Sojourner553

Hi Bede,

You should know by now that it is never my intent to brand all Christians -- in any time period -- as "bad".

My focus instead is to target FUNDAMENTALIST Christians -- and even more specifically...

Fundamentalists in general -- for this label.

Because I think you can lump together Fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslims and yes even atheists --in collectively causing much of the greatest non-natural evils in the world.

Who was it that said, there are good people and there are bad people, but it takes religion to make a good person act evil? (BTW, I count Marxist communism as a religion -- even though it is technically based on atheism.)

I spend more time on Fundamentalist Christians only because they have wielded more power throughout history than the other groups and/or it is more relevent to the issues in the corner of the world where I live.

So when I focus on a period of time when fundamentalist Catholics tried to declare as heretical first (1) other Christian sects and then later (2) the Jews, pagans (and the few atheists around) -- don't try to distract from this by saying not "all" Christians are bad.

Because I know that...

To me, it is more relevent that you balance your comments to accept fundamentalist Christians at times, have acted the role of the villain, especially when they wielded authoritarian control over society.

Sometimes you are great at stating this. At other times, it seems you hold a blind eye to this (or would like to wish at least parts of this away...)

Take the politics out of religion (as the American forefathers so wisely legislated) and you can actually see religion act as a positive force in society in helping people.

Unfortunately politics combined with religion has created much evil throughout history. This message is the real intent of the site.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

Sojourner

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

Hi Sojourner,

I'm not really arguing with your point about fundamentalists. However, you said "Do you not agree that -- during these times -- most Christians viewed all non-Christian works as being from the devil and therefore evil? Do you disagree with the accounts of Christian mobs tearing down pagan temples/smashing religious works and converting many to churches?"

This is a strongly worded statement expressed as a challenge and, I think, factually wrong. Your use of the word 'most' particularly got my goat as you certainly have no idea what most Christians thought or did. This is what I was calling you on.

I think Gombrich was being careless and although he was a great scholar (if one whose reputation rests a bit much on what is effectively an elementary level textbook), I think he made a mistake here. Forgivably, as it is out of his area (always a risk writing a textbook) and a common enough myth.

I doubt that the smashing of idols happened any more than the burning of libraries and we certainly haven't seen much in the way of solid evidence in this thread.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Sojourner553

Good to hear it!

Here is where I was a little too fast, and therefore sloppy. For to me, it is obvious that the vast majority of Christians (as is true of all religous groups) were followers not leaders. This meant (just like today!) they spent most of their thoughts on daily living as opposed to deep philosophical thoughts. Therefore to be more precise, I should have said "most" influential Christian leaders (both spiritual and political) during THESE times.


Here is what I meant by them viewing non-Christian works as being from the devil:

St. Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) agreed with the pagans that the Greco-Roman gods wielded powers that influenced the course of emperorers and world events. However, he considered these powers to be from demons. He was appalled that he used to think the gods were good, instead of evil demons. As he wrote in his APOLOGY,

" We--who out of every race of people, used to worship Bacchus the son of
Semele, and Apollo the son of Latone, who in their love affairs with
human beings did such things as are shameful to mention, and Persephone
and Venus, who were driven insane by love of Adonis, and whose mysteries,
too, you celebrate--we have now, through Jesus Christ. learned to despise
these gods, although we be threatened with death for it. We have dedicated
ourselves to the unbegotten, impassible God, of whom we are persuaded that
he was never goaded by lust for Antiope, and for Ganymede...we pity those
who believe such things, and we know that those who invented them are
demons." (Justin, 1 APOLOGY 25.)

According to Justin, some of the angels in Heaven betrayed God's trust by
seducing human women and corrupting boys (note: Justin modified the Genesis
story a little bit here), thus procreating children, who were demons. When
God discovered this, he threw the angels out of heaven. However these fallen
angels, now joined forces with their demonic offspring to terrify the
people into worshipping them as gods:

"The truth shall be told; since of old these evil demons, effecting
apparitions of themselves, both polluted women and corrupted boys, and
showed such terrifying visions to people that those who did not use their
reason...were struck by terror; and being carried away by fear, and not
knowing that these were demons, they called them gods." (Justin, 1 Apology 5)

The key is that Justin thought the idols had EVIL POWERS (as opposed to being empty stone heads -- ie powerless)

Indeed, I could see myself abetting/supporting Christian mobs smashing the idols if I believed they contained within them harmful demonic powers. From their belief system, these Christians do doubt thought they were doing "good" by their actions -- not evil.


How was this "out of his area". Was he not a leading scholar on ancient art and therefore should have seen examples and known the historical background? Do you have any reputable scholars/historians criticizing his techniques/conclusions. (If so, I would like to see these -- assuming they are scientific of course.)


But as we both know -- there is scant written records from this time of anything. But there are smatterings that tell us of violence:

In the fifth century CE, Bishop Cyril, after a violent series of exchanges with the Jews in
the city, was successful in expelling them out of Alexandria, destroying their
synagogues, and confiscating their property. Hypatia was brutally murdered in his church. Following this many pagans wer expelled from Alexandria.

Look what the Orthodox did to rival Christian sects -- declaring them illegal. Texts had to be burried (take the Nag Hammadi as an example) Why would not the same attitude persist towards the pagans?

There is better documentation in latter periods to showing religious intolerance by Catholics. Like the attempts of Catholics to suppress printing early copies of proto-Protestant bibles. Like the documentaties I see on television how some of the archeological works of North/South American Indians was lost when Spanish Catholics tried to stamp out all traces of religious artifacts.

Again, this is logical when one realizes that Catholic priests were in the process of trying to convert the population. And that from their viewpoint they were "saving" people by their actions.

From my reading of history, Christianity became far more tolerant when Protestants came on scene (after the many wars of course)-- splintering centralized religious authority and causing many Christians to (gradually) see the wisdom in toleration.

Sojourner

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>