The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs So, as I have opined here before, you cannot separate "religion" from "political power." One was born from the other, and very much exists in support of its aims.

Thus the Islamic Revolution in 1979's Iran--been merged there ever since.

Thus, science and government policy in 21st century governments around the globe.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Emperor Constantine ... "borrowed" a cult that had arisen out of a young man who had been executed by the Romans for insurrection, then wrote, mostly in the name of "Paul," an entire "New" Testament to go with it. It isn't actually clear which books were in the first official texts of his time – the Council of Nicea would not convene until hundreds of years later.

I've no idea where you got that from. No reputable New Testament scholar believes that any part of the New Testament was written later than the early 2nd century and most of it has been securely dated to the second half of the first century. Paul's letters are the earliest NT documents and date from the '40s and '50s. The earliest gospel, Mark, is usually dated to the '60s. The latest, John, may be early 2nd century but more likely the '90s of the 1st century.

Constantine was a 4th century emperor. We have reliably-dated lists of NT books (for example the one by the scholar and antipope Hippolytus) which are much earlier than that!

Constantine put the entire power of western Rome behind his State invention, also creating the Roman Catholic Church which survives to this day ... and which has embassies in its capitol city. The influence of this religion became as "global" as the Roman Empire did, which was very considerable although not truly global. In places that the Roman Empire never touched, Christianity never took hold.

There's some truth in that. Constantine needed a central ideology to power his reformed empire. Diocletian had tried to use a form of sun worship for that purpose but he couldn't get the Christians to join it and there were too many of them simply to be killed off (which didn't stop him from trying!). So Constantine decided to do it with Christianity instead. But he didn't secretly author the New Testament. That's a daft idea!

+1 on all of that, Hazel. As for the rest of it -

Originally Posted by Hubert Humphrey The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Emperor Constantine "borrowed" a cult that had arisen out of a young man who had been executed by the Romans for insurrection

There were other popular cults back then that also were "borrowed", such as the cult of Isis.

Hazel seems well informed on the subject, and I wonder if she's the author of this research paper.

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box There were other popular cults back then that also were "borrowed", such as the cult of Isis. Hazel seems well informed on the subject, and I wonder if he's the author of this research paper.

ROTFL.

You're obviously using "back then" in an extremely broad sense. There's nearly two millenia between Christians and the Osiris/Isis/Horus Trinity. To the best of my knowledge, aided & abetted by her sigfile, Hazel is a lady who you have grossly insulted by attributing your reference to her. Your research paper reads like a rehash of The Two Babylons, the work of one Alexander Hislop.

Originally Posted by business_kid ROTFL. You're obviously using "back then" in an extremely broad sense. There's nearly two millenia between Christians and the Osiris/Isis/Horus Trinity. To the best of my knowledge, aided & abetted by her sigfile, Hazel is a lady who you have grossly insulted by attributing your reference to her. Your research paper reads like a rehash of The Two Babylons, the work of one Alexander Hislop.

It's not my "research paper" -- it was written by Hazel Butler!

I recollected something I read long ago about the date of christmas being chosen because of the popularity of worshiping isis / osiris during period which, in the Gregorian calendar, happened end of december and beginning of january -- thus helping romans transition to Christianity, by celebrating xmas at a time when they were already accustomed to partying. And they partied: sacrifices made over orgies in a pit, and other fun stuff.

Having forgotten the source from the long ago read book, I internet searched (with swisscows) for cult of isis and christianity, and in the top ten was an article written by someone named Hazel... one never knows whether someone in UK went to school in Hawaii... I had just read a post by Hazel at LQ, and then searched and found article by Hazel, lol. I doubt saying someone seems well informed would be in any way construed as insulting.

But regarding the "back then": Isis and Osiris were worshiped before Christ for a far longer duration than Christ has been worshipped since, not just in Egypt, but also in Greece and Rome. Millenia of worship of these egyptian deities influenced Greek and Roman culture, including Christianity.

For the record, the Romans worshipped the same Trinity as Mithras.

As for your Hazel Butler, she's obviously an academic in Ancient history. The one who posts here, AFAIK, is a programmer. I'm sure we'll hear from the lady herself. Hazel is not an uncommon name, although I'd have a wry grin if I had been named after a nut (or tree).

For the record, I'm not a programmer. I wish I were! I have dabbled a bit and written one or two programs for my own use, which is not the same thing at all. And the only real insult is that slac-in-the-box "misgendered" me. You can get cancelled for using the wrong pronouns nowadays, you know . Anyone who bothered to look at my signature would know that I am female.

The date of Christmas was originally chosen because it was the birthday of Mithras, the Persian sun god, and Christ is the Sun of Righteousness (Malachi 4 v.2, cross-referenced in Hark the Herald Angels Sing). The gospels don't bother to give a date for the birth of Jesus but heroes are traditionally born at midwinter. Jesus probably wasn't because that is the peak of the rainy season in Israel and there would not have been "shepherds abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night".

Of course the ghastly events which followed his birth, and the fact that officially his mother was only six months pregnant at the time, would have given his parents good reason to lie afterwards about the precise date.

Remember reading years ago that some experts had worked out that Jesus was born about the middle of March, 6 BC.

Originally Posted by hazel slac-in-the-box "misgendered" me. You can get cancelled for using the wrong pronouns nowadays, you know . Anyone who bothered to look at my signature would know that I am female.

I am male, but I used to have an internet handle called Mrs.Macman (back when I used macs) -- but I'll take your word for it since you compose music -- I compose music too, except only by ear, and don't actually turn it into sheet music -- but others are welcome to. All my closest friends are musicians. I've gone and corrected the pronoun. Please don't cancel me, though you are welcome to council me

I would almost be a Christian, except for its innate hypocracy: blasphemy of the Spirit is the one unforgiveable sin, and I can't think of anything more blasphemous than closing the canon. People like to build fences around "their land" and to fly their flags -- we get to the moon, and the first thing we do is put our flag on it. But the Spirit is unfencable and unflaggable, and imho should not be contained by closed canon. The closing of the canon was most likely perpetrated by men with political motives at eclesiastical councils, and was more human nature than Spiritual nature. I believe Christ would prefer that folks love in nobody's name, than to kill in His. "Onward Christian Soldiers"... really? I reckon, if someone bombs the west coast of a "Christian Nation", then it should offer its east coast as well. I wish the USA wouldn't write "In God we Trust" on its money... it rather should read "In Guns we Trust." The moment something aweful happens, folks turn to "There's a time for war" from Eccesisastes... I've heard phrases like "Don't make me go Old Testament on your ass" -- but my reading and understanding is that there is a newer covenant that supplants the violence of the OT. IMHO, Jesus wasn't following Judaic tradition -- so how can anybody follow someone who's not a follower? "I've decided to follow Jesus" is tied with "Onward Christian Soldiers" as my least favorite hymns. I have a more direct, less abstract, and far more playful and delighted Connection than what is offered by religions, and Music is very much a part of that Connection.

Peace.

What we know of Constantine today is of course from his official histories, and I actually didn't mean to imply that he "got the ball rolling" with the Book that we have in our hands today. He obviously didn't. But, he did put the full weight of Roman state power behind the establishment of a new "State religion" and the abolishment of the old one. Everything that followed, followed from this.

Importantly: this new State Religion did not rely on a pantheon. Constantine chose an established "anchor religion" which called upon a single deity, then substituted a single human "son of god" in that god's place. An elegant, although not unprecedented, substitution. (In the preceding sentence, I purposely do not capitalize the letter "g.")

Notice the term: "State Religion." Two words side-by-side show just how fundamentally these two concepts are "joined at the hip" and always have been, especially in the days when "literacy" was uncommon. Many governments if not most of them use this (dis)union: "The Church of England," "Shinto," "Buddhism," you name it, it's there. The USA was radical in not (officially ...) doing the same.

And, once again, I guess I'm going to annoy some people here by repeating that "you can make of this whatever you like, just as long as you are aware." If you are, then it becomes a personal decision, as it should be. Must be. It is not a decision that you make because someone else told you to make it. Of course I am also not implying that your motivations or reasons are one or the other. But, keep your eyes and mind wide-open at all times. "God won't mind."

To lift another analogy entirely out of its context: "build your house upon rocks, not sand." I have known far too many people who built elaborate religious belief systems based only upon what their preacher had told them, who were profoundly shaken when they themselves started to look. Because they had never encountered these ideas before, nor had they ever thought to look for them. It was a very traumatic, but I think avoidable, experience. No, most of them did not become atheists, but many of them felt ill-used by their social upbringing. Some of them became much stronger Christians as a result. But, they just didn't see it coming.

A lot of that is correct. And spot on about religion & politics generally.

Constantine did bring about tolerance for Christians (Edict of Milan, 312AD), and the Trinity, but he only lasted until 337AD, and the real marriage of pagan & State religions took place in succeeding decades. There was a problem: Some Emperors were Arians! I think it was 364/5AD that somebody declared December 25 as the Birthday of Jesus. But the marriage was "consumated" after the Edict of Thessalonica in 380AD, and subsequent to that, pagan religions were discouraged & banned.

So in short, pagans played the short game and got all their rituals and beliefs in. Christianity played the long game and got all the brand names. So the next generation were Christians with a hopelessly corrupt form of "Christianity" in the pocket of Rome.

Nowhere was this Church & state union more evident than in Nazi Germany around WW2. Every religion toed the line except Jews, and Jehovah's Witnesses. There was no mercy for the poor Jews. JWs refused to say 'Heil Hitler,' join the army or work for the war. "Heil Hitler" means "Salvation from Hitler." JWs were dumped in concentration camps, became victims of medical experiments, worked to death, and our men who refused to conscript were executed. We have nothing to do with other religious organizations. (Rev 18:4).

EDIT: @sundialsvcs: Figure things out. If you keep an open mind as you suggest for us, people will throw a lot of garbage into it, as this thread gives regular proof .

Originally Posted by business_kid So in short, pagans played the short game and got all their rituals and beliefs in. Christianity played the long game and got all the brand names. So the next generation were Christians with a hopelessly corrupt form of "Christianity" in the pocket of Rome.

Exactly.

Now, I chose to exclude your comments concerning "Jehovah's Witnesses" during this period – not only because I realize that you are personally close to this, but also because I personally know nothing of this aspect of world history. This decision is both fully-respectful and entirely-functional.

However, in passing and unrelated, I'm amused to think that the term, "pagan," simply refers to: "the then-endemic, not-national, religion that lost."

Another interesting thought-question: "If their version of 'Christianity' was 'hopelessly corrupt,' then what exactly was the 'pure' form, and what exactly 'corrupted' it?

P.S.: It stuns me, now, to consider that "Jehovah's Witnesses" also encountered their own version of "the Holocaust," in parallel to the Jews. And that I had never heard about this until just now. (Although I don't by this intend to divert the present conversation.)

Originally Posted by business_kid Nowhere was this Church & state union more evident than in Nazi Germany around WW2. Every religion toed the line except Jews, and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Actually that's not quite true. The Catholics and most of the Lutherans were shamefully compliant, but there was a rebel branch of the Lutheran church called the Confessing Church who stood up to be counted and often ended up in the concentration camps alongside the Jews. They were led by Martin Niemoeller, whom you may perhaps have heard of, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a member too.

One of my friends at my local church was the daughter of a pastor of the Confessing Church and met Niemoeller as a little girl. She helped me translate the treasure trove of family letters that my mother had preserved (you can read the whole story in one of my "ramblings" called The Brown Box). The funny thing was that she suffered tremendously from holocaust guilt, though really she was the last person who had anything to be ashamed of where that was concerned.

Agreed - let's drop the Holocaust, because the Germans alive today are very different people.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Another interesting thought-question: "If their version of 'Christianity' was 'hopelessly corrupt,' then what exactly was the 'pure' form, and what exactly 'corrupted' it?

Good question. When Jesus was alive, everyone looked to him for guidance. In Matthew 28:18-20 just before his ressurection, Jesus

• Informed them that he now had all Authority.
• Sent each one on a preaching campaign that was to spread worldwide.
• Promised them his support right to the end.

From then on, people looked to the apostles. They were ordinary men in ordinary clothes with no leader, no titles, and neutral in politics. Christians looked to them for guidance, and got it based on Scripture. In 49AD they settled the issue of circumscision (Acts ch.15). When the Jewish rebellion started in 66CE, Christians left for Pella. But the apostles died off or were martyred, and in 100AD John, the last apostle died. People then looked to John's direct disciples, like Polycarp, but apostasy was gathering pace. By the end of his life, Polycarp had evidently strayed. He was wearing the Pallium, and use of God's name was dying out. From 180 AD a Christian could even join the Roman army! So the pure form was before 100AD, and it had vanished by ~150AD.

EDIT: Incidentally, the chief cause of State persecution in the 1st century was the Christians' refusal to worship Caesar. Pope Nero, the Roman Emperor (and holder of the title 'Pontifex Maximus') executed two apostles ~65AD. It shows how much things have changed.