Christians must be nonviolent --how?

Edited by Akolouthos - 05-Nov-2007 at 06:14

So you will keep me company after all.

Edited by Akolouthos - 05-Nov-2007 at 08:36

Originally posted by Brian J Checco The problem I find is with censorship. We find it disgusting in a modern context, yet condone it's use to defend a certain subjective "truth," thus depriving others of the information they require to come up with their own definition? Isn't that the same thing the Nazis were trying to do, when they started burning "subversive" books?

Hi, Brian,

I don't think that picking some of the text as being authoritative is the same as censorship, although I am sure that there was censorship at some point.

Why don't you tell us what the scrolls say? I am not familiar with them.

Interestingly there is no mention about the mystery cults from which Christianity so heavily borrowed. In a way one could say that Christianity is an Eastern mystery cult inspired on one strand of Judaism.

No inconvenience at all

Easter coincides with the Beltain (Solstice, end of winter)

There's no pair of two events - from the three enumerated here - falling on the same day Plus somehow I believe you meant equinox instead of solstice.

Edited by Chilbudios - 08-Nov-2007 at 18:18

Originally posted by arch.buff The Just War Doctrine was originally pened during the time that�Christianity was�newly legalized and was receiving converts openly so naturally such a doctrine should be set in place.

Absolutely not. Christianity had been legalized for nearly 800 years when Thomas Aquinas created a systematic theory of "just war" for a Christian context, in the 13th century.

It was penned as a counter to the overwhelmingly pacifist Pax Dei movement of the 10th-13th century, and represented a sea change in the church towards a far more militant and politically ambitious institution. Which, incidentally, was alot closer to its roots as a somewhat malevolent, anti-semitic Roman institution characterized by gang wars between rival claimants to the papacy. Pax Dei was far less profane, but on the other hand, far less useful to the ambitious.

Edited by edgewaters - 09-Nov-2007 at 09:43

Originally posted by Akolouthos Originally posted by Brian J Checco Oh, Christianity, and Catholicism especially, is Zoroastrian-Mithraism v2.0. I wrote a term paper on the subject when I was a history major. And the way all the Church holidays coincide with Germannic and Celtic pagan celebrations... it's almost funny. Hell, it is funny. Halloween is the same date as the pagan Samhainn (eve of the dead), and Easter coincides with the Beltain (Solstice, end of winter). Don't know where the creepy big-ass rabbit comes from though... Even the day picked for Christ's birth coincides with the date of the Germannic Yule-celebrations. I don't know if there's a single original concept in all of Christianity. The dualistic heaven-hell dichotomy was borrowed from Zoroastrianism, Mithras was sacrificed so that his comrades could be saved, Mithraists drank the blood of bulls and ate the meat in a form of sympathetic cannibalism (the bull was representative of Mithras himself, the war god), etc. What a hoax. BJC   Christianity is a "hoax," eh? I think the only "hoax" here is trying to pass off an insult-riddled post as a piece deserving a scholarly response. After all, the only "source" you show any familiarity with therein, is one of your own term papers.   Once again, Checco, your misunderstanding of the underlying nature of Christianity, as well as your willingness to engage in ill-founded mockery has played you false. The Church is, was, and always has been well aware that it exists as a sanctifying element, and it is equally well aware that many of its holidays have supplanted earlier pagan celebrations. As I have been forced to note repeatedly on this forum, the liturgical language of the Church often expresses this.    As I do in most cases where someone is -- you will forgive me for being blunt -- incapable of keeping up with a discussion, I will provide you with a reading list, as well as some suggestions for future study. Note that I would not bring up your utter lack of an ability to treat this subject if you were not so willing to express it in the most hateful way at every turn. By your childish mockery, and contemptuous dismissal of a theology that you obviously don't understand (and don't give me that tired nonsense about my "confusing rejection for misunderstanding" ; you have consistently failed to provide anything remotely scholarly in discussing Christian issues on this forum), you have forced me to require that you bring yourself up to speed. You have brought this on yourself.     See:   Justin Martyr's Apology for a patristic account of the way in which Christians viewed their pagan predecessors, and specifically Greek philosophy.   Research Logos theory in general.   Look into the Eastern liturgical cycle surrounding Christmas. Here you will find an acknowledgement, as well as a celebration, of the fact that pagan practices have been supplanted -- or, if you prefer, sanctified -- Christian rites.   Study the concepts of foreshadowings and "types", both in the Old Covenant Hebrew tradition, as well as in other arenas (in the latter case, take into account your studies of Logos theory, and specifically the works of Saint Justin Martyr).     Whenever you attempt to speak as a scholar, I will address you as such. When you exhibit your unwillingness to research, as well as your hateful, uninformed mockery, I will provide you with another syllabus.   For the record, what is at issue here is not your ability to act like a scholar, but your willingness to do so. I have noted in other threads that you seem to be fairly logical, even scholarly; why not with issues treating of faith? I would posit that until you are familiar with the documentary evidence, you are not capable of carrying on a discussion in this thread. After all, this is supposed to be a thread about non-violence in Christianity, which should obviously depend heavily on Christian documentary evidence.   -Akolouthos   Addendum:   Except when that scholarly journal presents itself as the one and only path to successful liberation of the mortal coil, and then the editors set up a theocracy that last for a thousand years, executes thousand of 'heretics (editors of rival scholarly journals, no doubt),' calls crusades on the readers of other scholarly journals, elects their own chief editor to be the most powerful person on earth with the right to excommunicate people and kingdoms (cut off their subscription to the quarterly advertising issue), sends out members of it's intern staff to hunt out people who have subscriptions to other journals and then set them (the subscribers, not the journals) on fire or crush them to death with large rocks, etc. I think you can see why I might be a bit skeptical of your apologetic explanation...   As for your satire above, I did enjoy it, although obviously I don't draw the same conclusions. Why do you find it so hard to demonstrate the same acumen in the field of religious scholarship as you do in the realm of satirization? By way of response to your satire, we must judge a doctrine by its precepts, not by those who practice it. We may judge the practicality of that doctrine by the results of its consequent praxis, but we must discern between this and judging the doctrine itself. My problem with most of your analysis is that it blurs lines, and appears to be fueled more by anti-Christian bigotry than objective scholarly research. If you claimed to be arguing as a theolgian, this may be more excusable. When you try to establish yourself as the rational antithesis of an "apologist", it is less so.

The fact that a fellow dresses up an indefensible position in flowery language doesn't make his position any stronger. The "Editor of a Scholarly Journal" position was one of the least defensible positions I've ever seen. The scholarly equivalent of the Maginot Line, if you will. The simple fact of the matter is that after the Church fathers solidified the doctrine, the immediately declared everyone who did not agree "heretics" and started executing people. Just as the Romans showed a remarkable intolerance for early Christian beliefs, once Christianity became the dominant religion it immediately adopted this same sort of intolerance, and declared even fellow Christians heretics, and executing them. So don't feed me your apologist explanations and expect to not be lampooned.

Although not alone in its intolerance, the Church has done it's best to establish itself as the least-understanding, formally intolerant of religions. I understand that yes, the contemporary Church is making strides to clean up it's past, and to number itself among the more peaceable and dialogical institutions, but that is not enough to erase it's past history; much of which involved people tied to stakes in flames, or strapped to all manner of ingenious torture devices (incidentally, not allowed to shed blood). Entire nations were laid under interdict, cutting them off from "salvation," for purely political motives. The De Medici popes (no explanation even needed). But I think the period of the Reformation, and the counter-Reformation, showed the true character of the Church at the time. Many people died in both of these periods, killed by a inflexible and intolerant organization that felt it's theocratic vise-grip on Europe getting looser. Not the actions of anything "non-violent," to be assured.

By the way, the academic connections between Christianity and the eastern mystic cults has been drawn by many scholars before myself. Sir Laurence Gardner's books on the subject speak as evidence. He's very widely respected (and decorated) by the British Historical Society. But, back to the point, the similarities between early Christianity and the mystery cults are so striking that it's almost shocking. Looking at Christ from an Esoteric standpoint, one wonders if the man himself was actually a Gnostic. Historical evidence points to him being a member of the pseudo-Gnostic Essene Sect.

Mithraism, a soldier's cult brought back to the Empire by legionnaires who'd fought in the Parthian/Persian wars, shows striking similarities to the Christian mythology; virgin birth, death of a "god," ritual sympathetic cannibalism (striking, the "blood" and "body" of Mithras being consumed), what more do I need to say?

And, by the way, this is the second time you've called my academic credentials into question. The first time, you saw I knew what was up and promptly apologized. It's pleasant to think that a second will be forthcoming. Really, it's really rather insulting. I think that I've proven my street-cred on these forums in almost a year of posting, and consider my opinions and research to be held in fairly high regard here amongst our "academic" community. However, being a student of English at this point in my college career, I usually prefer to respond to posts that I find to be full of manure in a sarcastic and satirical manner. Satire is a subtle and nuanced art. I'm wondering now if indeed you have been grasping the underlying knowledge implied within said posts.
A postcard from "academia,"
BC

I'm not too knowledgable about Augustine's Civitas Dei and the following concept of 'just war', however, the relationship between Christianity and war was hinted at back to Constanitne's reign. He often associated his victories with images ofsupport from Christ, such as at Milvian Bridge.

Edited by Seko - 09-Nov-2007 at 17:21