Toto

Early Christian Proselytism: Implications for Interreligious Dialogue between Christians and Pagans by Michael T. Cooper is an interesting paper by an Evangelical who is attempting to start a Christian-pagan dialogue. He ascribes too much authenticity to Acts (IMHO), but recognizes the basis for the pagan distrust of Christians.

Toto

59 views but no replies.

What is significant about this article? Most importantly, it is an article by an evangelical Christian posted on CESNUR - the Center for Studies on New Religions. CESNUR is known as a "cult apologist" site. It takes the position that all relgion is good, but all relibions are entitled to respect. This position gives Mr. Cooper some problems, because Christianity is not based on this sort of tolerance. Cooper never quite resolves this question. Like most Protestants, he rejects the efforts at conversion by force employed by the Church after it became the established religion of the Roman Empire. But even then, he has to call that travesty "unfortunate results of well-meaning Christians." (And he also must deal with the objection that many pagans and other moderns have to "proselytization," or any attempt to convert another.)

But since he really wants to get along with the other religion scholars, Cooper delves into his Bible and finds the Apostle Paul, in the Book of Acts, engaging in various dialogues with pagan philosophers. Is it historically plausible that Paul engaged in these philosophical discussions? It seems more likely that the author of Acts has tried to puff up Paul's reputation by, among other things, making him a Pharisee, a Roman citizen by birth, and a skilled orator and philosophical debater. This seems to be part of Acts' attempt to put Christianity in a good light and make it seem like a civilized, attractive option for the Hellenistic citizen of the Roman Empire and a fit heir to the classical traditions of ancient Greece and Rome.

So he can reach this conclusion: In any case, I appreciated Cooper's attempts to make his religion fit with modern cultural values of tolerance and mutual respect.

Ted Hoffman

I fail to see his purpose for these Bahai-like dialogues. Bahais are also willing to dialogue but they dont see other religions like Christianity and Islam as wrong: just out-dated.
He says:
Is there need for dialogue between religions? Who are their detractors? Do Christians and Pagans have a common enemy? Why Pagans why not muslims? Or atheists for that matter?

Clivedurdle

I was fascinated by the writer's way of arguing.

He quite well summarises some issues, to be expected by someone with a PHD, but then continues without blinking to argue from the New Testament as if that were a scientific text!

"Luke acknowledges" is wonderful!!

I think the term in a school essay that a marker would write is "assertion".!

I was quite optimistic that the writer may be beginning to see the light and think his ways out of the minefields he has been living in, but the bit describing biblical ideas is classic evangelical belief.

He does not say for example that burning witches is wrong, or that Fulwell is more than OTT. There is something very immoral about an acknowledged Christian who does not condemn what must be condemned - intellectual impartiality does not exist in matters like this, especially when the proponent believes he has a hot line to the final arbiter of good and evil.

The Pagan responses he reports are correct - there is every reason to be very distrustful of these wolves in sheeps clothing.