Mad Kally

I prefer puppies but GO BIFF!

Kally

Biff the unclean

Sabine, this was the work of Theodosius the Great who reigned as Emperor of the entire empire between 379-395 CE. This was half a century after Constantine. He signed an edict that declared Christianity the only religion allowed. It became a crime of high treason, punishable by death by the Imperial Roman government. All the Classical religions were banned through out the entire empire and their temples and property confiscated by the state and given to the state owned church. The custom of confessing all sins of thought, word and deed to a priest started at this time. It should be noted that all priests were appointees of the Imperial government as the Church was part of that government. A sweeter deal not dictator could ask for. Every Catholic had to confess and everyone had to be Catholic. The government knew everything.
This edict is credited as the beginning of the "Dark Ages."

An aside: as part of the destruction of Hellenism, Christians at this time proceeded to smash the noses off the statues of the gods. This was because what we call it "spirit" is actually the breath. That's why in some translations of Gen: 1 God's breath is upon the waters and in others it's his spirit. They are both the same thing. By knocking off the statues noses their evil spirits couldn't travel among the good Christians. That's why we still have the expression "Cutting off his nose to spite his face." But we don't have classical statue that aren't vandalised.
The only god who was spared this indignity was Serapis. The Holy Roman Church just removed Serapis' inscriptions and declared that he was Jesus. The classic image of Jesus touching his heart with his left hand and his right hand raised with the index finger pointing up and the middle finger slightly curled is actually Serapis extending a greeting from the Greeks of Alexandria to the Egyptians.

Koyaanisqatsi

I'd like to add a quick observation, if I may? I think both Aime and luvluv are confusing what it means when an atheist states (if any actually do) that a theist's beliefs are false.

It isn't an indictment or restriction of one's freedom to believe, as I think you two are taking it; it is an indictment of the fact that your beliefs are not supported by anything; i.e., you can give no reason to believe the Jesus myth, for example. and not believe in the Maui myth (sounds like a good cocktail ).

So, it may be helpful to both of you to remember that should an atheist ever tell you your "beliefs are false," what he or she is saying is that they are baseless; without support.

For example, belief: Holden Caulfield is a factual being.

That belief is unquestionably false. Are you free to still believe it if you want? Of course. That's an entirely different question and has no relevance at all to this discussion.

Yes?

Clutch

luvluv,
Ah, you've discovered the virtues of weak atheism! It's pretty easy to understand, huh?

But there are two problems.

(1) If you are a Christian, there is no room for weak atheism with respect to other deities. Christianity is a Highlander religion: "There can be only one." To the extent that you believe in the Christian god as typically defined, you leave no room for the prospect of polytheism. So purporting to assume a neutral state of information on the prospect is rather odd.

(2) More importantly, BTU's question now just becomes, "Why are you a weak atheist towards other religions but not Christianity?" If all you would need is a handful of testimony of highly dubious provenance, in order to believe in Maui gods, then the reductio of your evidential standards is complete. If a handful of testimony of highly dubious provenance is not sufficient for you to believe in Maui gods, though, the question is why it's good enough for Christianity.

Sabine Grant

Hi Biff ... thank you for your interesting reply. I am quite surprised though that general school education ( and not only in the US) still presents the executions of christians as a fact under the Roman Empire. If such actions did not take place, how could thousands of educated faculty members as well as historical school books still mention the execution of christians in Roman arenas? That an argument can be presented that the pro christian correctness has been affecting school curriculum in the "christian" nation of America, I could concieve that as possible. But since I recieved most of my education in France where schools remain very secular in their curriculum, I have my doubts.

My history teacher who prepared us to the Baccalaureat prior to entry to college graduated from the institute of Political Sciences. What we call " Science Po" to refer to a prestigious academy. The man had quite a challenging presentation of historical facts and gave us room to speculate. It is difficult for me to accept that he could have been that misled in his presentation on ancient civilizations.

I was aware of the Serapis inscriptions as several churches in Naples Italy where I lived actualy still have illustrations of Serapis. The representation of Mary holding " baby Jesus" in some churches in that area are a left over of pagan mythology and in fact were not intended to symbolize the christian Mary holding the "Son of God".

I enjoyed your expose.

Biff the unclean

Gee, I wish people would read what I write instead of read into what I write.
I never said that there were no Christians executed by the Roman Empire.

But moust of the Lives of the Saints we have is after Rome fell and the RCC aligned itself with the barbarians. Thereby insurring that this branch of government continued to this day while the rest of the Imperial court is only a dim memory.

The Galatians were the eastern most branch of the Celts. Mary was their main goddess. By 50BCE she had large temple complexes in Alexandra and Tarsus. She was triune and had the aspects of the Virgin mother, the Nymph and the Crone. She oversaw human inspiration both literary and artistic. In Ireland this same goddess was called Bridget and had the same icons.

This may be the reason the 3 Marys were at the crucifixion to impress the Galatians with the importance of Jesus

Biff the unclean

Maybe I should make myself clearer.
I received my early education in Ireland, which is at least as Catholic a nation as France is. And my higher education and post graduate work in the United States. The education here in the US is quite secular I assure you. However, it is respectful of religious beliefs and so glosses over any history that is less than flattering to them. Which means that, unless we read history of our own accord, we get only a vague outline of it.

Lives of the Saints is not a specific book but a whole genre of books. They were written by the Catholic Church specifically for the quasi Christian "barbarians" who had just over thrown the Roman Empire. The Roman Catholic Church was a branch of the Imperial Roman government but had put a great deal of effort into converting the heathen of the out-lands. These books were an attempt--a very successful attempt-- of the church to distance themselves from the Imperial government and gain power with the new regimes. They showed the Romans not as the height of civilization and justice but as madmen who fiendishly hacked Christian virgins to pieces and fed them to the lions while the Christians sang hymns and praised God with smiles on their faces. Never a mention was made of Pagan persecutions. Today this is called "spin doctoring."
These are historic fictions, but how much is history and how much fictional is hard to figure out. One trouble is the name "Christian." To the Romans of the first and second centuries this was the name of a type of religion and not a specific religion. Followers of Attis, Serapis, Jesus and Christna (where the Greek word Christos comes from) were all "Christians." Meaning that they all followed the same type of god, a Christos. When Nero claimed that the Christians had burned Rome he was talking about the followers of Christna and not the Jesus people. When Claudius said that the Christians were to be left alone, that they harmless to everyone but themselves he was talking about the followers of Attis and their ritual of self castration.

On the opposite end of the literary spectrum from the Lives of the Saints series you get Saint Augustine's The City of God where he tries to answer the argument that though Rome (the city itself) had flourished for a millennium under its own gods, when it turned to Jesus it perished within 15 years.
Ooops!