Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
11-09-2010, 06:08 AM | #81 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
|
a link, a link, my kingdom for a link....
Quote:
Here's my evidence to the contrary, i.e. supporting the notion that Christianity after Constantine, was NOT persecuted, at least, within the Roman Empire: Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
11-09-2010, 06:35 AM | #82 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
11-09-2010, 06:43 AM | #83 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 708
|
Quote:
Greetings Littlejohn . |
||
11-09-2010, 07:27 AM | #84 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
I have been reading the posts from Avi, Shesh and Pete looking for something of substance, something which might indicate that Mani was not who EVERYONE says he is (i.e. the Paraclete of Jesus). Instead - as Little John points out - we get the kind of logic that the pious put forward when their faith is put to the test.
Instead they ask people to 'prove' that Mani is who EVERYONE (i.e. the ancient texts) say he is. This is not the way that rational people operate. You can't put up a belief system and then demand that anyone who disagrees with it 'prove' that it is wrong. What more can we offer up than the evidence itself? Mani died basically within a generation of the beginning of the fourth century. We have evidence dated from the fourth century which says acknowledge the idea that Mani was the Paraclete of Jesus. I am really disappointed that the three believers in the fourth century conspiracy theory just want to continue to live in a kind of echo chamber. It makes me seriously question the value of anything that they have to say in this forum. Their logic is more akin to celebrity stalkers than people engaging in serious scholarship. At some point John Hinckley should have realized that it was unlikely that anything he did was going to gain him the affection of Jodi Foster (other than perhaps a sex change operation). But nothing was going to change his mind because he was driven by an absurd misapplication of logic. I don't think that anything is going to change your minds about the fourth century conspiracy dreamed up by Pete. You want there to be this 'evil conspiracy' and won't listen to any evidence to the contrary. Your methodology makes me very unlikely to take anything you say seriously in the future. I have only been participating at this site for a little while and am very disappointed to learn that irrationality and inflexibility is by no means exclusive to religious minded people. You have merely created for yourselves a new Acts of the Apostles which describe the establishment of Christianity as a kind of two dimensional comic book. I have seen each of you throw away and pretend not to understand evidence which disproves your little fairy tale about Constantine and Eusebius. I am going to ignore your posts from now on as you refuse to engage the evidence with stands in the way of your beliefs. You are no different than the very people you despise. |
11-09-2010, 07:42 AM | #85 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
Quote:
'Manichaeism', unlike the terms 'Judaism' or 'Christianity', as a whole was never defined or limited to any certain set of fixed inviolable overarching doctrinal beliefs, but was highly adaptable to the needs of each cultural situation, operating by rather than strongly disputing against other or previously held beliefs, seeking to incorporate and to syncretize all views into a one single peaceful universal whole. As such there was never any such thing as a 'Manichean' religion. The term was invented and applied by the enemies of such freedom of religious belief and ready syncretism, as a convenient descriptive 'handle' for that large segment of religious beliefs and practices that refused to 'toe the line' with those imposed divisions demanded by the adherents the other 'named' religions. Each of which was horrified and threatened by the idea of such freedom of religious thoughts and practices, which could easily undermine their hold upon their particular religious franchise. 'Manichaeisim' had to be stomped out at any cost! |
|||
11-09-2010, 07:47 AM | #86 | ||||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Constantine officially decreed religious tolerance, while favoring Nicene Christians. The official Christians were more concerned about stamping out alternative versions of Christianity such as Arianism than about pagans. So you have a religion that was not centered in the Roman Empire, but you want to contend that it added a reference to Jesus because it might have bought some tolerance from a Roman emperor whose claim to fame was that he forced Christians to agree on an official doctrine? This just seems like a contrived theory to force the result that you want. Quote:
|
||||
11-09-2010, 07:52 AM | #87 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
|
Quote:
I believe that the conventional translation of "tout-court", may be 'orthodox', not sure, of course. So, here's the point: Persecution: two forms: state organized, and sectarian. With regard to state sponsored persecutions: My understanding is that there was little persecution of orthodox Christians following Constantine, and terrible persecution of various sects, particularly the Manicheaeans, particularly in the latter half of the fourth century, within the Roman Empire. Mani himself, as I understand, was killed by the Persians, so little love there for those Gnostics, in Persia, either. The Muslims, three hundred years later, of course, followed in their Jewish ancestor's best traditions, and slaughtered anyone not saluting the great helmsman, Mohammed. The Buddhists apparently put up with Mani's followers, probably because they offered them enough gold.... I have no clue why the silk route folks embraced the religion, maybe for the same reason as the Buddhists. Thanks for this thread, Pete, I learned something about Mani, and his religion. Very interesting. avi |
||
11-09-2010, 08:00 AM | #88 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
|
11-09-2010, 08:05 AM | #89 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
Quote:
|
|
11-09-2010, 08:08 AM | #90 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
|
Quote:
You have confounded me with Mountainman, a very big difference, since Pete knows something, while I am ignorant. I do not make any claims whatsoever, about the origins of Christianity, or Manicheaeism--I can't even spell it correctly. I certainly, as I write this, have no clue what a "Paraclete" is. I know what a Parakeete is, though, as a lifelong supporter of the Audubon society. I hope that the alliteration there, will not cause confusion, as you and Stephan seem to have considerable difficulty distinguishing my posts from those of far more learned and distinguished forum participants. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|