Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DrZoidberg · 06-28-2010, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The options in this poll derive from an earlier thread discussing this topic.

If you can explain another option on this thread I will include it in a future version of this poll.

I think the poll is way to simplistic. Christianity has evolved slowly over the centuries, and is still evolving. Its all Christianity. Christianity is also many different things, to different people, and has always been. We have no idea if the thing that Jesus thought he meant, was what people understood. If he existed.

The evidence suggest that Christianity had many chefs, each as critical as any other. I think most of it is accidents of history. Would Christianity be as authoritarian if Marcion hadn't been as tenacious as he was? Would Christianity been as hung up on correct beliefs and aggressively enforcing them if Gnosticism had been less popular? Would we have had a single dominant and unifying Bible if Constantine hadn't been as brutal as he was (for political reasons)? Would Christianity have gotten any traction if Nero hadn't tried so hard to crush it?

aa5874 · 06-28-2010, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, you have failed to describe precisely the meaning of your Christianity.

Please explain what is YOUR meaning of "Christianity".

It has been brought to my attention that you may NOT even know what YOU mean by Christianity.

The options you provided in the poll seems to suggest that YOUR meaning for Christianity is not really certain.

What I mean by 'Christianity' is what the word means in general discourse and in standard works of reference, both online and offline.

What ambiguity!!! What rhetoric!!!

But, that is exactly the response I expect.

You appear not to know what YOUR "Christianity" really means.

Doug Shaver · 06-28-2010, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You still have not given an answer to the question I asked.

Perhaps you're beginning to understand why most of us, most of the time, simply ignore aa5874? It's a complete waste of time trying to talk sense with him.

Chili · 06-28-2010, 07:15 AM

You may argue about this for another 2000 years but if there is a material cause in effect that brings about change what would a so called Christian be called when he becomes a Christian by way of causation? Do you call him a real Christian then?

As I wrote before:

Quote:

The efficient cause of the word Christianity is in being a Christian and hence the -ity ending is added to it. The Efficient cause is when and where the Formal cause effectively changes the Material Cause into the Final cause which now is more than a simple belief in Christ but is where the very word believe is transformed into be-lief that so finds realization in faith. Iow, it is faith coming to rest in being . . . which should end faith or we have been given a scorpion instead of a fish.

The formal cause of creation is always ex-nihilo and therefore a matter of faith coming to rest in being (born again we call it), that is either iconic or fantastic after the crisis moment that brings about change, which here now, in our second go-around when we look for meaning life can so again be either fantastic (without essense) or iconic, which then comprises the difference between a scorpion and a fish, or as per Romans 10:10 'iconic in justification' or fantastic in delusion without justification (by inference), in which case the 'high horseman' keeps on riding right into hell (cf Paul who was knocked from his high horse as persecuter of 'your' meaning of the word Christian).

But I understand your meaning of the word Christian as 'wannebe without end.'

Iskander · 06-28-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.................................................. .................................................. ....................
.................................................. ........................................

The question I asked was about the origin of Christianity...

Is this answering your question?

Quote:

Early Christianity arrived with very distinctive roots. Grafted onto the Old Testament, it was not easily smothered, not even by the established ground cover of the pagan towns.

The Christian groups retained and passed on ideals which have continued to recur in their history, giving it familiar patterns.These roots did not die away, although proofs of "pagan continuity" have been sought in the developing types of Christian worship.

The cult of saints and worship at the graves of the dead have been seen as a pagan legacy, as have the Christian shrines of healing and smaller details of Christian practice, dancing, feasting... Emphasis on these "pagan survivals" has opened long perspectives.

In the West, it has led to the study of popular religion and medieval folklore as if they were living alternatives to Christian culture. In the East, it has encouraged the myth that Hellenism endured from pagan antiquity to Byzantium and far beyond, to become the national heritage of modern Greeks.

However, almost all of this continuity is spurious. Many of its details were set in Christian contexts which changed their meaning entirely. Other details merely belonged in contexts which nobody wished to make Christian. They were part of a "neutral technology of life" and it would be as unreal to expect them to change "as to expect modern man to Christianize the design of an automobile or to produce a Marxist wrist-watch

Pagans and Christians: In the Mediterranean World from the Second Century AD to the Conversion of Constantine (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robin Lane Fox (Paperback - 6 July 2006)—page22
ISBN-13: 978-0141022956

Chili · 06-28-2010, 12:30 PM

. . . and in case you wonder, the Annunciation here is the moment of ex nihilo creation in Catholicism which can be compared with a Billy Graham style 'altar call' . . . to make known the difference between the work of the angel of the Lord (commonly known as Lucifer) in a dream by Joseph in Matthew, and God's Gabriel in Luke without even the mention of Joseph.

aa5874 · 06-28-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You still have not given an answer to the question I asked.

Perhaps you're beginning to understand why most of us, most of the time, simply ignore aa5874? It's a complete waste of time trying to talk sense with him.

But, does this make any sense to you? Did he answer the question sensibly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What I mean by 'Christianity' is what the word means in general discourse and in standard works of reference, both online and offline...

J-D · 06-28-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The question is what it is.

You may hopefully mean that the question as it is in the series of questions in the poll is what it is, and that's OK. But you also asked if anything needs to be added and I suggested that your word "conclusion" may need expanding to address "hypothetical conclusions".

You're wrong. It doesn't.

Littlejohn · 06-28-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You still have not given an answer to the question I asked.
.

Perhaps you're beginning to understand why most of us, most of the time, simply ignore aa5874? It's a complete waste of time trying to talk sense with him.
.

I think it's fundamentally wrong to ignore aa5874 and even mountainman, which supports more or less the same things as the first. They have certainly of the potential that may be useful for everyone, if properly 'framed'. I think it's much more productive to try to convince them with evidence, gradually always less refutable, given the rational framework in which they are placed, rather than ignore them ...

But there is one essential thing that absolutely they should take note: ie that 'negationist' thesis (negation of the historicity of Jesus) in spite of what they may think, now plays strongly in favor of the forger clergy, especially after in Italy Luigi Cascioli (*) has lost its legal battle, giving to the clergy a huge advantage!

It may seem paradoxical, but today to the catholic clergy come back a lot more useful that in Internet (forums, blogs, etc.) you talking about Jesus as a myth, rather than as a historical Jesus, also !!...

This is a precise 'strategic' calculation. Indeed, the Catholic clergy knows very well that the theory of no-historical Jesus, dated and so anachronistic, will always be confined to a small 'niche' of thought, absolutely snubbed (because highly unlikely) by the vast majority of professional scholars and exegetes, while, on the contrary, at the catholic clergy gives very very nuisance the investigative's activities of those who believe to the historical Jesus, and so go to dig in the Vatican's 'kitchen garden', seeking buried 'skeletons'!... Be remembered that this 'nuisance' experienced by the clergy, the undersigned has experienced its impact on the own 'skin'!...

Greetings
_______________________________

Note:

(*) - became famous in many parts of the world, for having brought a lawsuit to the Catholic Church, on the charges of exploitation of popular credulity (a crime whereby in Italy you may end up in jail!), since he claimed that Jesus was not a real historical charatcter, but fictional, invented to give a face to the personage (certainly historical) called John of Gamala.

Littlejohn

.

J-D · 06-28-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The options in this poll derive from an earlier thread discussing this topic.

If you can explain another option on this thread I will include it in a future version of this poll.

I think the poll is way to simplistic.

You're wrong. The poll has exactly the right degree of simplicity for the topic I was interested in.

It is true that it is too simple to deal with the other issues that you raise in your post, but since I wasn't trying to deal with those issues your objection is irrelevant to this thread. I wasn't asking 'what made Christianity so authoritarian?' or 'what made Christianity so hung up on correct beliefs?' or 'why is there a single dominant and unifying Bible?' or 'how did Christianity get traction?' and although you can ask those questions if you want to I don't see anything wrong with my choosing to set them aside for the purposes of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

Christianity has evolved slowly over the centuries, and is still evolving. Its all Christianity. Christianity is also many different things, to different people, and has always been. We have no idea if the thing that Jesus thought he meant, was what people understood. If he existed.

The evidence suggest that Christianity had many chefs, each as critical as any other. I think most of it is accidents of history. Would Christianity be as authoritarian if Marcion hadn't been as tenacious as he was? Would Christianity been as hung up on correct beliefs and aggressively enforcing them if Gnosticism had been less popular? Would we have had a single dominant and unifying Bible if Constantine hadn't been as brutal as he was (for political reasons)? Would Christianity have gotten any traction if Nero hadn't tried so hard to crush it?

View Poll Results: How did Christianity begin?
With people listening to the teachings of Jesus, derived from his interpretation of Jewish tradition	9	18.37%
With people listening to the teachings of Paul, derived from his visions produced by meditation techniques, neurological abnormality, drug use, or some combination	7	14.29%
With people listening to the teachings of Paul deliberately fabricated to attract a following	3	6.12%
With the Emperor Constantine promulgating for political purposes a religion which he had had deliberately fabricated	4	8.16%
We do not have enough information to draw a conclusion	26	53.06%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2010, 12:30 PM	#96
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	. . . and in case you wonder, the Annunciation here is the moment of ex nihilo creation in Catholicism which can be compared with a Billy Graham style 'altar call' . . . to make known the difference between the work of the angel of the Lord (commonly known as Lucifer) in a dream by Joseph in Matthew, and God's Gabriel in Luke without even the mention of Joseph.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.