christmas on that date. So it is possible that the solar feast belongs to the pagan reaction. I do not discard the possibility that in Rome Christmas began to be celebrated on 25 Dec. to stamp out pagan habits in this regard. There are medieval statements to this effect, of uncertain value (e.g. the scholiast on Dionysius Bar Salibi). I merely caution against stating it as fact. To state that moving from solar paganism to Christianity was a 'smooth conversion' is of course a matter of opinion. Considering how little is known of the former, it seems a bold opinion to make. > > No, it was not a "smooth transition". The reality is, > > that the church did not want to do that. > > Who or what is "the church"? This seems a very curious question. The hostility of the Christians to paganism is easy enough to recognise, and remains today. Indeed only an hour ago I saw a bunch of posts in a hate-forum attacking the Christians for this 'intolerant' attitude in modern day Korea. > You are showing that you are not aware of the purpose of religion. > It's about giving people an illusion where reality doesn't fit their > needs. This may be the case for your own religion, but it would seem quite a generalisation to apply it to Christianity. Is this not particularly visible in our own age, when the establishment with its liking for free love, drink and dope, is hostile to Christianity? All the best, Roger Pearse >>> AE thusly: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I do not see how this answers "where do you get your information." True :-/ Actually I learned it at school and verified it with sources in the internet before posting it (besides others: http://www.roman-emperors.org/aurelian.htm), but it would take some time to find the original source :-/ > Aurelian founded the cult of Sol Invictus in 274, built a temple of > the sun, and created games of the sun. (So Jerome's version of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > have monotheistic overtones, incorporating early polytheism. That > would be a matter of opinion, rather than of fact, but is possible. >> Yes, Mithraism is old and not necessarily monotheist. Nevertheless >> it became a monotheist religion in late Roman Empire. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Christmas on that date. So it is possible that the solar feast > belongs to the pagan reaction. Right the same as above: As an internet-source I suggest http://www.roman-emperors.org/aurelian.htm. There you'll find other sources mentioned, but I didn't check them. > I do not discard the possibility that in Rome Christmas began to be > celebrated on 25 Dec. to stamp out pagan habits in this regard. There > are medieval statements to this effect, of uncertain value (e.g. the > scholiast on Dionysius Bar Salibi). I merely caution against stating > it as fact. I do agree and will try to verify my claim. > To state that moving from solar paganism to Christianity was a 'smooth > conversion' is of course a matter of opinion. Considering how little > is known of the former, it seems a bold opinion to make. Comparisions of Mithraism and Christianity are showing important parallels that seem to have been used to unify the two major religions in late Roman empire. I'll add searchable sources as soon as I've found them. >>> No, it was not a "smooth transition". The reality is, >>> that the church did not want to do that. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > visible in our own age, when the establishment with its liking for > free love, drink and dope, is hostile to Christianity? Not talking about my believes, but about more general observations: When living the life you would like to, religion is either not important at all or even an obstacle. As soon as relity is not what one would like it to be, religoin becomes more and more important ... > All the best, > > Roger Pearse >> ... >> There is in fact no documented evidence of any festival of Sol [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sources mentioned, but I didn't check them. > ... I found the following cite in a different source (Hofmann, Johann Jacob (1635-1706): Lexicon Universale as provided as scans at http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof1/s0113a.html), but so far I was not able to verify the source Hofmann cites: AGON Solis, ab Aureliano celebrari jussus, A.C. 275, Euseb.Chron. So maybe you are able to verify it is mentioned in the Chronicle of Eusebius? > >> ... > >> There is in fact no documented evidence of any festival of Sol [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (1635-1706): Lexicon Universale as provided as scans at > http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/hofmann/hof1/s0113a.html), Interesting indeed. > but so far I was not able to verify the source Hofmann cites: > > AGON Solis, ab Aureliano celebrari jussus, A.C. 275, Euseb.Chron. > > So maybe you are able to verify it is mentioned in the Chronicle of > Eusebius? This is the reference in Eusebius/Jerome's Chronicle. Find it on p.305 entry a([304/305], for 2291 AA, year 4 of the 263rd Olympiad. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm (I regret that I didn't include links to each year when I led the translation of this, but I was so exhausted after almost 6 months of editorial work that I couldn't face it -- and still can't). The Latin is also online at the same site. Of course Eusebius/Jerome didn't have AD and BC (although once their work existed, it's fairly obvious that someone would invent it), but numbers are put down the sides by the modern editors, and if you count them from some arbitrary point, you get 275 AD for that year. However there are errors in the counting of years in the Chronicle (because Eusebius had to work from dates given in king-years, and kings actually reign for parts of a year which throws the system out), and I think it is generally accepted that those events belong to 274. All the best, Roger Pearse > >>> AE thusly: > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > http://www.roman-emperors.org/aurelian.htm), but it would take some > time to find the original source :-/ That site is a good one. Internet sources can be deeply unreliable, however. > > There is in fact no documented evidence of any festival of Sol > > Invictus on 25 Dec. before 354, after the start of the celebration of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://www.roman-emperors.org/aurelian.htm. There you'll find other > sources mentioned, but I didn't check them. I am interested in the sources quoted for games on 25 Dec. (The Chronography of 354 I know, and want to get online someday; Jerome's Chron. anno Abrahae 2291 I have referred to above). Ludi on the 25th of December (attested still in A.D. 354): Inscr. Ital. XIII.2, p. 261. Agon Solis: Chron. 354, in: Mommsen, Chron. min., Vol. I, p. 148,11; Hier., Chron. a. Abr. 2291; Sotgiu, 1975, p. 1048. The reference to "Inscr. Ital. vol 13 part 2 page 261" is very interesting indeed, and I will try to find a way to look at this, although I won't be able to for some weeks or months. > > To state that moving from solar paganism to Christianity was a 'smooth > > conversion' is of course a matter of opinion. Considering how little [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > parallels that seem to have been used to unify the two major religions > in late Roman empire. The idea that Mithraism was a religion by itself, as opposed to part of paganism, and that it was "unified with Christianity" all seems very odd to me. > >> You are showing that you are not aware of the purpose of religion. > >> It's about giving people an illusion where reality doesn't fit their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not talking about my believes, but about more general observations: Well, I'm not sure that it is altogether fair to exclude one's own beliefs from such dismissal, is it? :) > When living the life you would like to, religion is either not > important at all or even an obstacle. Morality likewise. Those who wealth and power have placed above the fear of poverty or reproach have seldom been restrained in their behaviour (Arthur Bryant, "Samuel Pepys" vol2). Whether we like the idea of the powerful in society acting towards us without religion or morality might be questioned. All the best, Roger Pearse > ... > To state that moving from solar paganism to Christianity was a 'smooth > conversion' is of course a matter of opinion. > ... At least we don't find sources that hint towards extended conflicts between Mithraism and Christianity/Catholic church, while we know solar paganism was wide spread in Rome of 3rd century. > And how has it been maintained? > > Was it specific qualities of the philosophy itself, or was it just a > lucky (for the movement) that Constantine took his dream literally, and > had some military victories afterwards? Indro Montanelli, a nonclerical, non-academic, popular writer concluded in his book "Romans without Laurels," Pantheon (1962): "Chistianity had to be Romanized in order to succeed." As Montanelli points out, the early Christian Churches, even those outside the borders of the Roman Empire, adopted the Roman civil administration. This infrastructure was a key element in the success of Christianity. DR > > And how has it been maintained? > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Empire, adopted the Roman civil administration. This infrastructure was > a key element in the success of Christianity. DR It's useful to keep in mind that there was no single "christianity" at any time, particularly prior to the Nicene council in the 4th century. The most successful of the varieties used a model of Roman civil administration and had from early times. Not all versions of christianity did this, and not all versions survived the ensuing centuries. The book of Acts speaks of "deacons", Paul speaks of men and women apostles and seperates them from "the twelve" as he calls them, indicating a variety of leadership in various areas of developing chrstendom. The doctrinal differences between Paul and James is a small, but telling, example of how divided christianity was at it's very begining. > And how has it been maintained? > > Was it specific qualities of the philosophy itself, or was it just a > lucky (for the movement) that Constantine took his dream literally, and > had some military victories afterwards? Somewhere between Constantine and Augustine, something politically stable was crafted. I'd put more emphasis on Augustine for its longevity. > If you simply say "because it's right" and you expect me to acept that > then I guess you'd have to accept the same reason if someone offered it > as an explanation for chinese communism or american corporatism, or > islamic fundamentalism. All these have gained and held political power. > I don't think wars decide which religion is correct. It doesn't have to be "correct" to exist and even be dominant. It just has to be, for lack of a better term, memetically fit. > Even if it is correct, what specifically about it at what particular > points in history, made the practical difference? > > Is christianity a war-based religion? The religion, or its history? (Almost) all significant movements end up in war, if for no other reason than scism. Christianity is arguably the least war-based, but the most adamantly apocolyptic religion. Other than the original source of its ideas, classic Persian apocolysm, there's very few religions which rely so heavily on the idea. Perhaps Kali from India ( which is probably heavily Zororaster-like, anyway... ) > That is, has it colonised the > world mostly through violence and domination, or has most of its > expansion been through free and sincere acceptance of its core beliefs, > by those who come in contact with it? I'd say the latter. But we sort of have to seperate its spread from its success, in many cases. But the principal attribute which made Christianity a historical force has been its adaptability. The figure of Mary dovetailed with the existing Isis cult in the Mediterranean ( and beyond), and in South America, much was changed in emphasis to adapt to existing beleifs. But don't discount too quickly great ideas propagated by the sword; we all owe a great debt to Ghenis Khan, for a historical example of a very tolerationist, commerce-driven and ultimately world-spanning system of thought. -- Les Cargill |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.