Myth vs religion (for Paulo Joe)
Sean
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
> What about "The Lord of the Rings?" Written by a Catholic, who actually
> had enough intelligence to tell the difference between myth and religion.
Would you care to say more about the difference?
To me they're the same, except that "myth" is someone else's
religion.
For example, the stories of Zeus and Apollo are myths to most people
these days; we can take them or leave them, but the ancient Greeks
built temples to those gods and worshipped them.
Regards. Sean
LDL
propels a human being into a belief metaphysically.
Studies have shown that every human being on this earth has to believe in
something. There are various systems if religions and organisational
beliefs. Some people do not belief in a metaphysical being but believes in
human kindness. Some people religions are financial gains or materials as
to some people religions is to do without.
I think that what separates us from the animals as that we have some reason
of a metaphysical being and place out lives around that.
Mythology are stories that came from those beliefs.
"Sean" <no....@no.spam> wrote in message news:3F0606D2...@no.spam...
Paulo Joe Jingy
> In article "Re: HARRY POTTER'S MAGIC BANNED BY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL"
> Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
>
>
>>What about "The Lord of the Rings?" Written by a Catholic, who actually
>>had enough intelligence to tell the difference between myth and religion.
>
>
> Would you care to say more about the difference?
>
> To me they're the same, except that "myth" is someone else's
> religion.
I could be wrong (I hope I'm not)--but I don't think anyone worships the
mythological creatures that J.R.R. Tolkien invented for "The Lord of the
Rings".
As a Catholic, J.R.R Tolkien worshiped God. He didn't confuse God with
the creatures he invented.
And there's a world of difference between "Gandalf the Grey" (a
fictional character) and "Jesus Christ" (a historical fact).
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
D C
----------
In article <be56ok$1cqko$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>, Paulo Joe Jingy
Ian McFadyen
"LDL" <ac...@yilongprod.com> wrote in message
news:mLoNa.812$s_5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Myth is simply a story that had a moral meaning as that religion actually
> propels a human being into a belief metaphysically.
Not all myths had a "moral meaning". Many came from animism, the primitive
belief that natural phenomena - rivers, oceans, trees etc had spirits within
them. Many myths were stories about how the natural world came about, others
related to religious ceremonies performed to ensure fertility, birth, growth
of crops, afterlife etc
> Studies have shown that every human being on this earth has to believe in
> something.
An odd way of putting it. It would be more correct to say that most humanl
cultures promote certain things as ideals. It's not a requirement that
people believe in something.
> beliefs. Some people do not belief in a metaphysical being but believes
in
> human kindness. Some people religions are financial gains or materials as
> to some people religions is to do without.
>
> I think that what separates us from the animals as that we have some
reason
> of a metaphysical being and place out lives around that.
To put it more objectively: unlike animals, humans can believe in things
that they've never personally seen. This has an up-side (people can know
more things than they've learned from their own experience) and a down-side
(people can be persuaded to believe in things that don't exist.)
>
>
nmstevens
Clearly, there are works of fiction like Lord of the Rings, or Star
Wars that were invented in imitation of actual myths and, as you say,
hopefully, nobody mistakes those fictional faux myths for anything
other than what they are.
But clearly, what Tolkien was attempting to do was to create what he
felt that Britain lacked -- which was its own indigineous homegrown
mythology, as distinct from, say, Arthurian myth cycles, which he felt
were bastardized non-home grown legends brought in by way of the
Norman conquests.
Even so, of course -- it would still never be more than simply a work
of fiction.
Genuine mythology, as the original poster stated, must stand, I fear,
much closer to religion than you might like. Where do Zeus and Athena
or Thor and Loki or Amon Ra figure as between religion and myth? At
one point they stood as firmly in the minds of their believers as
"historical facts" as you now assert Jesus Christ to be.
What is it precisely that makes a woman impregnated by Zeus merely a
myth whilst a woman impregnated by Jehovah rises somehow to the level
of "historical fact" -- other than a head count of current believers?
Ultimately, religious belief both stands and falls not upon "fact" --
historical or otherwise -- but upon faith -- and it is when faith
fails, ultimately, that religions cease to be accepted as "fact" and
instead become the stuff of mythology.
NMS
Paulo Joe Jingy
I realize that you don't believe Jesus Christ is God. But are you also
suggesting that Jesus Christ is *not* a historical fact? Are you
asserting that a *man* known as Jesus of Nazareth *never* walked the
earth?
If you are--I don't know how much history you will accept, because Jesus
Christ is clearly a "historical fact". Even the enemies of
Christianity (at least most of them) have admitted that much, over the
last 2000 years.
> What is it precisely that makes a woman impregnated by Zeus merely a
> myth whilst a woman impregnated by Jehovah rises somehow to the level
> of "historical fact" -- other than a head count of current believers?
Precisely because one is a myth and the other is a fact. Saying (or
proving) one is false, doesn't automatically make the other false.
There can be true and false religions. It's not a logical premise to
state that since one religious belief has been proven false, then
another (or all other) religious beliefs are also false.
> Ultimately, religious belief both stands and falls not upon "fact" --
> historical or otherwise -- but upon faith -- and it is when faith
> fails, ultimately, that religions cease to be accepted as "fact" and
> instead become the stuff of mythology.
At least one religion is based on fact and faith: Christianity. Fact:
Jesus Christ lived, as a man on earth. Faith: Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of the living God.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
"Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back,
as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded
of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation
of God is an *infinitely* greater thing than anything I would dare to
write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature,
physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees."
JRR Tolkien, from letter #181 "The Letters of JRR Tolkien" Published by
Houghton Mifflin, Edited by Humphrey Carpenter
RonB
> But clearly, what Tolkien was attempting to do was to create what he
> felt that Britain lacked -- which was its own indigineous homegrown
> mythology, as distinct from, say, Arthurian myth cycles, which he felt
> were bastardized non-home grown legends brought in by way of the
> Norman conquests.
Actually, no, not according to what I've read about Tolkien and his "Lord
of the Rings." First point is this, he borrowed heavily from Norse
mythology -- which directly opposes your point. The name "Middle-Earth"
comes directly from Norse mythology.
But the main point is this, I don't think Tolkien had any particular "aim"
in writing "The Lord of the Rings" -- except to entertain. I read
somewhere that his object was to write a "heroic romance" that would hold
the attention of adults as "The Hobbit" had held the attention of
children. From his childhood Tolkien had been a "sub-creator," (as he
referred to fantasy writers in his essay "On Writing Faerey Stories")
constantly creating new languages and histories (or refining his "Middle-
Earth"). When he was seven his father destroyed papers containing several
languages that he had created because he considered it a waste of the
child's time. Tolkien hated metaphor and often made the point that his
story was "what it was."
It also should be pointed out that the "Lord of the Rings" used as a
backdrop the world that J.R.R. Tolkien had created over several decades
for his own amusement. What made the story was his using Hobbits as the
"normal people" going off in the strange, big world.
> Even so, of course -- it would still never be more than simply a work
> of fiction.
>
> Genuine mythology, as the original poster stated, must stand, I fear,
> much closer to religion than you might like. Where do Zeus and Athena
> or Thor and Loki or Amon Ra figure as between religion and myth? At
> one point they stood as firmly in the minds of their believers as
> "historical facts" as you now assert Jesus Christ to be.
Which is all beside the point when speaking of "The Lord of the Rings."
Tolkien never intended that his characters be thought of as gods. This was
a story based on the world he created and borrowed from mythology. Simply
a story -- a very good one. If anything, what you will find in Tolkien's
"mythology" is his Catholic belief in the black and white concepts of
right and wrong. Many see in Galadriel an echo of the Virgin Mary. But
Tolkien would deny it. It is clear, however, that Tolkien superimposed
Christian concepts of good and evil on top of the mythology he borrowed
and created.
> What is it precisely that makes a woman impregnated by Zeus merely a
> myth whilst a woman impregnated by Jehovah rises somehow to the level
> of "historical fact" -- other than a head count of current believers?
And the fact that historians wrote of an historical Jesus, named places
and times, where none of this can be said for Zeus.
> Ultimately, religious belief both stands and falls not upon "fact" --
> historical or otherwise -- but upon faith -- and it is when faith
> fails, ultimately, that religions cease to be accepted as "fact" and
> instead become the stuff of mythology.
Which, strangely enough, has never happened with Christianity -- even in
darkest post-Roman empire times. But you're right, faith is vital -- but
the fact that faith in Jesus is based on history, documents from the early
Fathers, changes the faith to something different than the Greek, Roman,
and Norse mythological "faiths."
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
RonB
> If anything, what you will find in Tolkien's
> "mythology" is his Catholic belief in the black and white concepts of
> right and wrong. Many see in Galadriel an echo of the Virgin Mary. But
> Tolkien would deny it. It is clear, however, that Tolkien superimposed
> Christian concepts of good and evil on top of the mythology he borrowed
> and created.
A few excerpts from Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories."
(Taken from: http://sff.net/people/Sherwood/reading/fairy.htm)
----
The 'consolation' of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative
satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of
the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete
fairy-stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is the true
form of Drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairy-
story. Since we do not appear to possess a word that expresses this
opposite--I will call it Eucatastrophe. The eucatastrophic tale is the
true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function.
The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more
correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous 'turn' (for there is
no true end to any fairy tale): this joy, which is one of the things which
fairy-stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially 'escapist',
nor 'fugitive'. In its fairy-tale--or other world--setting, it is a sudden
and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny
the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure; the possibility of
these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of
much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is
evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the
world, poignant as grief.
It is the mark of a good fairy-story, of the higher or more complete kind,
that however wild its events, however fantastic or terrible the
adventures, it can give to child or man that hears it, when the 'turn'
comes, a catch of the breath, a beat and lifting of the heart, near to (or
indeed accompanied by) tears, as keen as that given by any form of
literary art, and having a peculiar quality.
The peculiar quality of...'joy' in successful Fantasy can...be explained
as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a
'consolation' for the sorrow of this world, but a satisfaction, and an
answer to that question, 'Is it true?' The answer to this question that I
gave at first was (quite rightly): 'If you have built your little world
well, yes: it is true in that world.' That is enough for the artist...But
in the 'eucatastrophe' we see in a brief vision that the answer may be
greater--it may be a far-off gleam or echo or evangelium in the real
world.
----
RonB
> but
> the fact that faith in Jesus is based on history, documents from the
> early Fathers, changes the faith to something different than the
> Greek, Roman, and Norse mythological "faiths."
Didn't mean to say "based on history," rather "supported by history."
nmstevens
Well, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, bare the same relationship to history as
characters like Arthur, Moses, and Robin Hood. That is, while they
*may* have had actual, physical historical precursors in the flesh -
who those real life people may have been we really know virtually
nothing about -- the real historical kernels have been so subsumed in
(pardon the expression) mythology that our ability to make any
reliable historical statements about them at all -- in the sense that
we can make such statements about, say, the latter Biblical Kings, is
very limited.
It's in the nature of the tug between history and mythology -- some
things -- Adam and Eve -- all mythology. Other things, like the
Babylonian exile -- are clearly grounded in historical fact. Other
things fall in between. The evidence is simply inconclusive. We have
strong evidence to support that there was an Israelite presence in
Egypt -- but no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Israelites
were even held in bondage in Egypt. No evidence to suggest the
plagues, no evidence to suggest that the Exodus, as an historical
event, ever happened, or that Moses, as a real person, ever existed.
So I think that the strongest weight of evidence, however powerful and
compelling the story of the Exodus may be, and despite those
tantalizing bits of evidence, I think that the story, on the whole,
must placed in the realm of myth -- not history.
And likewise, whether there was a local chieftain somwhere named Artu
the Bear is really irrelevant to what ultimately became the story of
King Arthur, complete with the Holy Grail, which probably started,
within the context of the stories, not as a magical chalice, but as a
magical kettle. And one can no more invoke the historical evidence of
Artu as evidence for reality of the Holy Grail, than one can invoke
whatever independent historical evidence there is for the existence of
the person of Jesus as evidence for the miraculous impregnation of the
virgin Mary.
The two must stand as fundamentally different things. Your faith,
however substantial, is not built on "historical facts." Those facts,
in truth, are about as substantial as the facts that support the
historical existence of Roland, Robin Hood, and Agammemnon.
Which is not to say that those men did *not* exist -- but historical
*facts?* -- that's putting the case a wee bit too strongly.
But from the perspective of religous faith -- what difference does it
make? It's not based on the evidence anyway.
If it was, you'd reject it -- just the way you reject Zeus, and
Athena, and Thor and all those other gods, because the available
evidence tells you that they are simply absurd.
NMS
ProdInAHat
> For example, the stories of Zeus and Apollo are myths to most people
> these days; we can take them or leave them, but the ancient Greeks
> built temples to those gods and worshipped them.
>
>
December 25th was established by Aurlian in AD264 as Dies Natilus
Invictus Solis or the "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun" ...
Christians soon perceived an opportunity and used one of the biggest
dates in the Pagan calandar as the birthday of Christ, essentially
accquiring the pagan worshippers and easing the transition to a new
faith.
This is why Christ is often pictured with a crown of light--aligning him
with the sun god Helios.
etc etc 'Religion' is merely transposed myth. The Vatican remains pretty
pagan to this day--you would be surprised.
As for Harry Potter, it lifts 'myth' directly, I recall seeing a three-
headed dog in one of the trailers. How clever.
ProdInAHat
195.92.193.157:
> Christians soon perceived an opportunity and used one of the biggest
> dates in the Pagan calandar as the birthday of Christ, essentially
> accquiring the pagan worshippers and easing the transition to a new
> faith.
like the Golden Globes.
ProdInAHat
> characters like Arthur, Moses, and Robin Hood.
The "Three Marys" also have twin-sisters in Greek mythology. It's surprising
how much 'myth' was assimilated.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<beb4hk$35aug$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>>nmstevens wrote:
>>At least one religion is based on fact and faith: Christianity. Fact:
>> Jesus Christ lived, as a man on earth. Faith: Jesus is the Christ,
>>the Son of the living God.
>>
> Well, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, bare the same relationship to history as
> characters like Arthur, Moses, and Robin Hood. That is, while they
> *may* have had actual, physical historical precursors in the flesh -
I love the qualifiers. You say, Jesus *may* have actually existed in
the flesh. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed in the flesh,
than there is for many historical characters that I'm sure you take for
granted.
> who those real life people may have been we really know virtually
> nothing about -- the real historical kernels have been so subsumed in
> (pardon the expression) mythology that our ability to make any
> reliable historical statements about them at all -- in the sense that
> we can make such statements about, say, the latter Biblical Kings, is
> very limited.
Why do you say that? People had invented writing long before Jesus
Christ existed. Are you suggesting that they were unable to record
history, at the time of Jesus? As I said before--even the enemies of
Christianity have admitted the existence of Jesus Christ for over 2000
years.
---snip---
> The two must stand as fundamentally different things. Your faith,
> however substantial, is not built on "historical facts." Those facts,
> in truth, are about as substantial as the facts that support the
> historical existence of Roland, Robin Hood, and Agammemnon.
In your opinion. You'll notice, in my original message I very carefully
described Jesus Christ "as a historical fact". I very carefully avoided
calling him God, or the Son of God. I didn't mention faith, at that
time. The fact that you have trouble even admitting that Jesus "walked
in the flesh" shows more about your views of religion, than your grasp
of "historical fact".
> Which is not to say that those men did *not* exist -- but historical
> *facts?* -- that's putting the case a wee bit too strongly.
Once again--here's what I said in my original message.
"And there's a world of difference between "Gandalf the Grey" (a
fictional character) and "Jesus Christ" (a historical fact)."
I was very specific. I limited my discussion to the fact that unlike
"Gandalf the Grey", "Jesus Christ" really existed. Historical evidence
supports me, on this.
> But from the perspective of religous faith -- what difference does it
> make? It's not based on the evidence anyway.
It can be. This evidence is called miracles. Miracles are supernatural
(above nature). They can't be explained by natural causes. But they
have been witnessed and documented. And in many cases they have been
witnessed and documented by *secular* and skeptical men and women.
People not inclined to believe in the supernatural.
But you are right that my religion is based on faith. If people refuse
to believe, they'll refuse to believe miracles, too. I believe in Jesus
Christ, by faith. You believe that he didn't exist (or at least isn't
God), by faith.
> If it was, you'd reject it -- just the way you reject Zeus, and
> Athena, and Thor and all those other gods, because the available
> evidence tells you that they are simply absurd.
I reject Zeus, Athena and Thor. I don't reject that there is still a
false religion, called "Odinism". Or that some people still worship
Zeus and Athena. The numbers may be small, but they are still there.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Paulo Joe Jingy
Because Mary happened to be a common name, it *somehow* means that Mary,
the mother of Jesus was somehow assimilated from the "twin sisters of
Greek mythology"?
That's a stretch.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Dr. Jai Maharaj
ProdInAHat <h...@t.biz> posted:
I posted the following a few years ago:
[ Subject: DEC 25 ORIGINALLY A PAGAN HOLIDAY, JESUS BORN SOME OTHER DAY,
[ SANTA U.S. INVENTION
[ From: Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Message-ID: <Christian-1...@news.mantra.com>
[ Date: December 25, 1999
Let's see: Dec. 25 was originally a Pagan holiday.
Jesus was born some other day. And Santa? A U.S.
invention. 'C' for Christmas, or cash
By Leonard Peikoff
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Saturday, December 25, 1999
Christmas in America is an exuberant display of human
ingenuity, capitalist productivity, and the enjoyment of
life. Yet all of these are castigated as "materialistic."
The real meaning of the holiday, we are told, is assorted
Nativity tales and altruist injunctions that no one takes
seriously. In fact, Christmas as we celebrate it today is
a 19th-century American invention. The freedom and
prosperity of post-Civil War America created the happiest
nation in history.
The result was the desire to celebrate, to revel in the
goods and pleasures of life on earth. Christmas (which
was not a federal holiday until 1870) became the leading
American outlet for this feeling.
People have long celebrated the winter solstice as the
time when the days begin to lengthen, indicating the
earth's return to life. The ancient Romans feasted and
reveled during the festival of Saturnalia. Early
Christians condemned these Roman celebrations. The
Christians were waiting for the end of the world and had
only scorn for earthly pleasures.
By the fourth century, the pagans were worshipping the
god of the sun on Dec. 25, and the Christians came to a
decision: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. They claimed
(contrary to accepted tradition) that the date was Jesus'
birthday, and they usurped the solstice holiday for their
Church.
Even after the Christians stole Christmas, they were
ambivalent about it. The holiday was inherently a pro-
life festival of earthly renewal, but the Christians
preached renunciation, sacrifice, and concern for the
next world, not this one.
Then came the major developments of 19th-century
capitalism - industrialization, urbanization, the triumph
of science - all of it leading to easy transportation,
efficient mail delivery, the widespread publishing of
books and magazines, inventions making life comfortable
and exciting, and the rise of entrepreneurs who
understood that the way to make a profit was to produce
something good and sell it to a mass market.
For the first time, the giving of gifts became a major
feature of Christmas. Thanks to capitalism, there was
enough wealth to make gifts possible, a great productive
apparatus to advertise them and make them available
cheaply, and a country so content that men wanted to
reach out to their friends and express their enjoyment of
life. The whole country took with glee to giving gifts on
an unprecedented scale.
Santa Claus is a thoroughly American invention. There was
a feeble holiday once connected to a St. Nicholas (on
Dec. 5). In 1822, an American named Clement Clarke Moore
wrote a poem about a visit from St. Nick. It was Moore
(and a few other New Yorkers) who invented St. Nick's
physical appearance and personality and came up with the
idea that Santa travels on Christmas Eve in a sleigh
pulled by reindeer, comes down the chimney, stuffs toys
in good children's stockings, then goes back to the North
Pole.
Of course, some denounced Santa as the Antichrist,
because he had succeeded in pushing Jesus to the
background.
Furthermore, Santa implicitly rejected the whole
Christian ethic. He did not denounce the rich and demand
that they give everything to the poor. On the contrary,
he gave gifts to rich and poor children alike.
Nor is Santa a champion of Christian mercy or
unconditional love. No, he is for justice - giving only
to good children, not bad ones.
All the best customs of Christmas - from carols to the
tree to spectacular decorations - have their roots in
pagan ideas and practices. And these customs have been
greatly amplified by American culture as the product of
reason, science, business, worldliness, egoism (i.e., the
pursuit of happiness).
America's tragedy is that its intellectual leaders have
typically tried to replace happiness with guilt by
insisting that the spiritual meaning of Christmas is
religion and self-sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his
equivalent.
The spiritual must start with recognizing reality: Life
requires reason, selfishness, capitalism. Those things
are what Christmas should celebrate - and, really,
beneath all the pretense, they are what Christmas
celebrates.
It is time to take the Christ out of Christmas and turn
the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason,
this-worldly, commercial celebration.
Leonard Peikoff, who founded the Ayn Rand Institute, is
the foremost authority on objectivism, the philosophy of
Ayn Rand.
Source - http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/99/Dec/25/opinion/PEIKOFF25.htm
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Subject: TV DOCUMENTARY SAYS VIRGIN MARY WAS RAPED
[ From: Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Message-ID: <Xtian-140...@news.mantra.com>
[ Date: December 24, 2002
TV doco claims Virgin Mary was raped
ninemsn.com
Monday, December 23, 2002
A Catholic bishop criticised a British television
documentary that suggests the Virgin Mary may have been
raped by a Roman soldier.
The Bishop of Portsmouth said the BBC program, The Virgin
Mary, was crude and offensive by disregarding the
concerns and beliefs of millions of Christians.
The controversy came as a survey revealed that a quarter
of Church of England clergy do not believe in the virgin
birth of Christ.
The Sunday Telegraph survey found that 27 per cent of 500
clerics questioned doubt privately the traditional story
of Jesus's birth.
The program questions the Bible's interpretation of the
Virgin Mary, suggesting she may even have been called
Miriam, and that she may have been raped by a Roman
soldier.
Other theories suggest her husband Joseph could have made
her pregnant or that she had an illicit affair. . . .
[...]
This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_44101.asp
News Plus
http://www.mantra.com/newsplus
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
In article <writing-05j9...@news.mantra.com>,
Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
Paulo Joe Jingy
Dr. Jai Maharaj
BBC Documentary on Virgin Mary Alarms Believers
Contains Offensive Speculations, Says Bishop
PORTSMOUTH, England, DEC. 18, 2002 (Zenit.org).- The BBC network is considering
the release of an offensive documentary on the Virgin Mary, according to
Catholic Church officials.
"I believe that, in an age when we are all doing our best to build up a world
of racial and religious tolerance, programs which, however unwittingly, attack
the icons of major religious faiths, are unwelcome and troubling," Bishop
Crispian Hollis of Portsmouth said, expressing his concerns over reports that
BBC is set to broadcast a program which claims to examine the life of the
Blessed Virgin.
The documentary reportedly presents a series of historical theories on Mary's
life including that Jesus was the offspring of a Roman soldier who raped her,
or possibly the result of an illicit affair.
Reports of the documentary emerged in the Catholic press late last week and
have triggered alarm within the Catholic and wider communities.
Bishop Hollis, the chairman of the Church's Strategic Media Committee and an
ex-BBC producer, has indicated that he plans to write to BBC director general
Greg Dyke, to express his concerns on behalf of the Catholic community of
England and Wales.
On Tuesday, Bishop Hollis said: "I believe very strongly that programs of this
nature should maintain sensitivity to those whose cherished beliefs are
concerned."
"The Virgin Mary is clearly a person whose life and times are immensely
important to the whole of Christian history," he added. "As Mother of God, she
is honored and venerated by millions of Catholics and other Christians within
these islands and all over the world."
"To include, within a historical examination of her life, confused and
unfounded guesswork, which carries with it crude and offensive speculation, is
not only unscholarly but runs the risk of undermining the very integrity of the
project itself," the bishop said.
ZENIT is an International News Agency.
Web page <http://www.zenit.org/>
Copyright 2001, Innovative Media, Inc.
Richard Emblem
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
I posted:
Dr. Jai Maharaj
posted for discussion
BBC defends Jesus documentary after 500 complaints
Ananova
Monday December 23, 2002 9:02 PM
A BBC programme that suggested the Virgin Mary might have been 13 when
she gave birth to Jesus has prompted more than 500 complaints.
The documentary, shown on BBC1 at 8pm last night, was condemned by
church groups before it was broadcast.
Virgin Mary led to a protest outside BBC TV headquarters in London
while it was being aired.
The programme speculated that Mary was probably just 13 when she gave
birth. It also considered, before rejecting, the possibility that the
Virgin Mary became pregnant after being raped by a Roman soldier.
Presented by Sue Johnston, the show also raised doubts about the birth
of Jesus in a Bethlehem stable and the presence of the Three Wise Men.
Before the show was broadcast, the Bishop of Portsmouth, the Rt Rev
Crispian Hollis, expressed his displeasure in a statement.
He said: "To include, within a historical examination of her life,
confused and unfounded guesswork, which carries with it crude and
offensive speculation, is not only unscholarly but runs the risk of
undermining the very integrity of the project itself."
But a BBC spokeswoman said that Bishop Hollis was commenting before
the programme was aired and was basing his views on "misleading
reports" that the show suggested Mary had been raped.
"The programme made it quite clear that this was anti-Christian
slander circulated about 100 years after Jesus' death," the
spokeswoman said.
She added that the majority of the "500-plus" complaints were received
before the show was broadcast.
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Previous posts:
Dr. Jai Maharaj
posted for discussion
Priest's book says Mary wasn't Virgin
By D Jose Thiruvananthapuram
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jun/22keral.htm
A Christian priest's book depicting Jesus Christ as the illicit son of a
Roman soldier and detailing his teenage sexual encounters has created a
furore in Kerala.
The book's author, T Samuel Nettiyadan, is at the receiving end from several
quarters for questioning the fundamental Christian faith that Jesus Christ
was born to Virgin Mary impregnated by the Holy Spirit. The St Thomas Mar
Thoma Syrian Church, to which he belongs, has excommunicated him.
The Syrian Church, which is considered tolerant to criticism and receptive
to fresh ideas compared to its sister denominations in the state, decided to
excommunicate the priest after a commission appointed by Archbishop
Alexandar Mar Thoma found him guilty of blasphemy.
The commission was of the view that the book -- Joseph Enna Thachan (Joseph,
the carpenter) -- was not only against the faith, but it also went against
the spirit of the oath the priest took before his ordination. The Church
Secretary said they were constrained to take the harsh step after
Nettiyadan, despite being given several opportunites to admit his mistake,
did not budge.
Nettiyadan, however, denies this. The ex-priest told this correspondent that
his four apologies and a personal affirmation of his faith in Jesus Christ
and Christianity before the Commission had failed to move the authorities.
He said he was prepared to even withdraw the book.
He felt that the punishment he got from the Church was too harsh. "We (his
family) have been totally alienated from the society after I was
excommunicated," he said and added that people around were looking at the
family with contempt.
His family, his wife and two children, are now living in Valakam near Kollam
district of Kerala struggling hard to make both ends met.
However, Nettiyadan has no regrets about writing the book, which he thinks
was essential to readjust the faith beyond the year 2000. ''I thought the
de-mythologisation of Christ was the best way for the people of the 21st
century to understand and believe in Christ.''
Although several books have been written on Christ and his life in
Malayalam, a priest questioning the Christianity's core of the divine birth
of Jesus Christ is unimaginable.
Almost all the writers who ventured into such an "adventure" have had to pay
heavy price. While noted Malayalam playwright Antony saw his play Holy Sixth
Wound banned by the state government allegedly under pressure from the
Church, famous writer Paul Zacharia had faced angry protests for portraying
the human sensibilities of Christ in his short story Kannadi Kanmolavum
(Till you see the mirror) published in 1997.
Nettiyadan does not boast of any historical evidence to back his work, which
he said, was intuitive.
Nettiyadan said that the subject used to haunt his mind since his seminary
days. "I nursed it in my mind for 18 years and one day suddenly everything
started becoming clear. I could not resist the inner urge to pen it down,''
he said.
In fact the foreword of the book is the description of the revelation the
author gets from Christ himself about his unexplored period of his life. The
44-year-old ex-priest said that the work was the fulfillment of the quest
for Jesus Christ taught in the seminary. He said that it was a critical
study of Jesus of history than the Jesus of faith.
Nettiyadan said he could not accept Jesus as described in the Bible, as it
seemed to be motivated writing.
Nettiyadan admits that the reading of the works of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and
Swami Vivekanada during his seminary days had greatly influenced his
thinking. "I felt myself frustrated after reading the works of the first two
authors. I came out of that after reading Vivekananda," he said.
The story-line of the book is very simple. Mary, who's engaged to Joseph, is
raped by a Roman soldier. Neither she nor her mother are in a position to
resist. The Roman centurion, who visits her hut regularly, stops coming
after learning about the pregnancy. The news is received by Joseph with
shock and he backs out of the marriage.
However, the two come together accidentally and live an ordinary life.
Jesus, who is helping his father in carpentry, finds a lover in Mary's
widowed sister's daughter. Bewitched by her beauty, he regularly visits her
until he decides to answer the God's call to become the liberator of the
humanity.
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jun/22keral.htm
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Previous posts follow:
Paulo Joe Jingy
Paulo Joe Jingy
Paulo Joe Jingy
Snoopy
Johnny Judas Jay "Can't Understand Normal Thinking" Maharaj wrote:
> Forwarded message from "Tulsidas19" <tulsi...@hotmail.com>
> posted for discussion
>
> Priest's book says Mary wasn't Virgin
>
> By D Jose Thiruvananthapuram
>
> http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jun/22keral.htm
>
> A Christian priest's book depicting Jesus Christ as the illicit son of a
> Roman soldier and detailing his teenage sexual encounters has created a
> furore in Kerala.
>
>[....]
>
> Nettiyadan does not boast of any historical evidence to back his work, which
> he said, was intuitive.
>
> [....]
>
> In fact the foreword of the book is the description of the revelation the
> author gets from Christ himself about his unexplored period of his life. The
> 44-year-old ex-priest said that the work was the fulfillment of the quest
> for Jesus Christ taught in the seminary. He said that it was a critical
> study of Jesus of history than the Jesus of faith.
A "critical historical study" with no historical evidence to back it up?
That's sounds so much like the philosophy behind asstrollogy, n'est pas,
Johnny boya? And so predictable that assholes like tulsidas19 would
seize on this as "evidence". Now, if you and that tulsidas feller would
try to rectify the abominations still existing in Indian society today,
instead of merely directing venom elsewhere, you might actually do some
good. But, being a trained asstrolloger, doing good is not one of your
aspirations......
Got mangoes, boya?
Snoopy
Johnny Judas Jay "I can't help being a f**king d*ckhead" Maharaj wrote:
> Let's see: Dec. 25 was originally a Pagan holiday.
> Jesus was born some other day. And Santa? A U.S.
> invention.
So f**king what, asshole? Why don't you stick to scamming people with
your "the stars tell the future" bullshit? You are doing incredible
damage in these newgroups to the image of India and Indians, and you are
ruining any goodwill that may have existed for that country and it's
people. You think you are doing something positive for India or for
Hindus? WRONG, ASSHOLE!! Your posts are leading to the general
impression among non-Indian newsgroup readers that Indians are a bunch
of assholes with views like yours. Now go get your rusty flintlock,
clean it up, load it and blow your stupid head off, you jyotishit!
Got mangoes, you piece of jyotishit?
Sean O'Hara
declared...
Yes, Mary was a common name in Greece prior to the rise of
Christianity. Absolute historical fact.
I believe he means that the three Mary's mirror the three Fates
of Greek mythology (and the three Norns of Norse mythology) --
the Virgin, Whore, and Crone.
--
Sean O'Hara
"Harry goes through absolute hell every time he returns to school.
So I think that a bit of snogging would alleviate matters."
--J.K. Rowling
Paulo Joe Jingy
> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Paulo Joe Jingy
> declared...
>
>>ProdInAHat wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, bare the same relationship to history as
>>>>characters like Arthur, Moses, and Robin Hood.
>>>
>>>The "Three Marys" also have twin-sisters in Greek mythology. It's surprising
>>>how much 'myth' was assimilated.
>>
>>Because Mary happened to be a common name, it *somehow* means that Mary,
>>the mother of Jesus was somehow assimilated from the "twin sisters of
>>Greek mythology"?
>>
>
> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>
Ummm, I don't want to interrupt you during mid-laugh, but I never
claimed Mary, the mother of Jesus, was Greek.
> I believe he means that the three Mary's mirror the three Fates
> of Greek mythology (and the three Norns of Norse mythology) --
> the Virgin, Whore, and Crone.
Really--in what way? I mean they absolutely don't apply to Mary, the
mother of Jesus, except in some peoples strange imaginations. There's
no connection.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sean O'Hara
declared...
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
> > In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Paulo Joe Jingy
> > declared...
> >
> > of Greek mythology (and the three Norns of Norse mythology) --
> > the Virgin, Whore, and Crone.
>
> Really--in what way? I mean they absolutely don't apply to Mary, the
> mother of Jesus, except in some peoples strange imaginations. There's
> no connection.
>
three Marys who appeared at the cross in John 18:25 -- Mary the
Virgin, Mary Magdalene the Whore, and the Mary the sister of the
Virgin Mary (!) who's there to fill out the trifecta. This is
explicit in the gnostic tradition, particularly the Gospel of
Mary Magdalene, where they're treated as a single godhead, a
female trinity. If this is an invention of people's imaginations,
its as old as Christianity itself.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Paulo Joe Jingy
> declared...
>
>>Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>>In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Paulo Joe Jingy
>>>declared...
>>>
>>
>> > I believe he means that the three Mary's mirror the three Fates
>> > of Greek mythology (and the three Norns of Norse mythology) --
>> > the Virgin, Whore, and Crone.
>>
>>Really--in what way? I mean they absolutely don't apply to Mary, the
>>mother of Jesus, except in some peoples strange imaginations. There's
>>no connection.
>>
>
> But we aren't just talking about the Virgin Mary; the subject is the
> three Marys who appeared at the cross in John 18:25 -- Mary the
> Virgin, Mary Magdalene the Whore, and the Mary the sister of the
> Virgin Mary (!) who's there to fill out the trifecta. This is
> explicit in the gnostic tradition, particularly the Gospel of
> Mary Magdalene, where they're treated as a single godhead, a
> female trinity.
"Gnostic tradition" has nothing to do with Christianity. If you want to
delve into conspiracy theories and groundless suppositions, you can (if
you'll pardon the expression) get into all kinds of weird shit.
> If this is an invention of people's imaginations,
> its as old as Christianity itself.
Yeah? And your point is?... I mean Christ lived on earth, as a man,
only 2000 years ago. People were inventing false religions long before
that.
(Kind of abandoned the Greek mythology angle, eh? And after it gave you
should a good laugh too). Oh well--on to something new in the next
post, I suppose.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
ProdInAHat
184733.news.dfncis.de:
>
> (Kind of abandoned the Greek mythology angle, eh? And after it gave you
> should a good laugh too). Oh well--on to something new in the next
> post, I suppose.
>
>
As Sean O'Hara has already explained, The Three Moerae are represented by
the Three Marys and to an extent the Holy Trinity itself.
You obviously think that Christianity rose anew like a Phoenix from the
ashes of old Rome--simply not the case.
Ramsay MacMullen has given the most eloquent and learned wake-up call on
the subject. To paraphrase: "In the opening century or two of their
existence as a religious community, Christians lacked a distinctive poetry,
rhetoric, drama, architecture, painting, sculpture, music, or dance--all,
arts serving the older faith richly...They had almost no special language
of gestures or symbols in which to express their feelings or their wishes
to, or regarding, the divine, such as pagans had developed; nor were they
sure how to conceive or address most superhuman powers acknowledged in
their world: the souls of their dead, heroes or holy men, angels or
prophets, Abrasax or Solomon.........The grand event which I have tried to
describe did not and could not conclude in any sort of a total eclipse or
displacement of the past. The triumph of the church was one not of
obliteration but of widening embrace and assimilation."
ProdInAHat
184733.news.dfncis.de:
>
> I love the qualifiers. You say, Jesus *may* have actually existed in
> the flesh. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed in the flesh,
> than there is for many historical characters that I'm sure you take for
> granted.
the Titulus Cruces looks like being pretty convincing evidence of this,
although it remains to be seen. Wish they would allow carobon dating--
fascinating.
geoff alexander
> nmstevens wrote:
> >
> >>Sean wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article "Re: HARRY POTTER'S MAGIC BANNED BY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL"
> >>>Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>What about "The Lord of the Rings?" Written by a Catholic, who actually
> >>>>had enough intelligence to tell the difference between myth and religion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Would you care to say more about the difference?
> >>>
> >>>To me they're the same, except that "myth" is someone else's
> >>>religion.
> >>
> >>I could be wrong (I hope I'm not)--but I don't think anyone worships the
> >>mythological creatures that J.R.R. Tolkien invented for "The Lord of the
> >>Rings".
> >>
> >>As a Catholic, J.R.R Tolkien worshiped God. He didn't confuse God with
> >>the creatures he invented.
> >>
> >>fictional character) and "Jesus Christ" (a historical fact).
> >>
Which religion has been proven false?
G
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:bed4qc$3q625$1@ID-
> 184733.news.dfncis.de:
>
>
>>(Kind of abandoned the Greek mythology angle, eh? And after it gave you
>>should a good laugh too). Oh well--on to something new in the next
>>post, I suppose.
>>
>>
>
>
> As Sean O'Hara has already explained, The Three Moerae are represented by
> the Three Marys and to an extent the Holy Trinity itself.
And as I explained--that's one hell of a stretch. But it shows
imagination. It is no where near the realm of proven fact, you seem to
imagine it is.
> You obviously think that Christianity rose anew like a Phoenix from the
> ashes of old Rome--simply not the case.
You obviously don't know what I "obviously think".
> Ramsay MacMullen has given the most eloquent and learned wake-up call on
> the subject. To paraphrase: "In the opening century or two of their
> existence as a religious community, Christians lacked a distinctive poetry,
> rhetoric, drama, architecture, painting, sculpture, music, or dance--all,
> arts serving the older faith richly...They had almost no special language
> of gestures or symbols in which to express their feelings or their wishes
> to, or regarding, the divine, such as pagans had developed; nor were they
> sure how to conceive or address most superhuman powers acknowledged in
> their world: the souls of their dead, heroes or holy men, angels or
> prophets, Abrasax or Solomon.........The grand event which I have tried to
> describe did not and could not conclude in any sort of a total eclipse or
> displacement of the past. The triumph of the church was one not of
> obliteration but of widening embrace and assimilation."
With all due respect, the opinions of Ramsay MacMullen, don't mean shit
to me. In fact this is the first time I've heard of him, and it will
probably be the last time I ever hear of him.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
nmstevens
> nmstevens wrote:
> > Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<beb4hk$35aug$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>...
> >
> >>nmstevens wrote:
>
> >>At least one religion is based on fact and faith: Christianity. Fact:
> >> Jesus Christ lived, as a man on earth. Faith: Jesus is the Christ,
> >>the Son of the living God.
Okay -- I actually wrote a rather lengthy reply which I then
inadvertently obliterated it, so I don't know to what extent I'll
have the patience to recapitulate it but what the heck.
Two different entitities which you seem to use interchangeably and
which, I fear, tends to confuse the issue.
You say, "Jesus Christ lived -- as a man."
Faith -- Jesus is the Christ."
But those are two very different things.
Jesus as man and Jesus as Christ.
First statement -- Jesus of Nazareth lived sometime in the first
century -- the evidence is, while far from certain in support of this
claim, it's more likely true than not that this is correct.
Second statement -- Jesus, son of God, born of a woman impregnated by
God etc., etc., etc., -- is not, so far as I can see, even a
statement that can be meaningfully addressed in historical terms. It
can only be addressed as a matter of divine revelation and thus of
religious faith.
I'm sorry that you don't like qualifiers, because when you enter the
realms of history, you're stuck with them. That's what you're always
dealing with in any area when you deal with matters of testimony and
hearsay and circumstantial and archeological evidence. Ultimately, the
most that you can say is that the supporting evidence for a conclusion
is so strong that to reject it would simply be perverse. That's when
you start calling things "facts" -- but really they're simply very
strong conclusions. And sometimes such "facts" have the unfortunate
tendency to abruptly undergo sea changes in the face of new evidence,
either pro or con. It used to be a "fact" that Troy was just a myth,
no less than the Island of the Cyclops or Asgard -- until they found
it.
Now it's existence is no less a "fact" that its non-existence used to
be.
And given the nature of historical evidence, there are many areas
where our conclusions are necessarily, and perhaps permanently
uncertain. Did Nero burn down Rome? Some evidence pro, other evidence
con. The reality is -- the issue may never truly be resolved.
Likewise as we move back through history we tend to pass inevitably
into this realm of half-history half-mythology. The History of the
Kings of England goes all the way back to Arthur -- who, though he may
have had some origin in early tribal Britain, was, as the myth was
codified in Morte d'Arthur and other works, is almost entirely untrue.
But there it is, incorporated in a work of History.
Even in things like the works of Suetonius, he reports along with the
various works, both good and bad of the early emperors of Rome, with
no irony whatsoever, the supernatural "omens" that foretold their
comings and goings.
How then are historians to deal with such materials? What criteria are
they to use when confronted with these ancient works? Clearly, some
things in them are likely to be quite accurate, others things utterly
imaginary, and other things somewhere in between, with no definitive
way to sort them out. Ultimately, historians, in analyzing ancient
works, can never do more than rate such material as being more or less
likely to be true and essentially leave it at that, barring some new
evidence or new basis for analysis.
Qualifiers, unfortunately, are the name of the game. Unqualified
Facts, as such, are often few and far between.
> >>
>
> > Well, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, bare the same relationship to history as
> > characters like Arthur, Moses, and Robin Hood. That is, while they
> > *may* have had actual, physical historical precursors in the flesh -
>
> I love the qualifiers. You say, Jesus *may* have actually existed in
> the flesh. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed in the flesh,
> than there is for many historical characters that I'm sure you take for
> granted.
>
> > who those real life people may have been we really know virtually
> > nothing about -- the real historical kernels have been so subsumed in
> > (pardon the expression) mythology that our ability to make any
> > reliable historical statements about them at all -- in the sense that
> > we can make such statements about, say, the latter Biblical Kings, is
> > very limited.
>
> Why do you say that? People had invented writing long before Jesus
> Christ existed. Are you suggesting that they were unable to record
> history, at the time of Jesus? As I said before--even the enemies of
> Christianity have admitted the existence of Jesus Christ for over 2000
> years.
Well, so far as I know -- nobody did. That is, so far as I know, he
wrote nothing down. No first hand witness of anything that he said,
wrote anything down. So far as I know, the earliest writings of the
New Testament appear generations after the last person who might ever
have laid eyes on him was long dead. Am I mistaken in this?
In any case -- Jesus in what sense? The Jesus that was a carpenter?
The Jesus that was born of a virgin mother impregnated by God? The
Jesus that was visited by three wise men guided by a star that no one
else on earth seemed to notice or report having seen? The Jesus that
overturned the carts by the temple? That preached the sermon on the
mount? That walked on water? That raised the dead? That, himself, died
and came back from the dead?
Where then, do we draw the line between the so called "historical"
Jesus -- Jesus the man and Jesus the Christ -- Jesus the son of God,
Jesus in whom you believe not based upon historical evidence but as a
matter of religious revelation.
It raises and interesting point because Thomas Jefferson did exactly
that -- he went through the New Testament and literally cut out
everything that he considered to be "illegitimate" -- by which, in his
mind, meant anything that was in any sense supernatural. In his
opinion, Jesus was completely human, a philosopher and a rebel - he
didn't buy any of that "son of God" stuff -- and he created his own
version of the New Testatment to reflect that sense of what he
considered the "real" Bible to be. He believed that all of that other
stuff had been added in later and that he was essentially bringing the
Bible back to the original version -- bringing Jesus back to the
original man that he had actually been.
>
> ---snip---
>
> > The two must stand as fundamentally different things. Your faith,
> > however substantial, is not built on "historical facts." Those facts,
> > in truth, are about as substantial as the facts that support the
> > historical existence of Roland, Robin Hood, and Agammemnon.
>
> In your opinion. You'll notice, in my original message I very carefully
> described Jesus Christ "as a historical fact". I very carefully avoided
> calling him God, or the Son of God. I didn't mention faith, at that
> time. The fact that you have trouble even admitting that Jesus "walked
> in the flesh" shows more about your views of religion, than your grasp
> of "historical fact".
Well -- a problem in terminology. You cannot refer to him as "Jesus
Christ" without, in fact, referring to him as a Deity -- that what the
"christ" part means.
I think that it is more likely than not that Jesus had some historical
counterpart -- but to what extent that counterpart resembles that
person described in the Bible is, I believe, simply impossible ever to
determine. What he actually did, what he actually said, how he
actually lived -- so much of his life had gone through so much editing
and retelling and processing during the years it moved from being a
life lived on earth to becoming a faith fought over, argued over, and
ultimated crytallized into a particular form, that I cannot imagine
how we could ever (short of discovering some literally untainted
contemporary account -- which I doubt we ever will) come close to
determining with any degree of reliability, just what the contemporary
life of Jesus was actually like. Of any particular thing you might say
-- sure, maybe he did overturn the carts in temple. Maybe he did
deliver the sermon on the mount. Maybe he did. Maybe he did have those
disciples -- or maybe not.
The nature of the evidence is simply intrinsically uncertain. And the
certainty of your faith makes no impression upon the inherent
uncertainty of the evidence.
>
> > Which is not to say that those men did *not* exist -- but historical
> > *facts?* -- that's putting the case a wee bit too strongly.
>
> Once again--here's what I said in my original message.
>
> "And there's a world of difference between "Gandalf the Grey" (a
> fictional character) and "Jesus Christ" (a historical fact)."
>
> I was very specific. I limited my discussion to the fact that unlike
> "Gandalf the Grey", "Jesus Christ" really existed. Historical evidence
> supports me, on this.
But again "existed" in what sense -- to what extent? Existed as a man
who was a carpenter, as a man who preached against the corruption of
his times, as someone who claimed to be the messiah and was crucified
-- or as someone was literally god come down to earth to redeem the
human race?
As "historical facts" -- these fall into rather very distinct and
different claims.
>
> > But from the perspective of religous faith -- what difference does it
> > make? It's not based on the evidence anyway.
>
> It can be. This evidence is called miracles. Miracles are supernatural
> (above nature). They can't be explained by natural causes. But they
> have been witnessed and documented. And in many cases they have been
> witnessed and documented by *secular* and skeptical men and women.
> People not inclined to believe in the supernatural.
>
> But you are right that my religion is based on faith. If people refuse
> to believe, they'll refuse to believe miracles, too. I believe in Jesus
> Christ, by faith. You believe that he didn't exist (or at least isn't
> God), by faith.
Yes, you believe that that thread will hold your weight by faith --
and I believe that it won't -- by faith. Right. Both just exactly the
same.
But what you pose above raises a real question that historians, and
especially religious historians, I believe, have to contend with.
Inevitably, in attempting to curry truth out of ancient documents, to
distinguish things that are likely to be true, likely to be false, and
somewhere in the middle, historians inevitably apply certain basic
criteria to any ancient text. Some things that are, for instance,
strongly supported by, say, many other contemporaneous documents
already known, by archeological evidence already in existence -- those
things are likely to be judged as true (at least as far as you can).
So, for instance, descriptions of chariots in the Illiad match what we
see on countless paintings on pottery and carvings we've discovered in
archeological sites -- so it's a pretty good bet that their chariots
did, in fact look pretty much as they were described. On the other
hand, accounts of things that are simply impossible and magical --
things like Cyclops and Laestrygonians and Athena stopping the sun
from rising so that Odysseus can have an extra long shag with Penelope
-- those things historians classify -- because they know that
impossible things can't happen -- as not true -- and they go on the
scrap heap. Then they have other things in between. Maybe the Greeks
did or didn't lay seige to Troy -- right now there's no real way to be
sure.
Well -- that seems like a very reasonable approach for an historian to
to take with any ancient text -- works perfectly well with the Illiad
-- with Morte d'Arthur, with Gilgamesh -- and as far I'm concerned, it
would work equally well with the Bible. Moses parting the Red sea goes
on the same scrap heap with Pharoah's magician parting the Nile so
that the Pharoah's wife can recover a lost broach. God impregnating
Mary goes on the same scrap heap as Zeus impregnating all the women he
was supposed to have impregnated.
In other words, when you approach the Bible as an historical text, you
treat it in precisely the same way as you would treat any other
historical document -- it receives no special treatment. That means
that you exclude from serious consideration, all of the patently
impossible supernatural junk that you would, in the normal course of
events exclude from seriously considering were it any other ancient
text.
Were one to do otherwise, would it not inevitably constitute a double
standard -- essentially saying, "Well, we're going to treat this book
differently, because we know a priori, that this one is true, as
distinct from all those other books, that we already know are false."
Says who?
>
> > If it was, you'd reject it -- just the way you reject Zeus, and
> > Athena, and Thor and all those other gods, because the available
> > evidence tells you that they are simply absurd.
>
> I reject Zeus, Athena and Thor. I don't reject that there is still a
> false religion, called "Odinism". Or that some people still worship
> Zeus and Athena. The numbers may be small, but they are still there.
So far as I can tell, you must necessarily conclude that all religions
save one are false.
I agree with you -- I just happen to think that one additional
religion is also false.
Oh -- and are absolutely sure that that's "Odinism" and not "Onanism"
?
NMS
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Which religion has been proven false?
For one--the religion of "Paulo Joe Jingy is Yer Good Buddy and Savior"
It was proven absolutely false just two months ago.
Damn--Geoff, you need to keep up.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
nmstevens
> RonB wrote on 07 Jul 2003:
>
> > If anything, what you will find in Tolkien's
> > "mythology" is his Catholic belief in the black and white concepts of
> > right and wrong. Many see in Galadriel an echo of the Virgin Mary. But
> > Tolkien would deny it. It is clear, however, that Tolkien superimposed
> > Christian concepts of good and evil on top of the mythology he borrowed
> > and created.
>
> A few excerpts from Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories."
> (Taken from: http://sff.net/people/Sherwood/reading/fairy.htm)
>
> ----
> The 'consolation' of fairy-tales has another aspect than the imaginative
> satisfaction of ancient desires. Far more important is the Consolation of
> the Happy Ending. Almost I would venture to assert that all complete
> fairy-stories must have it. At least I would say that Tragedy is the true
> form of Drama, its highest function; but the opposite is true of Fairy-
> story. Since we do not appear to possess a word that expresses this
> opposite--I will call it Eucatastrophe. The eucatastrophic tale is the
> true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function.
>
>
> The consolation of fairy-stories, the joy of the happy ending: or more
> correctly of the good catastrophe, the sudden joyous 'turn' (for there is
> no true end to any fairy tale): this joy, which is one of the things which
> fairy-stories can produce supremely well, is not essentially 'escapist',
> nor 'fugitive'. In its fairy-tale--or other world--setting, it is a sudden
> and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny
> the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure; the possibility of
> these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of
> much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is
> evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the
> world, poignant as grief.
>
>
> It is the mark of a good fairy-story, of the higher or more complete kind,
> that however wild its events, however fantastic or terrible the
> adventures, it can give to child or man that hears it, when the 'turn'
> comes, a catch of the breath, a beat and lifting of the heart, near to (or
> indeed accompanied by) tears, as keen as that given by any form of
> literary art, and having a peculiar quality.
>
>
> The peculiar quality of...'joy' in successful Fantasy can...be explained
> as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a
> 'consolation' for the sorrow of this world, but a satisfaction, and an
> answer to that question, 'Is it true?' The answer to this question that I
> gave at first was (quite rightly): 'If you have built your little world
> well, yes: it is true in that world.' That is enough for the artist...But
> in the 'eucatastrophe' we see in a brief vision that the answer may be
> greater--it may be a far-off gleam or echo or evangelium in the real
> world.
> ----
I've read about Tolkien's notion of "eucatastrophe" in the context of
the fairy story -- the miraculous deliverance -- the kiss which brings
the dead Snow White back to life -- and I think it's a rather
interesting idea to contemplate in the context of "Lord of the Rings"
-- because of it's absence.
Rather I think that it is the deeper sense of Lord of the Rings -- of
the price of victory -- that Frodo, in fact, must ultimately pay the
price of being a ring bearer -- yes he gets to go to the grey havens
in the end -- but this is hardly a triumphant ending. That which he
most desires -- that which he has fought for -- the salvation of the
shire -- in the end, he achieves, but he cannot share. The experience
of the wide world claims him in the end. He pays the price of victory
with his life.
It is that bittersweet ending of the LOTR -- that larger message of
the price of victory, even for the kindest and the most noble of
heroes, that I think elevates that story. There truly is no "happily
ever after" -- there are prices to be paid -- wounds that don't heal
-- and what makes you hero, ultimately, is the willingness to suffer
those wounds, and pay that price.
NMS
AuntieLib
> "Gnostic tradition" has nothing to do with Christianity.
Except that it is a direct offshoot and Gnosticism is a branch of
Christianity. (Minor detail.)
> If you want to delve into conspiracy theories and groundless suppositions,
> you can (if you'll pardon the expression) get into all kinds of weird shit.
>
> > If this is an invention of people's imaginations, its as old as
> > Christianity itself.
>
> Yeah? And your point is?... I mean Christ lived on earth, as a man,
> only 2000 years ago.
Got evidence? (It amazes me how many Christians are convinced that
their religion is based on some set of facts unique to Jesus Christ
and, when asked to produce these facts, find out they ain't got shit.)
> People were inventing false religions long before that.
Of course. And the fact that the myth of Jesus was taken almost
verbatim from myths of Mithras (and Zeus and Osiris) establishes Jesus
as the One Really True Not Mythical Religion how? The life and death
of Jesus is just one more myth, and not an original one, at that. The
whole virgin birth, born humbly in a stable, performed miracles, was
crucified and resurrected schtick was old even 2000 years ago when
they used it to create a religion around some guy named Yeshua who may
or may not have even existed.
elizabeth
Sean O'Hara
declared...
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
> >
> > But we aren't just talking about the Virgin Mary; the subject is the
> > three Marys who appeared at the cross in John 18:25 -- Mary the
> > Virgin, Mary Magdalene the Whore, and the Mary the sister of the
> > Virgin Mary (!) who's there to fill out the trifecta. This is
> > explicit in the gnostic tradition, particularly the Gospel of
> > Mary Magdalene, where they're treated as a single godhead, a
> > female trinity.
>
> "Gnostic tradition" has nothing to do with Christianity.
Really? You mean the Gnostics weren't one of the many Christian
sects wiped out by the Catholics in the early first millenium?
The history of Christianity sounds very different in your world.
> If you want to
> delve into conspiracy theories and groundless suppositions, you can (if
> you'll pardon the expression) get into all kinds of weird shit.
>
> > If this is an invention of people's imaginations,
> > its as old as Christianity itself.
>
> Yeah? And your point is?... I mean Christ lived on earth, as a man,
> only 2000 years ago. People were inventing false religions long before
> that.
>
But Gnosticism is a branch of Christianity, which you obviously
don't believe is a false religion. So why do you discount the
Gnostic beliefs? Because some *Pope* almost two thousand years
ago declared them heretical? Because a highly politicized
committee in Nicaea decided Gnostic tinged works shouldn't be
part of the canon?
Seriously, I suggest you go to the library and find some books on
the early history of Christianity.
> (Kind of abandoned the Greek mythology angle, eh? And after it gave you
> should a good laugh too). Oh well--on to something new in the next
> post, I suppose.
>
No, I explained exactly how the three Marys at the cross resemble
the Fates and pointed you to the scriptures.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Paulo Joe Jingy
> declared...
>
>>Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>>But we aren't just talking about the Virgin Mary; the subject is the
>>>three Marys who appeared at the cross in John 18:25 -- Mary the
>>>Virgin, Mary Magdalene the Whore, and the Mary the sister of the
>>>Virgin Mary (!) who's there to fill out the trifecta. This is
>>>explicit in the gnostic tradition, particularly the Gospel of
>>>Mary Magdalene, where they're treated as a single godhead, a
>>>female trinity.
>>
>>"Gnostic tradition" has nothing to do with Christianity.
>
>
> Really? You mean the Gnostics weren't one of the many Christian
> sects wiped out by the Catholics in the early first millenium?
> The history of Christianity sounds very different in your world.
My world is called "The Real World". Welcome.
>>If you want to
>>delve into conspiracy theories and groundless suppositions, you can (if
>>you'll pardon the expression) get into all kinds of weird shit.
>>
>>
>>>If this is an invention of people's imaginations,
>>>its as old as Christianity itself.
>>
>>Yeah? And your point is?... I mean Christ lived on earth, as a man,
>>only 2000 years ago. People were inventing false religions long before
>>that.
>>
>
> But Gnosticism is a branch of Christianity, which you obviously
> don't believe is a false religion. So why do you discount the
> Gnostic beliefs? Because some *Pope* almost two thousand years
> ago declared them heretical? Because a highly politicized
> committee in Nicaea decided Gnostic tinged works shouldn't be
> part of the canon?
You're going to have to take a breath. Somebody has got you all wound up.
> Seriously, I suggest you go to the library and find some books on
> the early history of Christianity.
You mean books "on the early history of Christianity", by the enemies of
Christianity? Those who have an interest in discrediting Christianity?
>>(Kind of abandoned the Greek mythology angle, eh? And after it gave you
>>should a good laugh too). Oh well--on to something new in the next
>>post, I suppose.
>>
>
> No, I explained exactly how the three Marys at the cross resemble
> the Fates and pointed you to the scriptures.
Like I said, someone's has you all cranked up. C'mon--admit it--you
wouldn't have seen this "so-called resemblance" if somebody hadn't
mentioned it in a book, somewhere. It's not obvious. It doesn't beg to
be noticed.
It's genesis began with someone, somewhere, desperately clutching at
straws. Someone, somewhere, who would like to discredit Christianity.
Isn't that right?
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Roger Pearse
> > "Gnostic tradition" has nothing to do with Christianity.
>
> Really? You mean the Gnostics weren't one of the many Christian
> sects wiped out by the Catholics in the early first millenium?
Gnosticism was not a Christian movement, but one deriving mainly from
pop-paganism, according to the disciples of the apostles, such as
Irenaeus, Tertullian. They said it obtained its ideas from
contemporary paganism, and drew of tables of which group pinched what
from whom. Since gnostic groups felt able to alter their teachings ad
hoc, there can be little doubt that they invented rather than
inherited their ideas.
In every age, certain ideas are fashionable, and there are always
people who want to stick Christian labels on them and pretend that
they are part of Christianity. At one time it was colonialism; then
socialism. At this instant, the liberal establishment in Britain is
appointing senior Anglican clergy purely on the basis that they adhere
to liberal ideas about homosexuality in preference to biblical ones.
So I'm not sure why it should surprise us that the same sort of thing
happened in the second century.
> But Gnosticism is a branch of Christianity, which you obviously
> don't believe is a false religion. So why do you discount the
> Gnostic beliefs? Because some *Pope* almost two thousand years
> ago declared them heretical?
Which pope? Gnosticism was always a heresy -- the word haeresis
itself comes from the pop-pagan groups of philosophical sects.
Gnosticism is a fake, because the gnostics made up their ideas
themselves. You seem very unsceptical about these old phonies -- why
is this?
> Because a highly politicized
> committee in Nicaea decided Gnostic tinged works shouldn't be
> part of the canon?
The council of Nicaea made no statements about the canon of scripture.
The whole idea that the bible was decided at Nicaea is a myth.
Gnosticism was of little concern anyway at that date -- it's really a
second-century movement. Nicaea was about Arianism.
> Seriously, I suggest you go to the library and find some books on
> the early history of Christianity.
A very unfortunate comment, in view of your post. You need to be much
more sceptical of what people tell you. There's all these old hippies
going around spouting nonsense, and it is always a good idea to verify
them against the original documents.
> No, I explained exactly how the three Marys at the cross resemble
> the Fates and pointed you to the scriptures.
I think Erich von Daniken did this sort of thing better. At least his
books were fun to read!
All the best,
Roger Pearse
ProdInAHat
>> Seriously, I suggest you go to the library and find some books on
>> the early history of Christianity.
>
> A very unfortunate comment, in view of your post.
You must have prosthetic feet by now Roger. Hope they are still an
insurable risk.
RonB
news:3a88eeea.03071...@posting.google.com:
> Gnosticism was not a Christian movement, but one deriving mainly from
> pop-paganism, according to the disciples of the apostles, such as
> Irenaeus, Tertullian.
<snip>
Good post.
--
RonB
"there's a story there...somewhere"
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Paul N. Tobin
Christian Missionaries
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/mission.html
Missionaries had always held a heroic and romantic place
within the Christian imagination. Even today churches
regularly collect contributions for the mission field.
The reality, of course, is very different. From its very
beginnings, Christian missionaries had inflicted
tremendous harm on the peoples they "witness" to.
In the past, the damage done by missionaries were shared
equally between the Protestant and Catholic churches.
Today, most of the damage is done by fundamentalist,
pentacostal and evangelical protestant sects, mostly from
the US, Canada and Europe. Numbering about 80,000 strong
[1] these fundamentalist missionaries spread like locusts
throughout the world. Their destruction of native
cultures, and in some cases actually causing the deaths
of these natives, can only be described as a modern
cultural and genocidal holocaust.
We will look at missionary activities in all the major
"mission fields" of the world
o The South Pacific
o Africa
o Asia
o South America
The South Pacific
One of the earliest accounts of the evils committed by
Christian missionaries in their conversion of native
tribes is that of the conversion of the Tahitians. In
1797, thirty years after the discovery of Tahiti by
Wallis, the first missionaries landed on the island. The
missionaries, sent by the London Missionary Society,
tried for seven years to convert the natives but were
unable to make any headway.
It was then that they discovered, as if by miracle, the
proper method of converting the Tahitians. They
discovered that the local chief, Pomare, liked alcohol
(distilled by the missionaries) so much that he became an
alcoholic. Addicted to the distilled spirit (perhaps the
holy spirit), Pomare agreed to back the missionaries in
their work of conversion. Pomare, supplied with western
firearms, easily subdued his native opponents. Upon his
victory over his rivals, the whole island was forcibly
converted in one day.
Then the process of inculcating "Christian virtues"
began. Persistent unbelievers, those who refused to be
converted, were executed. Singing was banned (except for
hymns) and all forms of adornment, flowers or tattoo were
disallowed. Of course, surfing and dancing were not
permitted as well. The punishment for breaking any of
these rules included, among others, being sentenced to
hard labour.
Within thirty years of missionary control, the population
of Tahiti fell from an inital estimate of 20,000 to
6,000.
From Tahiti, the missionaries moved on to the
neighbouring islands. Employing the same tactic that had
served them so well. The local chief would be introduced
to alcohol, made into an alcoholic, converted and then
left to convert the locals. After converting the
majority, the oppression of the ones who held on to their
tradition began. On the island of Raratonga, men were
conscripted into the missionary police to help eliminate
the remaining idolators. On another island, Raiatea, a
man who was able to forecast the weather by studying the
behaviour of fish was executed for witchcraft.
This was how the South Pacific was Christianized. [2]
Africa
Africa is widely considered to be a missionary success
story. Sub-Saharan Africa is widely considered to be the
most Christianized place on earth. Kenya, for instance,
has 65% of its population claiming to be active
Christians. [active meaning church-going]. In Malawi, 68%
of the populace made the same claim. The Democratic
Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) has nearly 200 times
as many evangelical Christians as it former colonial
master, Belgium.[3]
Perhaps the most famous missionary to Africa was David
Livingstone (1813-1873). Livingstone spoke of "the white
man's burden" to evangelize and civilize the peoples of
Africa. (Nobody bothered the ask the Africans what they
thought of this!). A rarely know fact about Livingstone
is that, as a missionary, his mission to Africa was a
complete failure. Throughout his many years in Africa he
made only one known convert. Even this convert, Sechele,
eventually lapsed from his faith. Yet it was Livingstone,
through his book Missionary Travels and Researches in
South Africa (1857) and through his lectures in England,
who introduced a whole new group of Europeans to the
"romance" of missionary activities.[4]
Yet, in reality missionary activities were anything but
romantic. Many of the missionaries' attempts to free
slaves and teach them Christianity amounted to no more
than changing one form of slavery to another. Given below
is an account of how the Holy Ghost Fathers, a missionary
group in the second half of the ninenteenth century, go
about "freeing" and Christianizing the slaves:
In 1868 the Holy Ghost Fathers chose Bagamoyo as the
site of the first mission station on the East African
mainland...Their ambition was to build a Christian
community of freed slaves. Ransoms were paid to slave
traders for the freedom of thousands to slaves. Most
of those released were placed in "Freedom Village" on
the mission compound, but they soon discovered that
their freedom was not absolute. The disciplinary code
enforced by the missionaries were severe, with a
rigorous timetable of work, Christian education and
prayers. As the baptised ex-slaves grew up, they were
married off in batches and resettled under the
authority of a missionary priest in a Christian
village somewhere inland. [5]
The anthropologist Jaques Maquet had called missionary
activities in Africa a "religious commando attack, aimed
at extirpating 'superstitious and idolatrous' practices
and converting whole groups." [6]
The missionaries in general have little regard for
African cultures and regard their peoples as ignorant
savages. One early twentieth century methodist missionary
in Umtali, Zimbabwe, wrote of the people he had set out
to evangelize: "Heathen and naked as new born babies, and
as ignorant as beetles." The solution was simple, educate
the children away from their parents and give them
western clothing to wear to cover their naked bodies. As
another missionary from Umtali wrote in a letter to the
US in 1916: "Heathen mothers do not know much, but many
boys and girls go to our schools now and are begging to
read God's word and write and to take care of their
bodies and be clean and dress like the people of
America." These "heathen" boys and girls were also given
"Christian" names like Kitchen, Tobacco, Sixpence or
Bottle. [7]
The missionaries were, of course, part of the oppressive
colonial forces in Africa. In an effort to set up a
successful mission in what is now Zimbabwe, Catholic
Jesuits entered into an alliance with the British South
Africa Company (BSAC). Ran by Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902),
the collaboration between the Jesuits and the BSCA would
have made any imperialist proud. BSAC needed labor for
their gold mines but the native South Africans were self
sufficient farmers and thus had no need for the salaries
offered for work there. The imperialists hit upon a
brilliant idea, the "hut tax", a form of property tax
imposed on Africans that must be paid in cash. [It is
important to note that white farmers did not have to pay
these taxes.] Thus to pay for the tax, the Africans are
now forced to work. If they failed to pay, they were
imprisoned and then sent to work as prison laborers
anyway! In return for donation of land and protection
from Rhodes, the Jesuit took the role of collecting the
hated taxes for the BSAC![8]
Today the number of missionaries from liberal churches
are dwindling, their numbers being taken over by the
fundamentalist, pentacostal and evangelical churches.
However much like their ecclesiastical forefathers of the
previous centuries, these missionaries do not believe the
Africans, now largely Christians, are smart enough to
keep the faith and churches going. Thus the rallying
cries of the new missionaries involve "making Africa born
again" or "fighting the forces of secularism" or
"battling AIDS". Yet is it obvious that it is not the
social or physical well being of Africans that concerns
these modern day missionaries.
Armed with US$250,000 from the Southern Baptish
Convention, Dr. John Goodgame, an American missionary in
Uganda, launched a most unusual campaign against AIDS.
Rather than using the money to provide healthcare or
medicine, the money was used to purchase and distribute
100,000 Bibles with sheets pasted onto them giving
selected Biblical passages to read. Some of these
passages are predictable exhortations against adultery
and other such "carnal" pleasures. [9]
Yet, just as 150 years of Christian missionary activities
failed to prevent poverty, under-development, famine,
apartheid and civil wars in Africa, it is unlikely that
these new evangelical missionaries will be a force for
any good there.
Asia
With the exception of the Phillipines and South Korea,
Asia has been quite resistant to Christian evangelism.
The missionaries found resistance from an entrenched
Islam in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and
Brunei. In countries with deep cultures such as India,
China and Japan, the locals saw little need to replace
their prevailing myths with foreign ones. Yet this lack
of success had not stopped Christian missionaries from
trying and causing much suffering among native peoples.
Our first story concerns the Mois, a native tribe of
Vietnam of Malayo-Polynesian stock related to many of the
native peoples of Southeast Asia such as the Dayaks of
Borneo islands and the Aetas of the Philippines. From an
initial estimate of one million populating the
mountainous regions of South Vietnam, their numbers began
to dwindle in the 1950's. This was partly due to these
people being forced into hard labour by the French
colonialists and partly due to the activities of the
missionaries.
If you should ask how missionary activity could lead to
the destruction of a people, a perfect example would be
what happened to the Bihs, a subtribe of the Mois. In the
1940's one of the eleven evangelists who came with the
returned French troops after the defeat of the Japanese,
went to Boun Choah, the main village of the Bihs. Other
missionaries had unsuccessfully tried to covert the Bihs
before. One Catholic missionary managed a total of only
ten conversions in five years. However the new
missionary, a Mr. Jones, was not to be detered. Upon
studying the Bihs, he found that one of the principle
acts of their beliefs was the custom of burial. Their
dead was not buried at first, but left in open coffins on
trees. After a couple of years, the bones are thoroughly
cleaned. The bones are then carried round the fields by a
female elder. Offerings are then made. Finally the bones
are buried.
Mr. Jones used his political influence to force the
French acting resident to suppress this custom. When the
police arrived to protect him , Mr. Jones went personally
to the trees, pulled down all the coffins on the trees
and threw the contents, be they bones or decomposing
corpses, into a common grave. The Bihs were then
converted. Convinced that their ancestors have deserted
them due to the desecration of their burial customs, the
Bihs stopped producing offsprings. One local Bih
explained that his people had resigned themselves to
extinction. [10]
Next on our list is Thailand. The success of the
Christian mission there has been abysmal. 170 years after
the arrival of the first Protestant missionaries , there
are today no more than 300,000 Christians there in a
population of 55 million. Buddhism here (as in Japan) had
proven to be a bulwark against Christianity. The
missionaries have thus turned to the hill tribes who are
neither Buddhist nor ethnic Thai. One such tribe is the
Akha.
There are nearly 70,000 Akha tribes people in Thailand,
with many more in the neighboring countries of Myanma,
Loas, Vietnam and China. The Akhas are the poorest of the
nine hill tribes of Thailand. They live in conditions of
poverty and are generally ignorant of the outside world.
Some Akhas had taken to growing opium while some women
have turned to prostitution. That the Akhas need help is
not doubted, that they need missionaries is highly
unlikely.
Matthew McDaniel of the Akha Heritage Foundation had
chronicled the abuse missionaries had inflicted in the
Akhas and their culture. Given below is a summary of his
findings. [11]
Many of these Christian missionaries to the Akhas come
from the US with some coming from other Asian countries.
The missions have been at work with the Akha for more
than eighty years. Obviously their objective is not to
alleviate the social conditions of the Akha but rather to
use the Akha's poverty and lack of political clout as a
wedge to force Christianity upon them. The methods are
brutal. Honing in on the "weakest point" in a village,
such as a family with problems with the elders, the
missionaries would increase their converts. Upon reaching
a "critical mass" of converts, the missionaries would
claim the village as "Christian" and forbid all practice
of the Akha religion. The net effect is clear, even Akhas
who have not converted can no longer practice what has
been an important part of their culture. Some churches
have gone even further. They forbid the Akhas to practice
any aspect of their culture. This includes songs, dances
and traditional ceremonies associated with the harvest.
In doing this the missionaries are depriving the Akhas of
a basic right of indigenous people as defined by the
United Nations. [12]
The missionaries have little respect for the Akhas, their
cultures and even their well being. One Baptist Mission,
run by an American Chinese lady, resorted to broadcasting
it's religious message over the public announcement
system (loudspeakers) to the entire village, no
consideration was given to whether the villagers like it
or not! [To get an idea of how unpalatable this would be
to the Akhas, imagine being bombarded by Osama bin
Laden's preaching over the loudspeaker condemning the
"crusaders" and proclaiming Allah's will]. This mission,
well funded, had added another building on its location
as well as two satellite dishes on its roof. Yet they are
unwilling to provide economic help to the Akhas. Unable
to provide for his children, one Akha man drank herbicide
and committed suicide. He lived no more than 20 meters
away from the mission compound. When asked why they
didn't help in cases of such desperation, the mission
replied simply that they "cannot help everybody, we are
here to teach the Bible."
Like many cases throughout history, Christianity looks
set to play a prominent role in the cultural extinction
of the Akhas.
Papua New Guinea is an island situated at the edge of the
Southeast Asian archipelago, just north of Australia. It
has a modest population of 3.3 million. With 2,300
missionaries, or roughly 1 missionary for every 1430
Papua New Guineans, the country has the highest
proportion of missionaries in the world. Has this
proliferation of Christian proselytization lead to any
spiritual revival? No, only more cultural genocide.
One example of the missionary attitude is that of
Reverend Paul Freyburg, an American Lutheran, who said "I
rejoice in the memories of what I have done and pray that
it will continue. I don't believe that our mission
destroyed much of any value." Rev. Freyburg came to New
Guinea in the 1930's and, except for a brief interval
during world war II, had remained there ever since. What
did Rev. Freyburg destroy in his long missionary carreer?
He held "renunciation festivals" at which he was called
in to destroy "things of darkness". This of course
includes, "magical objects" and also what he ignorantly
described as "vegetable items". The former are
irreplaceble works of arts and crafts by the natives. The
latter are priceless herbal remedies and are important
heritage of folk medicine. The natives were forbidden to
perform any cultural dances and to observe their native
festivals. [13]
Fundamentalists missionaries are today at the forefront
of such activities. One such mission, the Pioneers, works
among the Ningram people. Sal Lo Foso, a missionary
there, has no qualms about his activities. These include
destroying the "haus tamburan", a "spirit house" which is
the normal focal point of village life for the Ningram,
and building in its place, a church. All forms of
traditional songs and dancing were forbidden. Such
destruction of the Ningram culture has no meaning to Lo
Foso, for he believed that for the Ningrams to be "born
again", they must make a clean break with their past.[14]
The missionaries lack of understanding and unwillingness
to try and understand native cultures have left much
suffering in their trail. Australian administrators
reported a case in which missionaries refused to baptised
men because they were polygamous. The men started
divorcing their "excess" wives, leaving the women and
their children without much visible support in their
society. Another man, with three wives, on being told
that he can only have one, simply killed two of them, so
that he could then-being a monogamous Christian-"go to
heaven"![15]
This rush by the natives to get converted has little to
do with the Christian message but everything to do with
the "cargo" they carry.
[I]t was the possessions, the cargo, which the
missionaries had in abundance that mainly impressed
the tribal people. Inevitable they assumed that since
the Christian God blessed his followers with cargo,
they they too would be rewarded for following the
"Gutnuis Bilong Jisas Kraist." (New Guinean pidgin for
the gospel) [16]
Papua New Guinea is now 94% Christian. Yet missionaries
still arrive in droves. Why? For the simple reason that
they are now importing their denominational bickering
into the country. Thus an Anglican missionary reported
finding leaflets circulated among his congregation by
missionaries from the Seventh-Day Adventist church
telling them that worshipping of Sunday is a sure fire
step to Hell! In a similar manner, the New Tribes Mission
(or NTM-for more info on this group see the section on
South America below), tells the confused Papua New
Guinean that the papacy is the antichrist. In fact some
fundamentalists have taken to distributing the tracts by
Christian publisher Jack T Chick, with cartoons showing,
among other things, Catholic monks going through a secret
passage way for an orgy with nuns![17]
Pettifer and Bradley summarised the situation in Papua
New Guinea thus:
The future alone will reveal the cultural cost and the
political consequences of importing the theological
bickering of Western Christianity into an already
divided society.[18]
In India too, the success of Christian missions have been
limited to the marginal groups, the untouchables, the
hill tribes and "Anglo-Indians" (Indians with mixed
parentage).[19] Some missions in India had tend to
concentrate on proselytizing through the provision of
social services to the poor and needy. While this is
certainly a better method than the ethnocidal methods of
the fundamentalists, it should not be forgotten that
these social services in general play a subserviant role
to theology. The mission once headed by Mother Teresa
(1910-1997) is a case in point.
Born in Albania in 1910, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, became a
nun and a missionary to India. She subsequently changed
her name to Teresa. Her work among the poor in Calcutta
attracted the world wide attention culminating with a
Nobel Peace Price in 1979. [20] Yet her work has been
criticised as not one based on the alleviation of
suffering but on the morbid theological celebration of
pain and suffering. Christopher Hitchens outlined these
rather disturbing facts in his book The Missionary
Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice (1995):
o Dr. Robin Fox, editor of the medical journal The
Lancet, visited Mother Teresa's operation in Calcutta in
1994. He reported that he was very "disturbed" by what he
saw. There was little anesthesia to be seen and a near
total neglect of medically sound diagnosis. Why were not
the sisters given proper training in simple diagnosis as
well as in managing pain? Because according to Dr. Fox,
Mother Teresa "preferred providence to planning; her
rules are designed to prevent any drift towards
materialism."[21]
o Mary Loudon, a volunteer in Calcutta, had even worse
things to say about Mother Teresa's operation. She
reported seeing in the Home for the Dying more than a
hundred men and women all dying and not been given much
medical care. Pain killers used do not go beyond
aspirins. The nuns were rinsing the needles used for
drips with plain tap water. When Loudon asked them why
they were not sterilizing the needles, the reply was
simply they had no time and that there was "no point".
She also recounted the case of a fifteen year old boy who
was dying because of a treatable kidney complaint. All
that was needed was a cab fare to take the boy to a
proper hospital. But Mother Teresa's peons refused to do
so, for "if they do it for one, they had to do it for
everybody."[22]
o Susan Sheilds, who worked for almost ten years as a
member of Mother Teresa's order, subsequently left the
movement because of the atrocious negligence she
witnessed there. The order's obsession with poverty means
that the nuns and volunteers works under conditions of
austerity, rigidity and harshness. Due to Mother Teresa's
fame, Ms. Sheilds reported that the charity had around
US$50 million in their bank account in the US. The
donations kept pouring in, yet little of these were used
to procure medicine or to provide better health care for
the suffering. The nuns were rarely allowed to spend
money on the poor they are trying to help. [23]
o To Mother Teresa, like all other missionaries,
spiritual well being over-rides everything else. As Ms.
Sheilds reported, "Mother Teresa taught her nuns how to
secretly baptised those who were dying. Sisters were to
ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a 'ticket
to heaven'. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to
baptism. The sister was then to pretend she was just
cooling the person's forehead with a wet cloth, while in
fact she was baptizing him, saying quietly the necessary
words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to
be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptising
Hindus and Muslims."[24]
Perhaps a poignant summary of Mother Teresa's mission can
be seen in a story recounted by herself. A dying man was
in terrible pain. She told him "You are suffering like
Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." To
which the man replied: "Then please tell Jesus to stop
kissing me." [25]
South America
It is in South America that the missionaries are at their
most destructive. During the conquest of the "New World",
beginning in the 15th century, Catholic priests and
friars, accompanied the invading armies of Spain and
Portugal. All kinds of coercive methods were used to
subjugate and evangelize the Indians. The Indians were
exploited, enslaved and made to work for the settlers in
return for protection and religious instructions. A total
of up to 15 million Indians were reported to have died
due to such brutality. [26]
The major damage done in modern times are by
fundamentalists evangelical groups. The two main sects
that have major activities in South America are the
Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and the New Tribes
Mission (NTM).
The very name, Summer Institute of Linguistics, suggests
an attempt at deception, of concealing their missionary
activities. To the South American governments, the SIL
presents itself as lingusitic investigators of the many
languages of the native tribes of the continent. Under
this cover, its 3,500 missionaries conduct their goal of
converting the natives. It's founder William Townsend
defends this patently dishonest method by asking the
rhetorical question: "Was it honest for the Son of God to
come down to earth without revealing who he was?" [27]
Founded by Paul Fleming, the NTM today boasts of 2,500
missionaries in 24 countries worldwide. More conservative
and ardently fundamentalist than the SIL, the NTM has a
pronounced policy of recruiting young evangelists of
limited education. Their lack of sensitivity for these
native tribes can be seen in some of their descriptions
of them. The natives are referred to as "naked savages"
by Jean Johnson, the widow of a young NTM missionary, in
her book God Planted Five Seeds . In one instance, Les
Pederson, the NTM Field Co-ordinator for Latin America
was reported to have said "those Indians all look pretty
much the same". [28]
How do these sects, and others, spread the word of God?
Do they learn the language and then preach? Do the
natives then, by virtue of hearing the "Truth" with a
capital "T", automatically become Christians? No. The
methods employed are devious.
One method, as explained by Victor Halterman, of the SIL,
involves cutting off the natives from their source of
livelihood. This involve a few distinct steps; in the
words of Halterman himself:
When we learn of the presence of an uncontacted group,
we move into the area, build a strong shelter-say of
logs-and cut paths radiating from it into the forest.
We leave gifts along these paths-knives, axes,
mirrors, the kind of things the Indians can't resist-
and sometimes they leave gifts in exchange. After a
while the relationship develops. Maybe they are
mistrustful at first but in the end they stop running
when we show, and we get together and make friends.
As the author and journalist, Norman Lewis, explained in
his book The Missionaries: God against the Indians
(1988), the gifts are placed in such a way that at the
end the Indians become far removed from their sources of
food and game. It is then that the gifts are stopped.
Halterman continues:
We have to break their dependency on us next.
Naturally they want to go on receiving all these
desirable things we've been giving them, and sometimes
it comes as a surprise when we explain that from now
on if they want to possess them they must work for
money. We don't employ them but we usually fix them up
with something to do on the local farms. They settle
down at it when they realise there's no going back.
That work at the "local farm" oftentimes amounts to
slavery was (indirectly)admitted by Halterman when he
mentioned that "abuses" sometimes occur. [29]
Another method, aptly called "manhunt" by Lewis, involves
the missionaries going out, sometimes in motorized
vehicles, hunting for natives to integrate them into
reservtions set up for missionary work. The NTM, for
instance, went on such a manhunt in Paraguay. Five
missionized natives were killed in one such manhunt.
Those unconverted natives were taken to the NTM camp in
Campo Loro. Within a short while, according to Survival
International, all had died of new diseases they had no
immunity to. Stung by criticism, the best reply the NTM
's Director in Paraguay could muster was: "We don't go
after people anymore. We just provide transport." [30]
A final element needs to be added. As Lewis wrote:
The unimportance of a comfortable earthly life,
weighed in the balance against the threat of eternal
punishment in the next, inspires many missionaries to
gather the souls at all costs, often with disregards
for the welfare of the converts' in this world.[31]
These elements make for a militant fundamentalist
missionary campaign. One that we would expect to cause
harm to the natives. And we would be right. Below are
some examples of the evil committed in the name of
Christian evangelism.
The contact work, done in conjunction with the "manhunt"
are sometimes done by Christianized natives who are
trained by the missionaries to carry guns. The "newly
contacted" natives are then rounded off to the mission
camp. One American organization, Cultural Survival,
reported in 1986 that natives in the NTM camp in Paraguay
were held there against will. In short, they had been
kidnapped.
In another such "manhunt" in 1979, also in Paraguay, one
of the freightened natives fell down from a tree and
broke her leg. (Her right breast had already been shot
off by a previous encounter with the missionaries.) She
was compelled, with her broken leg, to walk back to the
mission camp. She subsequently died. [32]
If the process of rounding up the natives to be converted
were bad, their lives within the mission camp were even
worse. Some examples.
Once in the mission camp, many of the natives either die
from starvation or from diseases transmitted by the
missionaries with which the former had no immunity
against. In one such mission camp in Paraguay, the German
anthropologist, Dr. Mark Munzel, reported that food and
medicine were deliberately withheld by the missionaries.
From a total of 277 natives in April 1972 only 202
survivors were left three months later. A US
congressional report confirmed that 49% of the camp
population had vanished! [33]
Surely the (uninformed) believer may assert: these
natives would be allowed to leave if they do not accept
the preachings of the missionaries. Surely that would be
the Christian thing to do. But that is not the case. Take
the following eye witness account by Norman Lewis in a
missionary camp in Paraguay:
I followed him [Donald McCullin-the photographer from
The Sunday Times] into the hut and saw two old ladies
lying on some rags on the ground in the last stages of
emaciation and clearly on the verge of death. One was
unconscious, the second in what was evidently a state
of catalepsy...In the second hut lay another woman,
also in a desperate condition and with untreated
wounds on her legs. A small, naked, tearful boy, sat
at her side...The three women and the boy had been
taken in a recent forest roundup, the third woman
having being shot in the side while attempting to
escape.[emphasis mine][34]
Of course Paraguay is not the only place where the
defenceless natives were subjected to Christian genocide.
In Bolivia, William Pencille, of the South American
Missionary Society, was called in to help when white
ranchers moving into the tribal areas came upon the
Ayoreos. Pencille persuaded these natives to stop
resisting the encroachment of the cattlemen and to settle
on a patch of barren land beside a railroad tract. The
natives, having no resistance to common diseases of the
"modern" man, began to die. Throughout all this Pencille
had the means to save the lives of these people. He had
access to many modes of transport, including an
aeroplane, and to funds which could easily have been used
to buy medicines for them. Yet this is what he said:
"It's better they should die. Then I baptize them (on the
point of death) and they go straight to heaven." [Extract
from a conversation between William Pencille and Father
Elmar Klinger, OFM , quoted by Luis A. Pereira in The
Bolivian Instance] A total of three hundred natives died
in his "care" within a matter of weeks.[35] [a]
But the worst of the mission linked atrocities happenned
in Brazil. Granted that the main culprits of the genocide
were functionaries of the grossly misnamed Indian
Protection Service, the missionaries were at least partly
responsible for these. In the 1980's the Brazilian
attorney general's office began an investigation into the
atrocities committed by the agency over a period of
thirty years. It's findings were shocking.
Many native tribes were hunted, murdered and some to the
point of extinction. Some of these include:
o Munducurus tribe: reduced from 19,000 strong in the
1930's to 1,200
o Guaranis tribe: reduced from 5,000 to 200
o Cajaras tribe: from 4,000 to 400
o Cintas Largas: from 10,000 to possibly 500
o Tapaiunas: completely extirpated
o Other tribes were reduced to only a few (one or
two!)individuals and some by only a single family.
These peoples were culled by various means by greedy
landrobbers who wanted to developed the untapped natural
wealth of the Brazilian rainforest. Some of the methods
include:
o The Cintas Largas were attacked by dropping dynamites
from aeroplanes.
o The Maxacalis were given alcohol and then shot down
when they became drunk.
o The Nhambiquera were killed in huge numbers by
machine gun fire.
o Two Patachos tribes were exterminated by giving the
unsuspecting Idnians smallpox injections.
o Some of the Indians were murdered by presenting them
with food laced with arsenic and formicides.
The above does not exhaust the creativity of the
murderers but should suffice to show the almost
unparalleled cruelty that were visited on the Indian
tribes.
What have all these got to do with the missionaries? The
Brazilian newpaper, O Jornal do Brazil had this to say:
In reality those in control of these Indian Protection
Service posts [where the majority of the atrocities
had taken place] are North American Missionaries...
This was confirmed by the Brazilian ministry of Indians.
Thus, in essence, the missionaries allowed the atrocities
to happen. As Lewis remarked:
Despite the law of every civilized country...that
those who witness...a crime without denouncing it to
the authorities are held to be accessories to the
crime, there is no record to be found of any such
denunciation [by the missionaries].
As the newspaper O Globo reported: "it was missionary
policy to ignore what was going on."
Of course the missionaries were not only passively
supporting the genocide of the Brazilian natives. They
played active roles in many of the atrocities. One
missionary persuaded 600 Ticuna indians that the end of
the world is taking place and they will only be safe on a
ranch. On that ranch the Indians were made slaves and
tortured.
The Bororos, a tribe studied by the reknowned
anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, fell prey to the
missionaries as well. They were banned by the
missionaries, who were aided by the local police, from
performing their customary burial rites on their dead.
That left the Bororos without a cultural identity and,
one by one, they committed suicide. As the O Jornal do
Brazil explained:
It is sad to see the plight in which these people have
been left. The missionaries have deprived them of
their power to resist. That is why they have been so
easily plundered. A great emptiness and aimlessness
had been left in their eyes.
Thus was the power of Christian love in the Brazilian
jungles. [36]
Notes
a. If stories such as this sounds appaling, remember that
it is still happening at this very moment. If you want to
help, or find out more about the plight of native peoples
such as the Ayoreos, visit the Friends of Peoples Close
to Nature website.
http://www.fpcn-global.org/
References
1. Pettifer & Bradley, Missionaries: p15
2. Lewis, The Missionaries: p9-15
3. Pettifer & Bradley, op cit: p125
4. ibid: p72-82
5. ibid: p82
6. Maquet, Africanity: p38
7. Pettifer & Bradley, op cit: p88-89
8. Davidson, Africa in Modern History: p110
Harrison, The White Tribe of Africa: p69
Pettifer & Bradley, op cit: p96
9. Pettifer & Bradley, op cit: p129-131
10. Lewis, op cit: p36-43
11. Akha.org: Just say "No" to Missionaries.
12. Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
13. Pettifer & Bradley, op cit: p53-55
14. ibid: p63-64
15. ibid: p56
16. ibid: p55
17. ibid: p60-63
18. ibid: p60-63
19. Pettifer & Bradley, op cit: p175
20. Feldman, The Nobel Prize: p310
21. Hitchens, The Missionary Position: p38-39
22. ibid: p39-41
23. ibid: p43-48
24. ibid: p48
25. ibid: p41-42
26. Pettifer & Bradley, op cit: p133
27. Lewis, op cit: p99-100
28. ibid: p115-119
29. ibid: p105
30. ibid: p117
31. ibid: p104
32. ibid: p117-118
33. ibid: p126
34. ibid: p159
35. ibid: p114
36. inid: p92-98
Home
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/index.html
The Central Thesis
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html
Christianity
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/christianity.html
The Bible
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bibleanalysis.html
Jesus
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html
God
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/god.html
History
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/history.html
Pascal's Wager
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html
Bibliography
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/biblio.html
Links
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/links.html
Paul N. Tobin
For comments and queries, e-mail Paul Tobin:
mailto:tobin...@hotmail.com?SUBJECT=Comments on Christian Missionaries
Source - http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/mission.html
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Panchaang for 13 Ashadh 5104, Friday, July 11, 2003:
Shubhanu Nama Samvatsare Dakshinaya Nartana Ritau
Mithun Mase Shukl Pakshe Shukr Vasara Yuktayam
Jyeshtth-Mool Nakshatr Brahma Yog
Taitil-Gar Karan Trayodashi-Chaturdashi Yam Tithau
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of
this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
are not necessarily those of the poster.
ProdInAHat
130.133.1.4:
>> Gnosticism was not a Christian movement, but one deriving mainly from
>> pop-paganism, according to the disciples of the apostles, such as
>> Irenaeus, Tertullian.
>
> <snip>
>
> Good post.
yeah, Zarathustra was top of the "pops". Trendy term though, I think he
just read a review for the new Harry Potter?
ProdInAHat
>> Gnosticism was not a Christian movement, but one deriving mainly from
>> pop-paganism, according to the disciples of the apostles, such as
>> Irenaeus, Tertullian.
>
> <snip>
>
> Good post.
yeah, Zarathustra was top of the "pops". Trendy term though, I think he
mdginzo
from the pagans. To say that gnosticism was not Christian is pretty
ignorant. IT was just as Christian as anything else was at the time. It
was just that the Roman Bishops happened to gain the power (through
Constantine) to overrule the gnsotics.
"RonB" <ezbo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93B68B71D36B4...@130.133.1.4...
Roger Pearse
> Irenaeus and Tertullian certainly had their agendas. Christianity took much
> from the pagans. To say that gnosticism was not Christian is pretty
> ignorant. IT was just as Christian as anything else was at the time. It
> was just that the Roman Bishops happened to gain the power (through
> Constantine) to overrule the gnsotics.
Thank you for these assertions. I'm afraid I don't know where you got
them from, and they are all more or less either misleading or
factually inaccurate. I would recommend actually reading the ancient
authors. Some modern authors find they can sell books telling
fashionable lies about Christian origins, and indeed this has always
been the case -- even in the second century --, so beware.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse
> news:3a88eeea.03071...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Gnosticism was not a Christian movement, but one deriving mainly from
> > pop-paganism, according to the disciples of the apostles, such as
> > Irenaeus, Tertullian.
>
> <snip>
>
> Good post.
You're very welcome!
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Gnosticism - The doctrines of certain pre-Christian pagan,
Jewish, and early Christian sects . . ."
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
In article <3a88eeea.0307...@posting.google.com>,
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) posted:
Roger Pearse
> Gnosticism is Christian:
>
> "Gnosticism - The doctrines of certain pre-Christian pagan,
> Jewish, and early Christian sects . . ."
> - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
Is this given as an authority on religious matters?
zach
> use...@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message news:<Xtian-06dd...@news.mantra.com>...
> > Gnosticism is Christian:
> >
> > "Gnosticism - The doctrines of certain pre-Christian pagan,
> > Jewish, and early Christian sects . . ."
> > - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
>
> Is this given as an authority on religious matters?
That, and the fact that is says Gnosticism has pre-Christian origins.
Gnosticism is about as Christian as Kabbalism (or take your pick of a
myriad of similar movements--- they are all related to some degree) is
Judaism.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> news:<Xtian-06dd...@news.mantra.com>...
>>
>> Gnosticism is Christian:
>>
>> "Gnosticism - The doctrines of certain pre-Christian pagan,
>> Jewish, and early Christian sects . . ."
>> - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
> Is this given as an authority on religious matters?
The dictionary is a manual of words, their
meanings, origins, etc. Gnosticism is Christian.
Roger Pearse
> In article <3a88eeea.03071...@posting.google.com>,
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) posted:
>
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> > news:<Xtian-06dd...@news.mantra.com>...
> >>
> >> Gnosticism is Christian:
> >>
> >> "Gnosticism - The doctrines of certain pre-Christian pagan,
> >> Jewish, and early Christian sects . . ."
> >> - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
>
> > Is this given as an authority on religious matters?
>
> The dictionary is a manual of words, their
> meanings, origins, etc.
Is it really?
Surprised to hear that if a statement is in a book called a
'dictionary', however unimportant, then you consider that holy writ.
>Gnosticism is Christian.
'Fraid not. And, since you are not a Christian, kindly mind your own
business.
RonB
> 'Fraid not. And, since you are not a Christian, kindly mind your own
> business.
He won't, though.
Isn't it amazing how so many non-Christians know so much more about
Christianity and understand exactly how Christians think and feel about
their religion, while Christians are (obviously) in the dark about their
own beliefs. Don't confuse them with facts, their minds are already made
up.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Walter Geist
> >Gnosticism is Christian.
>
> 'Fraid not. And, since you are not a Christian, kindly mind your own
> business.
Gnostics believed Jesus was the Christ. That makes them Christians in
the broadest sense. However, Gnostics also believed in the concept of
"gnosis", divine englightenment, that could be gained by study and
good deeds. Whereas modern christians are taught: go to church, do as
you are told, obey the preists, and you will go to heaven. There is no
"gnosis" in modern christianity, just a bunch of rules and a bunch of
silly sheep obeying them.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
> business.
Xtian missionaries who commit terrorism throughout
the world have made Xtianity everyone's business.
You don't support their actions, do you?
Dr. Jai Maharaj
astro...@hotmail.com (Walter Geist) posted:
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message
> news:<3a88eeea.03071...@posting.google.com>...
>>> Gnosticism is Christian.
>>> - Jai Maharaj
>> 'Fraid not. And, since you are not a Christian,
>> kindly mind your own business.
> Gnostics believed Jesus was the Christ. That makes them Christians in
> the broadest sense. However, Gnostics also believed in the concept of
> "gnosis", divine englightenment, that could be gained by study and
> good deeds. Whereas modern christians are taught: go to church, do as
> you are told, obey the preists, and you will go to heaven. There is no
> "gnosis" in modern christianity, just a bunch of rules and a bunch of
> silly sheep obeying them.
There is a lot of terrorism in Xtiantiy, as well:
[ Subject: CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES
[ From: Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003
Paul N. Tobin
Christian Missionaries
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/mission.html
The South Pacific
Africa
Asia
South America
o Tapaiunas: completely extirpated
Notes
References
Home
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/index.html
Christianity
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/christianity.html
The Bible
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bibleanalysis.html
Jesus
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jesus.html
God
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/god.html
History
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/history.html
Bibliography
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/biblio.html
Links
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/links.html
Paul N. Tobin
Source - http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/mission.html
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
nmstevens
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.03071...@posting.google.com>...
> > >Gnosticism is Christian.
> >
> > 'Fraid not. And, since you are not a Christian, kindly mind your own
> > business.
>
> Gnostics believed Jesus was the Christ.
But by that definition, wouldn't Mormons also be considered
Christians?
And maybe they are considered Christian - I frankly don't know all
that much about it, but it seems that, at some point, I remember
hearing or reading someone say, "I'm not a Christian, I'm a Mormon" --
but I couldn't swear to it.
I suppose it comes down to what constitutes the de minimus
requirements for Christianity -- are there certain things that any
sect has to include to be Christian -- and are there other things that
any sect *can't* include lest they automatically not be considered
Christian (obviously, I suppose, things like lesser included gods
would necessarily get you kicked out).
NMS
RonB
> Gnostics believed Jesus was the Christ. That makes them Christians in
> the broadest sense. However, Gnostics also believed in the concept of
> "gnosis", divine englightenment, that could be gained by study and
> good deeds. Whereas modern christians are taught: go to church, do as
> you are told, obey the preists, and you will go to heaven. There is no
> "gnosis" in modern christianity, just a bunch of rules and a bunch of
> silly sheep obeying them.
Sorry, Walter, but this is a just a "tad" simplistic. Maybe if you really
studied Christianity you wouldn't hate it so much because you continually
attack what it isn't.
Here is a definition of Gnosticism from the "Catholic Encyclopedia," in
case your interested:
"A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-
idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era
down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and
some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of
Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole
universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all
being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to
the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and
facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour."
from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
Gnosticism is, well... "gnosticism." It's not Christianity. From a
Christian point of view, what God created is "good." On the other hand,
all matter is evil to to Gnostics, which means they are much closer to
Hinduism than Christianity. What the gnostics tried to do is change
Christianity into Gnosticism -- which is to say, completely alter it.
Which is what many modern day pantheists attempt when they try to
"harmonize" Christianity with Eastern religions and mythology. It is a
false harmonization.
zach
While we're attacking religions and cultures, let's talk about the
non-egalitarian, racist, oppressive, arrogant Hindu culture.
But that would be a complete non sequitur, as is your post.
Snoopy
Johnny Judas Jay "Who's my daddy?" Maharaj wrote:
> In article <3a88eeea.03071...@posting.google.com>,
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) posted:
>
>>. . . since you are not a Christian, kindly mind your own
>>business.
>
>
> Xtian missionaries who commit terrorism throughout
> the world have made Xtianity everyone's business.
> You don't support their actions, do you?
Sodomy case filed against swami
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SATURDAY, JULY 12, 2003 12:20:13 AM ]
AHMEDABAD: A case of sodomy was registered against a swami of the
Swaminarayan Gurukul in Botad taluka of Bhavnagar district following a
complaint by a young boy.
The boy, Sukhram Naran who was admitted to the government hospital in
Bhavnagar on Tuesday alleged that a swami of the gurukul in Samadhiyara
village of Botad had molested him "sexually" after which the boy was
treated at private hospitals in Ranpur and other towns, before being
brought to Bhavnagar.
The accused has been identified as Madhvanand swami who is now underground.
According to Bhavnagar district SP Anupamsinh Gehlot, "the incident
occurred on June 18 at the gurukul premises."
Soon after the incident, the boy fled from the campus and was treated at
several private hospitals.
The boy who is around 15 years old, has been in the gurukul since a year
and was studying in Class IX.
Police inspector Narendrasinh Jadeja who is investigating the case said
that "the fact that the swami is absconding, might point at his guilt."
A case has been registered under section 377 of the IPC against the swami.
Snoopy
Johnny Judas Jay "I love to eat c**k" Maharaj wrote:
> In article <fd1f2fb3.03071...@posting.google.com>,
> astro...@hotmail.com (Walter Geist) posted:
>
>
>>Gnostics believed Jesus was the Christ. That makes them Christians in
>>the broadest sense. However, Gnostics also believed in the concept of
>>"gnosis", divine englightenment, that could be gained by study and
>>good deeds. Whereas modern christians are taught: go to church, do as
>>you are told, obey the preists, and you will go to heaven. There is no
>>"gnosis" in modern christianity, just a bunch of rules and a bunch of
>>silly sheep obeying them.
>
>
> There is a lot of terrorism in Xtiantiy, as well:
>
> [ Subject: CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES
> [ From: Dr. Jai Maharaj
> [ Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003
Sodomy case filed against swami
Kyle
>Xtian missionaries who commit terrorism throughout
>the world have made Xtianity everyone's business.
>You don't support their actions, do you?
I, normally, wouldn't get into this religious chat, but I just wanted to
say...
Jai, I believe it's "Xian". The "X" replacing the word "Christ", as in
CHRISTian and CHRISTmas.
I just keep seeing you use the word "Xtian" and I thought I'd tell you about
the X.
Good luck on your every-religion-but-your-own bashing.
kyle
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Kyle" <KYLLRel...@aol.com> posted:
>> Xtian missionaries who commit terrorism throughout
>> the world have made Xtianity everyone's business.
>> You don't support their actions, do you?
> I, normally, wouldn't get into this religious chat,
> but I just wanted to say...
> Jai, I believe it's "Xian". The "X" replacing the
> word "Christ", as in CHRISTian and CHRISTmas.
> I just keep seeing you use the word "Xtian" and I
> thought I'd tell you about the X. Good luck . . .
The "t" is for terrorism.
Dirk Hartog
>
> 'Fraid not
How does that work? I mean, what rule do you use to tell if something
is Christian or not?
Dirk Hartog
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse wrote on 16 Jul 2003:
>
> > 'Fraid not. And, since you are not a Christian, kindly mind your own
> > business.
>
> He won't, though.
His response was a hate-post full of shameful lies, which saves me the
effort of reply.
> Isn't it amazing how so many non-Christians know so much more about
> Christianity and understand exactly how Christians think and feel about
> their religion, while Christians are (obviously) in the dark about their
> own beliefs. Don't confuse them with facts, their minds are already made
> up.
It's a sign of the structural contempt for Christians in modern
society. One can't imagine Moslems being subjected to it.
Roger Pearse
> > >Gnosticism is Christian.
> >
> > 'Fraid not. And, since you are not a Christian, kindly mind your own
> > business.
>
> Gnostics believed Jesus was the Christ. That makes them Christians in
> the broadest sense.
True. But to use a term so broadly is to empty it of meaning, I
think.
> However, Gnostics also believed in the concept of
> "gnosis", divine englightenment, that could be gained by study and
> good deeds.
I think this is partly right -- you could escape from the material
world and its endemic evil by knowing the right 'secrets'. Not sure
that 'good deeds' come into this.
> Whereas modern christians are taught: go to church, do as
> you are told, obey the preists, and you will go to heaven.
This is not Christianity, and Christians do not teach this, and are
not taught it (or if they are, refuse to listen).
> There is no
> "gnosis" in modern christianity, just a bunch of rules and a bunch of
> silly sheep obeying them.
I know what you mean, and I've seen it too. But this is actually not
Christianity. The people who do this don't actually believe.
Roger Pearse
Well, I'd use the same rules I use for any ideological movement --
find out what the founder taught, what his disciples got from him,
what the surviving texts of either say, and how those in the
institutions they founded took it (presuming they were faithful and
not, say, like modern 'Methodists', careless of the founders' ideas).
Would one do different for, say, Marxism?
The tendency in Victorian times to use 'Christian' as a term of
approval, rather than description, is a gross abuse of language, and
one still comes across it -- "how dare you say who is or is not a
Christian," whines some pagan deviant to an astonished Christian.
This is how words die. We have plenty of words for 'I agree with
this' and 'I hate this'. But if we change the meaning of a word --
such as'gentleman' -- in this way, what do you call the original?
Words like 'armigerous' get created, while 'gentleman' has no meaning.
Bluebeard
Excellent post !
Gnosticism's history is fascinating but profoundly non-Christian. It truly
was Eastern in origin and only incorporated Christian ideas for recruiting
puposes. It's ideas were promulgated in Europe until the Cathars were
finally wiped out in the 1200's but their philosophical ideas will probably
never die as they are incredibly attractive to the dolts that have trouble
reconciling the mean existence on Earth and a benevolent God.
Bluebeard
"Walter Geist" <astro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd1f2fb3.03071...@posting.google.com...
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message
news:<3a88eeea.03071...@posting.google.com>...
> > >Gnosticism is Christian.
> >
> > 'Fraid not. And, since you are not a Christian, kindly mind your own
> > business.
>
> Gnostics believed Jesus was the Christ. That makes them Christians in
> the broadest sense.
Later adaptation.
However, Gnostics also believed in the concept of
> "gnosis", divine englightenment, that could be gained by study and
> good deeds.
Good deeds didn't really come into it. This world, and all matter, were
created by Satan. Everything in it is intrinsically evil thus not worth a
good deed. Only internal spirituality mattered. Does this sound Christian to
you? It's an Eastern religion with Christian iconography.
Christians (well Catholics and most mainstream Protestants) believe that
God's creation is good and beautiful. Don't let the propaganda fool
you....sex, good food, drink...are all fine as long as there is restraint.
The Middle Ages has given Christianity a bad name because, frankly, there
was no restraint. The worse the depravity became, the more the Church
reacted. It didn't help for us Anglo-phones that Christianity was brought by
Irish missionaries whom I suspect of secret Gnosticism. :)
Whereas modern christians are taught: go to church, do as
> you are told, obey the preists, and you will go to heaven. There is no
> "gnosis" in modern christianity, just a bunch of rules and a bunch of
> silly sheep obeying them.
Wow. You couldn't be more wrong.
>
Dirk Hartog
> > >
> > > 'Fraid not
> >
> > How does that work? I mean, what rule do you use to tell if something
> > is Christian or not?
>
> Well, I'd use the same rules I use for any ideological movement --
> find out what the founder taught, what his disciples got from him,
> what the surviving texts of either say, and how those in the
> institutions they founded took it (presuming they were faithful and
> not, say, like modern 'Methodists', careless of the founders' ideas).
> Would one do different for, say, Marxism?
So you're not saying Gnosticism didn't descend from Jesus and Paul, or
that the Gnostics didn't think they were Christians, or that the early
Catholic Christians didn't recognize them as a competing Christian
sects, or that the Romans didn't kill them because they were
Christians, or that their Gnostic Gospels don't derive, best they knew
(just like you), from the authority of Jesus and the apostles. You're
saying you disagree with their theology. You're some sort of orthodox
Christian Mullah who knows whose thoughts are and whose aren't pure
and true, is that it?
And when Harvard's Dr. Koester, and Princeton's Dr. Pagles, and Yale'
Dr. MacMullen call Gnosticism Christian, they're wrong. Is that what
you think?
Have you considered maybe writing an article about this, to straighten
out those Ivy League dolts? The Journal of the American Academy of
Religion publishes reasoned and reasonable articles from qualified
scholars. Why don't you type up your Mullah theory and send it to
them, then when they publish it, post a copy here for all of us to
read?
Phooey.
"It is not morally acceptable to say ... our story is truth but yours
is myth; ours is history but yours is a lie. It is even less morally
acceptable to ... manufactur[e] defensive or protective strategies
that apply only to one's own story. "
[John Crosssan, The Birth of Christianity, 1998, pg 28 - 29.]
But thanks for writing.
Dirk Hartog
Paulo Joe Jingy
>>>>>Gnosticism is Christian.
>>>>
>>>>'Fraid not
>>>
>>>How does that work? I mean, what rule do you use to tell if something
>>>is Christian or not?
>>
>>Well, I'd use the same rules I use for any ideological movement --
>>find out what the founder taught, what his disciples got from him,
>>what the surviving texts of either say, and how those in the
>>institutions they founded took it (presuming they were faithful and
>>not, say, like modern 'Methodists', careless of the founders' ideas).
>>Would one do different for, say, Marxism?
>
>
>
> So you're not saying Gnosticism didn't descend from Jesus and Paul, or
> that the Gnostics didn't think they were Christians, or that the early
> Catholic Christians didn't recognize them as a competing Christian
> sects
See (sometimes) you can comprehend basic facts--and here I thought you
were a complete dumbass.
> And when Harvard's Dr. Koester, and Princeton's Dr. Pagles, and Yale'
> Dr. MacMullen call Gnosticism Christian, they're wrong. Is that what
> you think?
Ooooo, *Harvard* *Dr. Koester*, *Princeton*, *Dr. Pagles*, *Yale* and
*Dr MacMullen*--THE high and holy names--let us all bow!. They
*certainly* supersede two-thousand years of Christian teaching and
thousands and thousands of pages written by Christian leaders and
saints. (Not to mention their attempts at superseding *reality*).
> Have you considered maybe writing an article about this, to straighten
> out those Ivy League dolts?
Now you're getting it. Why don't you write the article?
> Phooey.
> But thanks for writing.
Don't mention it, Dirk.
All the best to you.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
ProdInAHat
did influence a lot of Christian literature etc, I believe it was something
of a symbiotic relationship in the early years,
Some oddball said it was like Harry Potter derived from "pop-"paganism, the
implication being that Christianty itself had an immaculate conception?
Paulo, lose the blinkers.
zach
> "Walter Geist" <astro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fd1f2fb3.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message
> news:<3a88eeea.03071...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >Gnosticism is Christian.
> > >
> > > 'Fraid not. And, since you are not a Christian, kindly mind your own
> > > business.
> >
> > Gnostics believed Jesus was the Christ. That makes them Christians in
> > the broadest sense.
>
> Later adaptation.
>
> However, Gnostics also believed in the concept of
> > "gnosis", divine englightenment, that could be gained by study and
> > good deeds.
>
> Good deeds didn't really come into it. This world, and all matter, were
> created by Satan. Everything in it is intrinsically evil thus not worth a
> good deed. Only internal spirituality mattered. Does this sound Christian to
> you? It's an Eastern religion with Christian iconography.
Kind of. The world was created by the Demiurge, who was less than God-
pure divinity having nothing to do with corrupt matter. Satanists
(according to their POV, not the church's) are more on the side of the
Demiurge, philosophically rather than personally (compared to a
personal relationship with God in the Christian sense). Pagans are of
similar flavor, depending upon whom you talk to (Druids, Wiccans,
etc.). Throw in a mixture of Eastern mysticism and religion, ancient
Middle Eastern religion and we have one heck of a mess, all connected
on some level. Toss in Templars, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, kabbalists
for flavor. What the hell, through in the Zionists also if you are
into conspiracy theories. Lets not even talk about the bastardization
of Christianity with various New World religions (or occultic
practices from the POV of the Church).
Speaking of which, is Focault's Pendulum ever going to be made into a
movie? It would be supremely awesome if they didn't dumb it down for
the hoi polloi. (back on topic!)
Roger Pearse
> > > >
> > > > 'Fraid not
> > >
> > > How does that work? I mean, what rule do you use to tell if something
> > > is Christian or not?
> >
> > Well, I'd use the same rules I use for any ideological movement --
> > find out what the founder taught, what his disciples got from him,
> > what the surviving texts of either say, and how those in the
> > institutions they founded took it (presuming they were faithful and
> > not, say, like modern 'Methodists', careless of the founders' ideas).
> > Would one do different for, say, Marxism?
>
> So you're not saying Gnosticism didn't descend from Jesus and Paul,
It did not. We can see this from the fact that the pupils of
Valentinus and Marcion felt able to invent their own myths, rather
than being constrained to some kind of 'handed-down' deposit.
Moreover, if we consider the variations among gnostic doctrines, which
are we supposed to think was transmitted? They cannot *all* be!
For instance, Marcion taught that marriage and sex were forbidden.
Valentinus said the opposite, and some groups that they were
compulsory. If we say that these come from Jesus, which of the two is
right? They can't *both* be, can they?
> or that the Gnostics didn't think they were Christians,
They used the name, when convenient, but they were very well aware
that they did not belong to the church.
> or that the early Catholic Christians didn't recognize them as a competing
> Christian sects,
They did not recognise them as Christians.
> or that the Romans didn't kill them because they were Christians,
The Romans did not. This is because the gnostics sacrificed to the
pagan gods. Read Tertullian, Scorpiace, for what happened when the
Romans did an anti-Christian persecution.
The Marcionites are an exception, tho, to this -- they *did* refuse to
sacrifice and were martyred.
> or that their Gnostic Gospels don't derive, best they knew
> (just like you), from the authority of Jesus and the apostles.
No, they did not so derive and their authors knew it. Marcion made
his gospel, not found it; Valeninus composed his hymns himself.
Likewise everyone else knew it. Everyone knew that these gospels were
not transmitted in the churches founded by the apostles. That is why
the gnostics had to pretend that they were 'secret' teaching -- which
is an acknowledgement of the fact, in a way.
For instance, the gnostic gospels, where we have more than one
witness, display editing changes indicative that the scribes did not
think them inspired, and felt able to change them. (Or so I gather).
> You're saying you disagree with their theology.
You use the word very loosely.
> You're some sort of orthodox Christian Mullah who knows whose thoughts are
> and whose aren't pure and true, is that it?
?
> And when Harvard's Dr. Koester, and Princeton's Dr. Pagles, and Yale'
> Dr. MacMullen call Gnosticism Christian, they're wrong. Is that what
> you think?
Yes. Such a description is contrary to the available evidence. The
evidence is available for anyone to read -- we need no 'interpreters'.
Btw, it's "Pagels". And she's a crank. Mainstream scholars do not
share her views.
But who wants an argument from modern 'authorities'? Evidence,
evidence, evidence.
> Have you considered maybe writing an article about this, to straighten
> out those Ivy League dolts?
Why?
> The Journal of the American Academy of
> Religion publishes reasoned and reasonable articles from qualified
> scholars. Why don't you type up your Mullah theory and send it to
> them, then when they publish it, post a copy here for all of us to
> read?
<chuckle> Son, I am an amateur. I have no access to professional
publications, except for my text-critical work, any more than you do.
Although I must say, as one interested in such topic, that I have
never heard of such a journal. Is it real? It's plainly not a
mainstream publication like Vigiliae Christianae, Revue des Etudes
Augustiniennes, or the JTS. Will I find it listed if I look in the
list in l'Annee Philologique?
But if you feel that you prefer authorities to facts, surely you must
stop posting? After all, what authority do *you* have? Why do you
suppose academics to be impartial on a political issue?
I don't ask you to take my word for it. I suggest you go and look,
and think. If you don't want to do this -- and you may well be too
busy, I understand --
> Phooey.
>
> "It is not morally acceptable to say ... our story is truth but yours
> is myth; ours is history but yours is a lie. It is even less morally
> acceptable to ... manufactur[e] defensive or protective strategies
> that apply only to one's own story. "
> [John Crosssan, The Birth of Christianity, 1998, pg 28 - 29.]
Nor is it acceptable to tell lies about other people's religions. As
Mr. Crossan has made a living from doing. Nor is it acceptable to
invent stories, then scream abuse at the victims for not complying
with them. In the last 100 years, New Testament Studies has done this
repeatedly.
No medieval appeals to authority accepted here -- only to facts.
> But thanks for writing.
I'm not sure I have more to add, tho.
Greenway7x
very many of the beliefs--even dogma--of professed Christians since earliest
times. NeoPlatonism/Jainism X Mandeanism X arcanum imperii = the herb garni of
Gnosticism as it crops up under the sheep's clothing of many religions,
philosophies, initiate sodalities, political parties, etc.
PEACE
Greenway
1 Timothy 4:10
Denis Wright
> > "It is not morally acceptable to say ... our story is truth but yours
> > is myth; ours is history but yours is a lie. It is even less morally
> > acceptable to ... manufactur[e] defensive or protective strategies
> > that apply only to one's own story. "
> > [John Crosssan, The Birth of Christianity, 1998, pg 28 - 29.]
> Nor is it acceptable to tell lies about other people's religions.
OK, I'm curious. Can you give an example of a lie about other people's
religons that Mr. Crossan has told?
Denis
...........
...........
...........
Roger Pearse
How do you suppose he earns his living?
He certainly isn't a Christian: the above quote shows a very arrogant
attempt to peddle syncretism as the only truth, in a book supposedly
about Christianity. His books consist of attempts to peddle a lie
about Christian origins.
Are you expressing agreement with the (hypocritical!) statement that
only syncretism is true, made above?
Roger Pearse
I did respond to this on the basis that this was a sincere enquiry.
However I looked back at the post to which this is supposed to be a
response, which makes plain that it is not. Rather it is a schoolboy
debating-society trick, designed to silence criticism of some public
dirt-peddler by a demand that criticism must be made on the basis of
intimate knowledge. In the same way as every porn peddler demands to
know whether you've paid to see the sleaze, not to inform but to
silence criticism. I notice that 'anti-racists' somehow never allow
this ploy, and neither will I. Crossan's views are a matter of public
knowledge; his book is being used to support a lie. And insincerity
demands no other response, than a kick up the backside. Shame on you,
Dennis.
Roger Pearse
Denis Wright
> I did respond to this on the basis that this was a sincere enquiry.
> However I looked back at the post to which this is supposed to be a
> response, which makes plain that it is not. Rather it is a schoolboy
> debating-society trick, designed to silence criticism of some public
> dirt-peddler by a demand that criticism must be made on the basis of
> intimate knowledge. In the same way as every porn peddler demands to
> know whether you've paid to see the sleaze, not to inform but to
> silence criticism. I notice that 'anti-racists' somehow never allow
> this ploy, and neither will I. Crossan's views are a matter of public
> knowledge; his book is being used to support a lie. And insincerity
> demands no other response, than a kick up the backside. Shame on you,
> Dennis.
Hmmm - you have a very uncharitable view of human nature, Mr. Pearse. I
was indeed asking a sincere question. I teach oriental philosophies
mainly, and my knowledge of gnosticism is only passing. It seemed a
reasonable question and I had absolutely no hidden agenda in asking it,
but if it offends you, then don't trouble yourself with an answer. I
won't lose any sleep over it, but you do owe me an apology for your
unreasonable and misguided attack. Is there any point in my responding
to your other comment, or will you assume ill intent on my part yet
again?
Denis.
Hunter1
> I did respond to this on the basis that this was a sincere enquiry.
> However I looked back at the post to which this is supposed to be a
> response, which makes plain that it is not. Rather it is a schoolboy
> debating-society trick, designed to silence criticism of some public
> dirt-peddler by a demand that criticism must be made on the basis of
> intimate knowledge.
'fraid you've got Denis pegged wrong here, whilst him and I
don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things he has always come
across as an honest and forthright debater. In fact he seems
to be one of the few left from many years back (back when
these newsgroups were 90% content and 10% spam as opposed to
the reversal we now suffer through) that still occasional
pops into these groups. I'd have to say I have more respect
for him than many on my side of the fence, he could always
hold an argument without dropping to the level of pure abuse
(something I'm guilty of quite often when frustration
bypasses sensibility). I'd go by your first thought that it
was a sincere enquiry.
Roger Pearse
Ah well, if so I apologise for my cynical nature. Pehaps I've been
trolled once too often...
Not being a Crossan fan I can't help with a blow-by-blow analysis of
the guy and his works. (I seem to remember that he tells a story of
Christian origins rather different from those there at the time,
which is why I don't have much time for him.) Rather I was responding
to the citation in the original thread. Patristics is my interest --
hence my awareness of what the fathers said about gnosticism -- not NT
studies.
Denis Wright
> 'fraid you've got Denis pegged wrong here, whilst him and I
> don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things he has always come
> across as an honest and forthright debater.
Hiya Hunter - thanks for the leg-up, ole sparring partner. Yes, the days
when you could argue something out without being treated like a leper
are long gone.
My enquiry to Mr Pearce was based on what seems a reasonable assumption
- that Crossan is trying to sort out the nature of early Christianity
from the point of view of the historian and not from some confessional
standpoint. From what I have read of Crossan, to accuse him of lying
about other people's religions seems an unreasonable conclusion to draw
simply because one may disagree with his premises. That is why I wanted
to ask for an example of the sort of lie that was being referred to. I
did not expect abuse in return.
You and I have disagreed in our debates, as you said, but I never
thought that you were lying, and nor, I believe, have you ever done so
about me. The history of the man Jesus and of early Christianity is
shrouded in myth and legend, and any student of Christianity should be
grateful for the attempts by scholars to explore the possibilities
offered by other disciplines. If they are indeed telling lies then let
them be exposed, but if they are building a credible picture based upon
evidence and reason, then they have the right to express those opinions
without being slandered. That is why I asked, sincerely, what lie(s) Mr.
Pearce was referring to. If he can expose a liar, then he has done a
service to scholarship.
Denis
Hunter1
> Ah well, if so I apologise for my cynical nature. Pehaps I've been
> trolled once too often...
Wouldn't worry about it too much, he's a thick-skinned
bugger, have to be to survive these newsgroups for long!
Know what you mean about the trolling, on quite a few
occasions I've bitten and found I've mistaken what was being
said to me and had to back down, purely because I'm too used
to replies to me being attacks upon myself rather than on
what I'm saying. Unfortunately that seems to have become the
norm rather than the exception in these newsgroups in the
last few years so it's an easy conclusion to jump to.
> Not being a Crossan fan I can't help with a blow-by-blow analysis of
> the guy and his works. (I seem to remember that he tells a story of
> Christian origins rather different from those there at the time,
> which is why I don't have much time for him.) Rather I was responding
> to the citation in the original thread. Patristics is my interest --
> hence my awareness of what the fathers said about gnosticism -- not NT
> studies.
Hehe, I'll dip back out here. My opinions on religion are
some that neither yourself or Denis would probably agree
with, in my opinion ALL religion is the greatest source of
misery, destruction and hatred that this world has ever
known. There is a lot of good that comes from it, but it
will never make up for the evil caused by it. The Buddhists
are the closest to a benevolent as opposed to a malevolent
religion in my opinion, and even they seem to be getting
evil lately. So I just write the whole lot off as a black
comedy of Mother Goose meets Jeffrey Dahmer. I only really
popped in cos I saw a couple of posts from Denis who I've
not really seen around for a while and thought I'd stick my
nose in and see what was going on.
> All the best,
And the same in your direction. Good to see there are others
out there willing to admit they could be wrong (I have to do
that a lot, either from jumping the gun or from too much
damn beer before posting!)
Hunter1
> Hiya Hunter - thanks for the leg-up, ole sparring partner. Yes, the days
> when you could argue something out without being treated like a leper
> are long gone.
Gidday Denis, glad to see you're still around, if only
rarely these days. The devolution of these newsgroups is a
usenet tragedy really.... Used to love the groups such as
SCA, now I quite often take a leave of absence or just mark
the group read and start from scratch because I just can't
be fucked going through the crap. What really scares me is
I'm starting to post more in the technical newsgroups than
here, and I vowed to myself way back that I would never get
involved in those groups cos I get enough of that shit at
work, but they actually seem more interesting these days. Go
figure.... 8/
> My enquiry to Mr Pearce was based on what seems a reasonable assumption
> - that Crossan is trying to sort out the nature of early Christianity
> from the point of view of the historian and not from some confessional
> standpoint. From what I have read of Crossan, to accuse him of lying
> about other people's religions seems an unreasonable conclusion to draw
> simply because one may disagree with his premises. That is why I wanted
> to ask for an example of the sort of lie that was being referred to. I
> did not expect abuse in return.
Hey, like I said to Roger the actual theological debate
occuring here is beyond me, I write all religion off as an
evil joke being played on mankind to enhance the natural
misery that every species has to suffer, but I don't think
either of you will agree with that. Just call me a cynic! 8]
> You and I have disagreed in our debates, as you said, but I never
> thought that you were lying, and nor, I believe, have you ever done so
> about me.
That's the difference between ourselves and some of the
other clowns out there. There are arseholes on both sides of
the fence (and there are many fences) and there are those
that just want to debate and get their ideas out and learn
from other people's opinions (and I think I can honestly say
that usenet has changed my opinion on a lot of things, and
I'm a stuborn bastard, so that doesn't come easily). The
problem is that the SNR of these groups has dropped to
microscopic levels from the high levels it used to be when I
first entered these groups around '95/'96. Civil debaters
used to be the norm in these groups, now they are a dieing
breed.
> The history of the man Jesus and of early Christianity is
> shrouded in myth and legend, and any student of Christianity should be
> grateful for the attempts by scholars to explore the possibilities
> offered by other disciplines. If they are indeed telling lies then let
> them be exposed, but if they are building a credible picture based upon
> evidence and reason, then they have the right to express those opinions
> without being slandered. That is why I asked, sincerely, what lie(s) Mr.
> Pearce was referring to. If he can expose a liar, then he has done a
> service to scholarship.
I'll dip out of the religious side of this debate, but I
agree with you entirely on the truthhunting aspect, the
truth is better than the "accepted history". And anyone
truly interested in a subject rather than blindly believing
the accepted facts on a subject should welcome attacks upon
the "facts", because such attacks will potentially either
shatter lies or strengthen the truth. At the same time I can
understand why people in these groups quite often jump to
the conclusion that replies are more malicious than debate,
it's the norm these days and it's an easy conclusion to jump
to. I've made that mistake far too often myself recently.