Radcliffe Emerson

I'm Unitarian Universalist. We are no longer strictly Christian. All faiths, including earth-based and Native American, are welcomed. Jesus is studied, but most of the members of my church have the same extremely low opinion of Christianity I have. Some of us don't believe in any supernatural power at all in the universe.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

Thomas Jefferson is quoted, I believe somewhere in the historical section right here at infidels on Christianity: "I have found in the Christian faith, not one redeeming feature. It makes half its followers fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Radcliffe Emerson

Someone mentioned the Dark Ages. You know, during the Dark Ages it was the MUSLIMS who safeguarded the documents and letters of the Christian church, not Christians. And Muslims say Jesus was a great prophet, just not divine. Yet, Christians respond with "Islam comes from Satan, they're all going to hell."
Which one sounds like the harsher, more evil religion?

Ron Garrett

I think you should study the first seven ecumenical councils in detail. I'll recommend a book,The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology by Catholic historian
Leo Donald Davis. Chritians didn't really start focsuing on killing each other until the Empire stopped focusing on killing Christians. As to early disagreements among Christians I presume you have read the epistles of the New Testament and realize that each in its own way was aimed at distortion and "heresy" and that Paul was in conflict with other teachers from the start else he need not constantly go on about proving his apostleship. Goodness me, but won't the Eastern, Coptic and African Churches be surprised to hear that? Again if you study the ecumenical councils you will find that the Pope's influence has been tenuous outside of Southern Europe, sometimes waning nd waxing, the Pope himself occasionally being declared heretic and anti-pope. I believe you have overstated this case. The denominations vary on many of those issues I raised in my earlier post, some of them directly dealing with salvation and damnation. The following page can be refernfced regarding official creeds. While the differences may seem small to you (they often have seemed so to me) the denomionations themselves consider them serious enough to refuse communion with each other, which is the foremost sign that one Christian accepts the other as genuinely of the faith. <a href="http://www.bible.ca/indexchurches.htm" target="_blank">Offical Creeds of a Few Denominations</a>

NOGO

Right and look at what became of that love a few centuries later.

We are in the year of our Lord, 400:
I rose up early this morning to go to church. As I approached the building, I saw there a great multitude of people unable to secure admission into the edifice. The huge iron doors were closed, and upon them was affixed a notice from the authorities, to the effect that all who worshiped in this church would, by the authority of the state, be known and treated hereafter as "infamous heretics," and be exposed to the extreme penalty of the law if they persisted in holding services there. But the party to which I belonged heeded not the prohibition, but beat against the doors furiously and effected an entrance into the church. The excitement ran high; men and, leaders shouted, gesticulated and came to blows. The Archbishop was urged to ascend his episcopal throne and officiate at the altar in spite of the formal interdiction against him. He consented. But he had not proceeded far when soldiers, with a wild rush, poured into the building and began to discharge arrows at the panic-stricken people. Instantly pandemonium was let loose. The officers commanding the soldiers demanded the head of the offending Archbishop. The worshipers made a attempt to resist; then blood was shed, the sight of which reeled people's heads, and in an instant, the sanctuary was turned into a house of murder. Taking advantage of the uproar, the Archbishop, assisted by his secretaries, escaped through a secret door behind the altar. On my way home from this terrible scene, I fell upon a procession of monks. They were carrying images and relies, and a banner upon which were inscribed these words: "The Virgin Mary, Mother of God." As they marched on, their number increased by new additions. But suddenly they encountered another band of monks, carrying a different banner, bearing the same words which were on the other party's banner, but instead of "The Virgin Mary, Mother of God," their banner read: "The Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ." The two processions clashed, and a bloody encounter followed; in an instant images, relies and banners were all in an indiscriminate heap. The troops were called out again, but Such was the zeal of the conflicting parties that not until the majority of them were disabled and exhausted, was tranquility restored.
Looking about me, I saw the spire of neighboring church. My curiosity prompted me to wend my steps thither. As soon as I entered, I was recognized as belonging to the forbidden sect, and in an instant a hundred fists rained down blows upon head. "He has polluted the sanctuary,' they cried. "He has committed sacrilege." "No quarter to the enemies of the true church," cried others, and it was a miracle that, beaten, bruised, my clothes torn from my back, I regained the street. A few seconds later, looking up the streets, I saw another troop of soldiers, rushing down toward this church at full speed. It seems that while I was being beaten in the main auditorium, in the baptistery of the church they were killing, in cold blood, the Archbishop, who was suspected of a predilection for the opposite party, and who had refused to retract or resign from his office. The next day I heard that one hundred and thirty-seven bodies were taken out of this building.
Seized with terror, I now began to run, but, alas, I had worse experiences in store for me. I was compelled to pass the principal square in the center of the city before I could reach a place of safety. When I reached this square, it had the appearance of a veritable battlefield. It was Sunday morning, and the partisans of rival bishops, differing in their interpretation of theological doctrines, were fighting each other like maddened, malignant creatures. One could hear, over the babel of discordant yells, scriptural phrases. The words, "The Son is equal to the Father," "The Father is greater than the Son," "He is begotten of the same substance as the Father," "He is of like substance, but not of the same substance," "You are a heretic," "You are an atheist," were invariably accompanied with blows, stabs and sword thrusts, until, as an eye-witness, I can take an oath that I saw the streets leading out of the square deluged with palpitating human blood. Suddenly the commander of the cavalry, Hermogenes, rode upon the scene of feud and bloodshed. He ordered the followers of the rival bishops to disperse, but instead of minding his authority, the zealots of both sides rushed upon his horse, tore the rider from the saddle and began to beat him with clubs and stones which they picked up from the street. He managed to escape into a house close by, but the religious rabble surrounded the house and set fire to it. Hermogenes appeared at the window, begging for his life. He was attacked again, an killed, and his mangled body dragged through the streets and rushed into a ditch.
The spectacle inflamed me, being a sectarian myself. I felt ashamed that I was not showing an equal zeal for my party I, too, longed to fight, to kill, to be killed for my religion. And, anon! the opportunity presented itself. I saw, looking up the street to my right, a group of my fellow-believers, who, like myself, shut out of their own church by the orthodox authorities, armed with whips loaded with lead and with clubs, were entering a house. I followed them. As we went in, we commanded the head of the family and his wife to appear. When they did, we asked them if it was true that in their prayers to Mary they had refrained from the use of the words, "The mother of God." They hesitated to give a direct answer, whereupon we used the club, and then, the scourge. Then they said they believed in and revered the blessed virgin, but would not, even if we killed them, say that she was the mother of God. This obstinacy exasperated us and we felt it to be our religious duty, for the honor of our, divine Queen, to perpetrate such cruelties upon them as would shock your gentle ears to hear. We held them over slowly burning fires, flung lime into their eyes, applied roasted eggs and hot irons to the sensitive parts of their bodies, and even gagged them to force the sacrament into their mouths. ... As we went from house to house, bent upon our mission, I remember an expression of one of the party who said to the poor woman who was begging for mercy: "What! shall I be guilty of defrauding the vengeance of God of its victims?" A sudden chill ran down my back. I felt my flesh creep. Like a drop of poison the thought embodied in those words perverted whatever of pity or humanity was left in me, and I felt that I was only helping to secure victims with which to feed the vengeance of God!
I was willing to be a monster for the glory of God!
The Christian sect to which I belonged was one of the oldest in Christendom. Our ancestors were called the Puritans of the fourth and fifth centuries. We believe that no one can be saved outside of our communion. When a Christian of another church joins us, we re-baptize him, for we do not believe in the validity of other baptisms. We are so particular that we deny our cemeteries to any other Christians than our own members. If we find that we have, by mistake, buried a member of another church in our cemetery, we dig up his bones, that he may not pollute the soil. When one of the churches of another denomination falls into our hands, we first fumigate the building, and with a sharp knife we scrape the wood off the altars upon which other Christian priests have offered prayers. We under no consideration, allow a brother Christian from another church to commune with us; if by stealth anyone does, we spare not his life. But we are persecuted just as severely as we persecute, ourselves. [This sect (Donatist) and others, lasted for a long time, and made Asia and Africa a hornet's nest, -- a blood-stained arena, of feud and riot and massacre, until Mohammedanism put an end, In these parts of the world, not only to these sects, but to Christianity itself.]
As the sun was setting, fatigued with the holy Sabbath's religious duties, I started to go home. On my way back, I saw even wilder, bloodier scenes, between rival ecclesiastical factions, streets even redder with blood, if possible, yea, certain sections of the city seemed as if a storm of hail, or tongues of flame had swept over them. Churches were on fire, cowled monks attacking bishops' residences, rival prelates holding uproarious debates, which almost always terminated in bloodshed and, to cap the day of many vicissitudes, I saw a bear on exhibition which bad been given its freedom by the ruler, as a reward for his faithful services in devouring heretics. The Christian ruler kept two fierce bears by his own chamber, to which those who did not bold the orthodox faith were thrown in his presence while he listened with delight to their groans.
When I reached home, I was panting for breath. I had lived through another Sabbath day.

Radorth

Re Ron G:

I have said many times that the church turned to $&$# when Constantine was converted, and this is no coincidence. You are reading the history all wrong. When the persecutions stopped and Constantine converted, the church was flooded "converts" who were never converted. Actually it is at this point that paganism and pagan beliefs becomes the rule. The Designer Christian is invented (it's the latest thing. Even the emperor is into it). Church offices are bought and sold. I marvel people can't see what happened there.

Instead you apparently see the early Christians as closet terrorists, who lacked only the means, but this is cynical and simplistic IMO, given the flood of fake converts which rushed into the church at the time. It became nothing more than a power/politics game, for reasons which I consider obvious.

No I don't anything worth talking about, except one single incident, after which Peter himself recognizes Paul's authority. Please give me something besides more innuendo and your favorite scholars, to prove Paul was NOT recognized as an apostle. This is what, the fifth major conspiracy alleged this month?

That's the point. It took 4 centuries, the conversion of a king, and thousands of phony converts. "By their fruits you will know them." I see no fruit there.

350 years ain't bad though. Communism turned to $#^& within 50 years, and depended entirely on force and threats from day one.

You guy's history ain't so good.

Radorth

Radorth

BTW Ron, it was Nogo who said we were reduced to one choice, not I. You guys should talk.

Rad

Radorth

I don't say that. Who here has said that? Or is this just a Radcliffe rant? In fact I've said everyone will get to hear an unpolluted Gospel and God does not hold unbelievers responsible when they have no real choice.

Radorth

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

The leaders consider them serious enough. I don't. I'll commune with any Christian anywhere anytime. But when you have a Pope saying everybody else is committing "grave errors" but orthodox Catholics, it's a little difficult. For a time in the 80's charismatics of every denomination would worship together, but our fearless leaders started uprooting the wheat instead of letting them "grow up together." Anyone can take communion in my church. We don't go around saying "Who are you? You must be a tare. You can't take communion here." The unbelievers leave on their own, or being convicted, convert.

If the "tares" do manage to take over a church, God may plant a new field, or take his message outside the church as happened with Whitefield, the Methodists, Finney, etc. This is why we have new denominations for the time being, and it seems rather hypocritical to encourage dissent and skepticism and then say "hey look at all the dissenters."

Radorth

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

NOGO

Radorth:
We do. It's called the Nicene creed, you know the one. We were all tortured mercilessly until we agreed to it.

NOGO:
Silly me! I thought it all started with Jesus.

Radorth:
There was a period when one had to believe the Pope or nothing, but publication of the NT soon cured that. It's a marvel what denominations agree on, considering they've had only about 300 years to recover what the first disciples knew and saw. The only serious issues left are whether God still works miracles, and whether the nine gifts of the Spirit are needful to the church. You WILL find us disagreeing about those.

NOGO:
Wow! Actually it was quite the opposite. Until the Nicene creed many divergent views of Christianity existed. After, heresy was punished by execution until the reformation. Constantine's edict was an attack against the right of assembly, the freedom of speech, the right to property, but most important the right to think and believe whatever one wants. While Romans persecuted perceived enemies of the state they never prohibited people from thinking.

Radorth:
"only about 300 years to recover ... "

NOGO:
You do not realize the enormity of your statement. There were many documents around. We know only those that were selected for the NT. We do not know in what form they were before they entered into the NT. Thanks to archaeology we have recovered many other early Christian documents but how many more were destroyed because there were judged heretical.

Let's limit the discussion to one issue, Jesus' divinity. How is it that after 300 years Christians did not agree on such a fundamental part of their religion.

Many Chistians even today believe that part of the proof that Jesus was God was that he performed miracles. Yet it is amply clear from the NT and Jewish tradition that a man who does miracles does so as a vehicle of God's power. Moses did miracles and he was but a man. In Acts, Peter and Paul perform miracles and they were men. Jesus claims that the works that he performed were from God and not his.

Another element of the proof it is thought is the designation of "Son of God". There again the OT has even Solomon designated as Son of God. Luke traces Jesus' genealogy all the way to Adam and then states that Adam was the son of God.

As for the designation of "christ" ie "anointed one" or "messiah" we all know that the Jews had many "anointed" of God in the OT and expecting more and they were all men not Gods.

There is sufficient ambiguiety in the NT on the subject to cause major embarassment to believers of a devine Jesus.

Based solely on the text of the NT one can make a good case against the divinity of Jesus. Yet people after 325 CE who disagreed on this subject were silenced by force.

You cannot blame this one on late Pagan converts.

Radorth:
It's a marvel what doesn't get moved to RRP, isn't it?

NOGO:
Perhaps, Radorth, if you yourself would refrain from engaging in such blatant rants and raves others would not feel any need to so the same.