Clivedurdle

The great command was to take the "good news" to all nations.

Paul had huge arguments about how to implement this - does it involve circumcising everyone?

The dream is of a new heaven and earth. where the lion will lay down with the lamb and evil will be finally defeated.

But what actually was the good news? Death where is thy sting, Acts, you may eat food sacrificed to the gods.

Is the heavenly marriage between a select group of "xians" and Jesus or is it the reunifying of everyone and everything with god?

Might xianity be interpreted as an attempt to unify the pagan and one god worlds, not for the one god world to defeat the pagan world?

It is a simple mistake to make, assuming pagan equals evil and then building up theologies around that, of heresy etc, when evil is something else entirely.

There seems to be an assumption that terms were used precisely by Paul. What evidence is there for that?

If instead we look at the big picture - the death of christ for all mankind, the reunifying of god and man in the celestial marriage, we see attempts to describe the human condition and propose solutions to it - that we are conscious and conscious of our mortality.

There is a fundamental underlying assumption - it was repeated by a professor on the radio this morning - pagans this, xians that.

What if we step outside this and ask are we looking at an attempt to unify worldviews that went wrong when one side tried to conquer the other?

Solo

I think Chesterton had some excellent points around why he embraced religion and philosophy, both being notoriously dangerous and subversive. For him paganism and x-ity were mutually exclusive, because one is embraced by people who actually believe nothing, in the sense they have no distance to travel internally from "good" to "bad". The pagan's world is simple as it asks nothing. Rousseau was obviously wrong about the vagaries of human nature, Chesterton maintained; there indeed are people who not just skin cats but enjoy it.

In his view, which by the way I share (, minus his worship of orthodoxy, as I don't think I am as pessimistic about human nature generally), it would be a supreme folly to imagine that the Christians tried to conquer pagans for reasons different than those of the pagans' trying to annihilate Christians, i.e. to assert their view of the world's purpose. That is the way it has always been, and always will be, because [choose one]: a) that is how cultural eugenics work, b) Gods wills it that way, c) both point to the the same necessity, just expressed differently.

Jiri Severa

Clivedurdle

As the Romans were amazingly eclectic about belief, and as we have discussed elsewhere, it is unclear if pagans tried to annihilate xians. There is clear evidence of criminal activity by xians that would bring down the wrath of the state - especially the treason of not acknowledging the emperor as a god. We have evidence of somedone being very patient with xians, and letting them go if they gave obeisance to a god.

I wonder if this antagonism is a xian fiction by the orthodox group. It is a bit rich to assert the pagan world is simple as it asks nothing - that sounds like a propaganda statement. What was Epicurus up to if not attempting to define a good life?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm

(but probably yet another completely untrustworthy source!)

I think xianity grew from pagan ideas but a sect - the orthodox - developed the dichotomy between paganism and xianity.

Pagan and evil is not an obvious connection - we might think it is out of habit.

Solo

But you see, right there, you use the word "criminal" to describe beliefs by which any human, even the emperor was accountable to an unseen God. That was a very scary thought ! Also, Paul's idea that all men and women were equal to Jesus Christ, would seem hostile and subversive to Roman sense of superior "civilization". That the church at a later date engaged in wholesale massacres of egalitarian Christian schismatics who sought to restore the original idea of the church, is a different story again.

But is it a fiction ? Is it rich ? So what kind of sacrifices or self-discipline was Epicurus demanding ? Would he have considered fist-balling indecent ?

I saw people here questioning whether Nero actually persecuted Christians. I did not see anyone from that group questioning Nero's two same-sex marriages, the first one to a slave (castrated just before marriage), named Sporus a lavish, full state ceremony (just to rub it in, said Suetonius). For this sort of tyranny, and abuse of power, Christianity seemed like the right anti-dote. If everything we do, is ultimately motivated by gaining pleasure for ourselves (and it's ok) as Epicurus believed, then our lives will turn out very boring and poor, and it will be the sort of poverty that will gnaw on the inside and will become more acute as the prospect of death becomes more real. And most people will experience the need to do some interior accounting. I remember in my early thirties, when I heard Woody Allen's quip that sex for sex' sake is just fine as meaningless experiences go, I was laughing my head off. How clever, I thought. Today, I'd probably say, bud, who are you trying to kid ?

Again, I don't go much for the "evil" and "axis" thing. Sure, many pagans are cultured people who have intelligence, and natural qualities of generosity, and restraint, and reciprocity. Many Christians are assholes. It's not about qualities of individuals, it's more about cultural values. Also, I don't know if you noticed yet, but most people, deep down really are "orthodox". Look at the U.S. today - that's what a country ruled by former hippies looks like.

JS

Clivedurdle

I agree there is a huge radical change to an idea that I will not be forced to worship another god, but that is criminal and anti-social!

The Greeks had had freedom of religion - priesthood of all believers - at least in 500 BCE against a centralised enforced worship from the Persians. The Battle of Marathon laid down the western preference.

Xianity can be understood as an attempt to impose the Persian view on the west. Do not forget "By the Rivers of Babylon" - Judaism was heavily influenced by the Persian worldview! It looks like a freedom to worship, but that was the Pagan idea in any case! There were some social conditions to the pagan view - give obeisance to the emperor, but that was equivalent to - pay your taxes. There was freedom of religion! Xianity takes away that freedom and imposes an idea that you must worship the one god! It then destroyed temples and art!

Constantine saw the political advantages for an empire of the Persian model. The Protestant reformation, and the enlightenment, was the move back to the earlier Pagan Greek model. In fact, may the Reformation be understood as the first pangs of the enlightenment, that took a religious perspective because that was the dominant paradigm?

The marriage of christ and the church is a fascinating psychological idea, possibly attempting a synthesis of unitary and pagan ways of thinking, that did not last long because the centralists took control.

It is probably evidence of what the tensions were about.

mountainman

[QUOTE=Clivedurdle]What was Epicurus up to if not attempting to define a good life?
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm

Exercising his right to state his
view of a natural philosophy.

...[trim]...

As far as I know, Pagan is a forth century concept employed
by a fourth century religion, in order to calumnify Hellenism.


Pete Brown

mountainman

Pagan --- meaning "a country dweller" or "civilian" --- is a term
specifically sent into service by the (Constantinian) centralists.


Pete Brown

Clivedurdle

I think I am trying to be nice to xians by positing a soft side before the orthodox takeover!