bacht

@ Toto: thanks for the split, I should have started a new thread originally

I object to this, though I'm agnostic more than atheist. Fundies and Evangelicals would label neo-pagans as cultists, and mainline Christians would dismiss them as deluded.

I think New Agers or neo-pagans are all about superstition, pseudo-science, pseudo-psychology etc.

Elijah

I don’t know if anyone can be a strict rationalist I think it’s kind of subjective but there is attempting to understand the universe based on reason/experience and just believing any ol nonsense you’re told. What the philosophers like Plato were talking about was metaphysics which isn’t supernatural. It’s just saying the unseen constant force in our universe is as real as the seen changing phenomenon. Mind/body duality. The constant side of the universe gets divided up every which way to Sunday and get unified back into one again depending on the philosophy.

The cartoon understanding with angels and devils and guys in the sky I’m sure was believed by plenty of people back then just like today but fortunately they weren’t the ones writing cause they weren’t the ones thinking.

We agree that there was a mindset that wasn’t supernatural, (maybe not as rational as you would like but attempted) that was popular in the religion that was founded by them do you think Jesus and Paul were of the common supernatural idiots or the educated attempted rational types trying to reach out to the masses?

The thought out understanding of the universe appealed to the early Christians that was unlike the supernatural zeus religion stuff of the state but similar to the Heaven/earth duality of the Jews.

What part do you think needs to be supported? Do you think Christianity started pagan?
I haven’t read Carriers thread on Christianity’s approach to metaphysics. The Christian’s opinions of the “philosophers” approach to ethics and politics I know was disapproved of.
Common sense. IMHO To think that everyone back then was retarded is retarded.
Not modern enlightenment thinking at all but neo platonic thinking. Which I think everyone should do or at least be able to.
Yea like believing the dead could rise, but they had to believe the dead could rise because they didn't believe in a supernatural realm where the dead could live.
I just skimmed it but didn’t see what relates to the conversation we’re having.

bacht

I don't follow you here. Isn't denying the reality of physical death the point either way? Do you mean that our personality survives physical death? Spirit and matter as separate?

It still sounds like wishful thinking: "I don't want to die, and here's my rationalization"

Elijah

Well the Pentecostals are the crazy uncle in the Protestant family they should be a case study in why Revelations should not be taken literally.

As far as significant differences between the two I would say that the main one is that Paul and the early followers were on a mission to spread the message of Jesus as the Messiah while the Pentecostals are standing around wishing for the apocalypse. As far as beliefs they were dependent on the individuals’ education/experience level.

Elijah

The Jews Christians and Muslims believe in a physical resurrection of the dead because they don't believe in an alternate dimension to live in or reincarnation, it’s one of Abraham’s religions defining beliefs. Some believe just the good will be brought back, some like Paul think all will. As long as personality is stored physically in the mind then we are just a good aether theory and a star trek transporter away from being possible. Won’t be in our lifetimes unless we overcome death which is another goal of Christianity.

It is totally wishful thinking about not wanting to die that I’m trying to rationalize… do doubt about that.

Toto

I don't know how you think you know this.

I don't know if Jesus existed. The Jesus portrayed in the gospels does supernatural healings, expels demons from insane people (demons who talk to him) and walks on water. His message to people is to follow the Jewish law and wait for the coming of the Kingdom of God. I don't see anything educated or rational about that.

Paul's letters contain passages denigrating the "wisdom of this world" and he states that he was taken up to the third heaven. Again, it's hard to see any rationalism there.

By the first century, the Greek and Roman gods were tending to morph into a sort of monotheism, so the educated can refer to "God." Christianity fit in with this.

I don't see any evidence that Christianity started out as rationalist.

I can't quite parse this. Who disapproved?

Argument by South Park?

I don't assume that they were any more "retarded" than people are today. Modern day people believe in astrology, faith healing, angels, demons. If you think that only illiterates and politically powerless people believe in this nonsense, learn more about the world you live in.

Neo-platonic thinking was advanced for its day, but there were neo-Platonists who believed in supernatural angels, demons, etc.

?? But it appears that they did believe in several supernatural realms.

It contains actual references to Christian thinkers of the era.

Elijah

Don’t know what? That there were rational thinking individuals in the past? I don’t know for sure, but I think it is statistically impossible for there not to be.
Even if it is fiction it was written by someone who was educated.

I would dispute that is the sum of Jesus’ message but that’s off topic again, but what isn’t rational about following the Jewish law and waiting for the kingdom of god or do you understand “kingdom of god” supernaturally?

Like I said they divide the eternal aspect up all different kinds of ways. There was also probably some altering of states and relating that to the ideal/eternal side of the universe.
I don’t know of any morphing of polytheism into monotheism. I see them as competing ideas and popularity changed.

There was the growing realization that there is a difference between the God that created everything and gods that represented certain aspects of the universe.
How about neo platonic?
Supporters of various religions attack the Greek philosophy usually on their political ideas not on their metaphysical ideas unless they confuse it for supernatural beliefs.
I think you are assuming that everyone back then was irrational/supernatural without exception. I don’t think nonsense is reserved to the illiterate, but back in the day if you could actually write proficiently you probably had enough education and exposure to run across the platonic metaphysics at some point.
It wasn’t advanced it was the dominate philosophical thinking for hundreds of years in the ancient world. Yes I’m sure there were supernatural Platonists just like there are supernatural Taoists but that doesn’t mean it should be understood that way.

Who wasn’t exposed to platonic thought in your mind from the early church fathers or whoever from that period?
Yes they divided the eternal aspect into many realms based on many different criteria and supposed functions depending on the philosophy, but they are not meant to be understood as supernatural.

On metaphysics? Give me a closer link please.

Amaleq13

When was the last time you read Paul? He unapologetically talks about both angels and devils and only condemns the worship of the former. How about the Gospels? You'll find those writers also unapologetically expressing belief in angels.

Who are these "thinking" and "writing" early Christians you imagine rejecting such beliefs as superstitious nonsense? It doesn't appear to refer to any of the authors of Christian Scripture.

Paul believed in angels, devils, and spiritual gifts like miraculous healing, prophecy, and tongues.

To be relevant to the discussion and supportive of your assertion, you need to identify the significant differences in contrast to their apparently similar immersion in supernatural beliefs.

Do you consider Paul to have been educated? You've seen that Paul's Corinthian congregation was "immersed" in supernatural beliefs quite similar to the Pentecostals you criticize and you've seen that he certainly appears to share those beliefs.

Elijah

When is the last time you’ve read Plato? They reified their memes/ideas they didn’t believe in supernatural entities floating in the aether. That is a misconception of someone not fully aware of the beliefs of the time in my opinion.
Almost every relative surviving text I know of looks heavily platonic influenced if it addresses the area of discussion. Now Toto or yourself are probably going to school me with some superstitious pagan writer who lays it out but I just don’t know of em.
Which could be understood rationally or supernaturally, entirely up to you.
Who is they? Beliefs vary within groups. Some people believe in supernatural crap, some people try to keep things rational.

I see Paul as educated yes, I think his education and the lack of education of the original apostles is the major problem in their conflict. As I posted earlier 2 Corinthians 4:18 is straight up platonic dualism. I’m sure there were people back then who believed in the supernatural and also people who believed in the philosophy of the time which wasn’t supernatural. Just like today.

GakuseiDon

I think the earliest Christians believed in entities floating around in the aether. Going on to the Second Century CE, philosophically trained Christians like Justin Martyr, Tatian and Tertullian also appear to have believed in spirits, esp demons, floating around the sub-lunar realm, between the earth and the moon.

I agree that there was heavy influence from Middle Platonic beliefs, which appeared more rational than superstition. But I just don't see that being inconsistent with a belief in daemons, magic and superstition, at least with regards to Christianity in the first few centuries.