• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why does Paganism scare Christians?

Status
Not open for further replies.

morningstar2651

Senior Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
14,557
2,591
40
Arizona
✟74,149.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Gxg (G²);65589577 said:
Personally, I can't see where there'd be any basis for claiming at any point that Christians hate Pagans universally - or that such a mindset ever occurred consistently since to say that would be akin to saying "Christians hate the people who made the internet" or "Christians hated people who invented the airplane and people in the Renaissance era" (both of which wouldn't be true since it took Christians valuing pagan thought for things to develop in many places.

I agree that a universal statement is far too general, but when I lived in a small town in the midwest it certainly felt that way sometimes.

We need to remember that the world is much larger than our local communities, or even the community of this forum. The behavior of people in a small non-random sample isn't indicative of the behavior of the population.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I don't think Christians FEAR pagans so much as hate them.
Historically, it doesn't seem that Christians really hated pagans - although people claiming Christ in large groups often did so and gave the impression that somehow Christians inherently hated all things pagan (and we can see this from the events with the Puritans and how they reacted to things such as the Salem Witch Trials/the injustices that came with that and so many other examples).

And prior to that, the impressions of Christians "hating" pagans seem to be connected to how Christianity came to dominate areas where pagans were once the majority. But people often assume that all things Pagan disappeared when Christianity arrived because others were automatically "afraid" of it when it came to Christianity. And yet things were VERY much more complicated than that.

Specifically, paganism tended to fade away as Christianity took more influence in converting the kings of the nations and making Christianity more wide-spread legally....while the pagan views either adapted by taking the names of their gods/changing them to fit "Christian" ones or choosing to lay low until a time they could spring back forth again....subverting things subtely under the radar before anyone would notice and see how there was transformation from the inside out. For when it was about survival, it was best to find ways to co-opt the dominant religion by saying that all of those involved were akin to the former minority religion in small ways.

Some seem to have extended this principle/supposed that prominent aspects of Christendom have been effectively "borrowed" from other cultures, such as whenever people say things like the Virgin Mary shows how the Mother Goddess isn't dead and has reincarnated herself in the form of Mary (seen even in film series such as "The Midsts of Avalon" when describing the development of Camelot and Christianity in competition with Paganism).....or saying that the Christ story was a reinvention of older legends. Neither seem to hold much weight when studied very closely, of course...especially in regards to the Virgin Birth, despite the many differing stories with similarities to it in other religions (more discussed here).

Nonetheless, there was an historic principle with paganism in reimagining oneself in order to transition into a new era where one can come out of hiding/regain what they had in another time before they were pushed underground...as occurred with many of the gods/idols other nations followed.

For many, the ways of peace offered by CHristianity simply mirrored what was practiced in their own nature-based religions.....and they were content with that.

And thus, one has to be careful not to overgeneralize when it comes to the interactions of Paganism and Christianity. If you recall, some of this was brought up before in discussion between us when it came to how Christianity developed:

I've generally had an affinity towards most Animistic spirituality (which I realize is hardly exclusive to Asia) for a long time now. I'm not sure what draws me to it, I think the lack of a rigid structure and restrictive rules maybe but it is pretty central to certain cultures and isn't wide open.
Gxg (G²);64984435 said:
For myself, when seeing the Animistic spirituality aspect, I couldn't help but be reminded on Christianity and the ways others for it have addressed.....for many are not aware of the ways that Christ addresses Folk Religions..

And in the event you've not heard of it, Christian Animism is something many have noted over the years more and more.... as seen in Defining an Animistic Worldview : The Missiology Homepage and Animism: The Default Religion of the World - Missions Mandate and Animism: - International Journal of Frontier Missions


Read a really amazing book on the issue recently called "Along the Silk Road" as it concerns the Silk Road - and it was amazing seeing the different religions that came together/interacted, as well as how they developed - from animism to theism. From Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan to Tajikistan ...to Kashgar, China, to Istanbul, Turkey and so many others pertaining to the peoples of Central Asia and their rich cultures. ...and religious experiences...

[URL="http://www.amazon.com/The-Silk-Road-New-History-ebook/dp/B008YGWQT0"]


[/URL]
...... there always seems to be a lot of interaction with Animism, Secularism and Theism ......Animistic salvation is utilitarian, selfish, human-directed, and this-worldly....for an animist is chiefly concerned with self as he he seeks power to fulfill his own earthly needs... but conversely, Christian salvation is a response to grace, altruistic and self-giving, God-focused, and includes the immediate as well as the eternal. For a Christian, unlike the earthly focused animist, seeks to fulfill the purposes of God.

Having to do a research project on St. Patrick, I was recently amazed at the ways he went about handling it. For Christianity had a toe-hold in Ireland before Patrick, but the religion in Ireland before Patrick was animism IN ADDITION to belief in superstition, omens, soothsaying, magic, curses and the power of sacred places.

Like the people in Korra's universe when it came to the spirits, the Irish also believed many unpredictable supernatural forces – including shape shifting hidden dangers. Patrick too believed in supernatural force but all coming from a good and loving God. At one point, Patrick made his way to the Hill of Tara, Co. Meath, seat of the high king of Ireland. Arriving on the eve of Easter, he lit a paschal fire on the nearby Hill of Slane. At this time of year, it was pagan practice to put out all fires before a new one was lit at Tara. When the druids at Tara saw the light from Slane, they warned King Laoghaire that he must extinguish it or it would burn forever...but. Patrick was summoned to Tara, and on the way he and his followers chanted the hymn known as "The Lorica" or "Saint Patrick's Breastplate".

Although Laoghaire remained a pagan, he was so impressed by the saint that he gave him permission to make converts throughout his realm. Muirchu's Life of Patrick, written two centuries later, describes a contest of magic in which Laoghaire's druids had to concede victory to the saint. And later Patrick travelled widely in Ireland, making converts and establishing new churches, though he eventually made his headquarters at Armagh.

There's a lot that can be seen with the vibrant gospel witness of Celtic Christians. With St. Patrick, his evangelizing the pagans of Ireland has much to be commended for our day since they lived in Christian community while living in close proximity to those who worshipped many gods. By voice of their preaching and example of gospel living together in good works, Celtic Christianity spread rapidly over Ireland. Their faith was alive to creation with God the Trinity as the great creator. Their theology was very practical and suited to a simple farming people and they did not deal in some of the abstract theologizing that lead to debate throughout the empire. They were faithful to the truth but contextualized it for the agrarian Celts whose historical ties were deep with creation. This is seen powerfully in the Irish prayer known as “Saint Patrick’s Breastplate” (mentioned earlier) dating to perhaps a century or so after Patrick. Though the form that survives most likely is not from the pen of Patrick, yet it certainly encapsulates the Christian faith he established amongst this once barbarous people. It is a prayer dancing with both God and the natural world and ends with a phrase familiar to many who have heard of Patrick.
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ in me, Christ below me, Christ above me, Christ to the right of me, Christ to the left of me, Christ where I lie, Christ where I sit, Christ where I stand, Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me, Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me, Christ in every eye which sees me, Christ in every ear which hears me.
More can be found in the book entitled "How the Irish Saved Civilization " by Thomas Cahill ...excellent study


As he noted:

The difference between Patrick’s magic and the magic of the druids is that in Patrick’s world all beings and events come from the hand of a good God, who loves human beings and wishes them success.....

This magical world, though full of adventure and surprise, is no longer full of dread. Rather, Christ has trodden all pathways before us, and at every crossroads and by every tree the Word of God speaks out. We have only to be quiet and listen, as Patrick learned to do during the silence of his “novitiate” as a shepherd on the slopes of Sliabh Mis. | This sense of the world as holy, as the Book of God — as a healing mystery, fraught with divine messages — could never have risen out of Greco-Roman civilization, threaded with the profound pessimism of the ancients and their Platonic suspicion of the body as unholy and the world as devoid of meaning....

“It seems that as some point in the development of every culture, human sacrifice becomes unthinkable, and animals are from then on substituted for human victims…At all events, the Irish had not reached this point and were still sacrificing human beings to their gods when Patrick began his mission…Patrick declared that such sacrifices were no longer needed. Christ has died once for all…Yes, the Irish would have said, here is a story that answers our deepest needs – and answers them in a way so good that we could never even have dared dream of it. We can put away our knives and abandon our altars. These are no longer required. The God of the Three Faces has given us his own Son, and we are washed clean in the blood of this lamb. God does not hate us; he loves us. Greater love than this no man has than that he should lay down his life for his friends. That is what God’s Word, made flesh, did for us. From now on, we are all sacrifices – but without the shedding of blood. It is our lives, not our deaths that this God wants. But we are to be sacrifices, for Paul adds to the hymn this advice to all: ‘Let this [same] mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.’ .


http://vialogue.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/how-the-irish-saved-civilization-review-notes/

132161d1391821019-irish_landscape22.jpg

 
Upvote 0

Zoness

667, neighbor of the beast
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2008
8,384
1,654
Illinois
✟490,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Gxg (G²);65589905 said:
Historically, it doesn't seem that Christians really hated pagans - although people claiming Christ in large groups often did so and gave the impression that somehow Christians inherently hated all things pagan (and we can see this from the events with the Puritans and how they reacted to things such as the Salem Witch Trials/the injustices that came with that and so many other examples).

And prior to that, the impressions of Christians "hating" pagans seem to be connected to how Christianity came to dominate areas where pagans were once the majority. But people often assume that all things Pagan disappeared when Christianity arrived because others were automatically "afraid" of it when it came to Christianity. And yet things were VERY much more complicated than that.

I think a couple of factors come together: Pagans disappearing, Christian's prime directive to be the only true religion and convert the world (and thus all others are wrong and thus they shouldn't exist) and the well documented unpleasantness of the centuries past paint an uncomfortable picture that may be easily misrepresented. I was one of the people who just assumed Christians killed off pagans. I'm sure they did but I retract my belief of how widespread it is.

Still, Christians to this day are very hostile towards pagans hence pagans hostility towards Christians. Plus minority religions are always scared of the majority religion's power.


Gxg (G²);65589905 said:
Specifically, paganism tended to fade away as Christianity took more influence in converting the kings of the nations and making Christianity more wide-spread legally....while the pagan views either adapted by taking the names of their gods/changing them to fit "Christian" ones or choosing to lay low until a time they could spring back forth again....subverting things subtely under the radar before anyone would notice and see how there was transformation from the inside out. For when it was about survival, it was best to find ways to co-opt the dominant religion by saying that all of those involved were akin to the former minority religion in small ways.

Some seem to have extended this principle/supposed that prominent aspects of Christendom have been effectively "borrowed" from other cultures, such as whenever people say things like the Virgin Mary shows how the Mother Goddess isn't dead and has reincarnated herself in the form of Mary (seen even in film series such as "The Midsts of Avalon" when describing the development of Camelot and Christianity in competition with Paganism).....or saying that the Christ story was a reinvention of older legends. Neither seem to hold much weight when studied very closely, of course...especially in regards to the Virgin Birth, despite the many differing stories with similarities to it in other religions (more discussed here).

Nonetheless, there was an historic principle with paganism in reimagining oneself in order to transition into a new era where one can come out of hiding/regain what they had in another time before they were pushed underground...as occurred with many of the gods/idols other nations followed.

For many, the ways of peace offered by CHristianity simply mirrored what was practiced in their own nature-based religions.....and they were content with that.

And thus, one has to be careful not to overgeneralize when it comes to the interactions of Paganism and Christianity. If you recall, some of this was brought up before in discussion between us when it came to how Christianity developed:

I recall quite well our discussions in the past. I think that is one of the neat aspects of paganism and my main draw to it; that it could integrate very easily into just about anything had no problems with it. American Christianity especially has a major problem with this and is designed in a way that its either 'my way or the highway', so to speak. Coupling that with Christianity's exclusive claims implies hostility where maybe none is intended.

Your posts have shown me that Christianity's cultural impact has spread is much different in other parts of the world is reassuring as I have a lot of complaints with the way American Evangelical Christianity (AEC) is conducted. Christianity's growth to the most powerful religion in the world wasn't without consequence. I am not saying that all of the those treacherous and backstabbing kings and bishops of centuries past were Christians or non-Christians, their behavior and belief is not indicative of the religion as a whole and in an alternative world it could have been the pagans who ruled with a bloody iron fist with Christians driven to the underground.

Anyways I try my best to not blame Christendom as a whole for specific incidents but when combating members of this board oooh is it hard.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I'd like to point out that there is a difference between a secularism and an atheism. A secular government is not one that requires disbelief in god.

Secularism makes no statements about the existence of gods. It's indifferent to their existence or non-existence.

Atheism, on the other hand, makes a clear statement that gods do not exist.
.
If I may say...

I do think there's a bit of a double-edged sword at play when it comes to claiming atheism claims no gods do not exist. For many who claim that do so (as atheists) with hostility to the very idea of gods/goddesses (or a God who made the world) - and yet others do so saying that "gods do not exist" with the mindset that there are no inherent divine qualities to any beings which may have created the world ...and that any beings worshiped as "gods" are simply higher forms of intelligence that can be explained by science.

Essentially, while one form of atheism says no other beings or powers exist at all, another says that there are other lifeforms out there who were responsible for the development of the world/other things around us and they are what others deem to be "gods" (or God) - with others having freedom to appreciate/respect and look to those beings. This has come up often, especially in films such as "Prometheus" (with the UFO Gospel ideology when it comes to the theory of Panspermia ) and other films that bring that focus out....something Christians have often spoken about as well:

The Dark Side of Panspermia - Michael S. Heiser, PhD - YouTube


Shows like Star Trek - promoted by others who were atheists (Gene Roddenberry) did this often (especially in the ways that the Startrek writers went into religion later on with DS9 was intensive, as I was shocked that they'd bring spirituality into the mix when it came to the Prophets/Emissary theme in DS9) ...and this also occurred with shows such as Babylon 5 when it came to noting how often what others deemed to be "gods/goddesses" were a matter of perspective of what was offered (more discussed in #15, #20, #19 ).
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I agree that a universal statement is far too general, but when I lived in a small town in the midwest it certainly felt that way sometimes.
Can more than relate - in our own experiences (and I could bring up several of mine from living in small-towns in the South Eastern U.S ) it always seems that what we saw (if negative) was truly universal when it comes to bad stereotypes done by others...Christian or not.

We need to remember that the world is much larger than our local communities, or even the community of this forum. The behavior of people in a small non-random sample isn't indicative of the behavior of the population.
Indeed...
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think a couple of factors come together: Pagans disappearing, Christian's prime directive to be the only true religion and convert the world (and thus all others are wrong and thus they shouldn't exist) and the well documented unpleasantness of the centuries past paint an uncomfortable picture that may be easily misrepresented..

Pagans never disappeared wholesale - that's something that often seems to get parroted even though no one discusses the multiple groups/organizations and cultures that were and are still pagan (with Christians being the minority within them - be it in Japan or India within Hindu culture or even other places).

Caricatures are never good - as Christianity (as defined by Christ and what early believers noted) was never about eradicating all others who disagreed - and many times, it seems pagans try to push that forward even though there's no basis for it. Christians often and repeatedly noted how it was never the case that all others are wrong at all points simply because they are not Christian

Christianity (as based on what Christ noted - facts alone) was never based on having a prime directive as seeing itself as the only true religion...for it never set out to make itself into a new religion anyhow. It was about a lifestyle and proclaiming Christ as Lord/what He had to offer to change the world - but it was never based on the mindset that the whole world would convert since Christ already noted otherwise (Matt 7, Matthew 10 on bringing division, Luke 13, John 16, etc). It was about living in light of a coming kingdom in the world to come/spreading God's Love as Christ defined it to others - changing the lifestyle in the process.

Others such as N.T Wright have often discussed the issue in-depth when it comes to showing what Christ was focused on ....and how many often miss that point that early disciples of Christ understood quite well.

N. T. Wright - Simply Christian - The Veritas Forum - YouTube
Revelation and Christian Hope (N. T. Wright) - YouTube
What Gods Do We Believe in Now? NT Wright and Gary Morson at Northwestern - YouTube

I was one of the people who just assumed Christians killed off pagans. I'm sure they did but I retract my belief of how widespread it is.
Christians who killed off pagans - VERY unfortunate and the same happening within Christianity when it came to other groups of Christians persecuted, such as blacks/Native Americans and others harmed by Imperialistic Christian groups - more here in #12 , #35) )

Nonetheless, it is EQUALLY unfortunate when it seems people try to romanticize what occurred with Paganism as if Pagans either didn't kill off Pagans - or that Pagans never killed Christians excessively. That is something that is always a bit of a double-standard when people talk on the evils of what Christians did while remaining silent on why many left Paganism in the first place when seeing how others treated one another....be it violence or abuse and so many other documented things.

In example, there can be no escaping where there was persecution of the Christians by the Goths and Vandals. For many Scythian Goths having embraced Christianity about the time of Constantine the Great ended up spreading the Gospel spread itself considerably in Scythia, though the two kings who ruled that country, and the majority of the people continued pagans. Fritegern, king of the West Goths, was an ally to the Romans, but Athanarich, king of the East Goths, was at war with them. And the Christians, in the dominions of the former, lived unmolested, but the latter, having been defeated by the Romans, took terrible vengeance on his Christian subjects, commencing his pagan injunctions in the year 370.

And outside of that, many movements from the 20th century had their roots in Pagan ideology ...some of those movements harming others A LOT. There was an excellent review on the issue by another - as seen in The Pagan Roots Of The Fascist Culture

Even outside of that, we have the Vikings as well. In fact, the recent epic saga produced by the History Channel, entitled Vikings , gives a panoramic view of the life of those who fit the definition of Pagan that many pagans don't want to address. For they were indeed a violent and pagan culture whose aim was to steal from others, rape and pillage the weak. Of course, this goes in addition to them showing strong familial bonds and the teaching of the roles of the sexes, which, while definitely swayed and erratic at times, led to a culture that was one of patristic protection and maternal bond. Nonetheless, it was a blatantly pagan society. And while the Vikings were definitely brutally violent and explicitly sexual, the internal want for the divine transcendence was a major facet of their culture.

And when seeing how they attacked monasteries/peaceful monks in other lands outside of their territory
, the standard stereotype of "Paganism was always a matter of peace" doesn't fly.



For some humor:

Horrible Histories - Vikings and Monks. - YouTube


As mentioned before, historian/scholar Richard A. Fletcher did a rather amazing job addressing the issue in The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity (especially on the part of the Vikings and stereotypes of them that Christians often place up - as well as stereotypes of them which Pagans do likewise in the opposite direction). We do have examples of Vikings who did leave behind a great legacy - examples being the stories of two families - the Olafssons, who transformed a pirate camp in Ireland into the kingdom of Dublin, and the Haraldssons, whose rule encompassed Hebrides, Galloway, and the Isle of Man. But we also have a lot of examples of where those in Paganism did the SAME things often accused of Christians (when they did violence) and often BEFORE even encountering anything of Christianity.

This also goes for groups such as the Celts - or other groups outside of that. And this was present for some time. Historically, it goes back as far as the Roman Empire when the Empire began to fail and it switched to a model of serfs/peasants producing for themselves and selling to the community - smaller units begun rather than the larger models the Empire was used to and a model that persisted throughout the Dark ages after the Barbarians came in/began to set up camp. ....(something that had far-reaching impact into the future for many - including St. Patrick who experienced some of the backlash from that when it came to the Germanic Tribes/others invading and having to help save civilization in the meltdown it experienced) - by the time the Barbarians came in, there were many who were no longer protected by the empire. When the Empire had reached its limits of expansion via gaining of slaves/territories, the slave system was addressed by switching to a simple distributed society of small units less socially differentiated, less specialized and with less central control - with this later connecting with the Feudal system that developed to combat the issue successfully in ways the Empire couldn't.

When the serfs had better conditions to work in and a huge stake in their livelihood, more got produced - even though moral choices weren't necessarily improved by better development. For in medieval Europe—a guild system, wider ownership of the means of production, etc — people still used the system for corruption when it came to conquest, violence, people harmed and others still devalued in other ways. War between different guilds/villages still occurred - the people united together against another one that was stronger - and thus, there were still problems Violence was considered a necessary part of life in the Middle Ages (about 500–1500 A.D.) - as people were surrounded by violence in many forms, including wars, brutal tournaments, and deadly rivalries for power and land. Brute force was accepted and even respected in the Middle Ages at multiple points - as violence played a major role in family disputes, in the justice system, and even in education and entertainment.

And Pagans were often a part of that violence. We have to deal with the facts...
Still, Christians to this day are very hostile towards pagans hence pagans hostility towards Christians. Plus minority religions are always scared of the majority religion's power.
That is a concept that goes both ways - for it was not always Christians who were hostile toward Pagans and thus Pagans becoming Hostile. It was very much reversed in many cases when Christianity began somewhere (with no one knowing what it was about) and Pagans hating it - and the same goes for today where Pagans have often been hostile without cause, even in places where Christianity is the minority religion.

Moreover, as you don't know every single Christian nor experienced all Christian groups in existence, it'd be sweeping to claim that Christians are "very hostile toward pagans" (in sweeping generalizations that cannot be verified for all times/accounts) and not really respectful of what even other Pagans have said when saying opposite in stating "Christians have been very peaceful toward Pagans (even in disagreements)" when it comes to their vast experience of Christianity being different from your own experience in the Mid-West.

As it is, we live in a Pagan world currently - pluralistic to be accurate and very much with focus on the supernatural. And that is something people have been realizing when it comes to seeing just how extensive Paganism is (Even within the realm of comics - more shared in Orthodoxy & Comics: Is Paganism and the Old Ways being brought back via Comics? ) - and Christianity not being the dominant religion.

Many have spoken on this issue many times - one example being Post-Christendom Mission (as seen in Post-Christendom Mission by Alan Hirsch and The Next Christians by Gabe Lyons and Catalyst Atlanta 2010: Gabe Lyons on Vimeo as well as The Gospel in a Pluralist Society).



Many are fearful of is becoming minorities----feeling as if believers disagreeing with it will lose more power/influence while those disagreeing with Christ will become MORE powerful. To that, I came across Jim Wallis' thoughts about post-Christendom ([/COLOR]A Christian Mistake - Jim Wallis | God's Politics Blog | Sojourners ), which for the most part I agree with. He says something I was literally just now trying to put words around:


__________________________________________________________________________________

"Personally, I am not offended or alarmed by the notion of a post-Christian America. Christianity was originally and, in my view, always meant to be a minority faith with a counter-cultural stance, as opposed to the dominant cultural and political force….. Martin Luther King Jr. did not get the Civil Rights Act passed because he had the most Bible verses on his side but because he entered into the public square with compelling arguments, vision, and policy that ultimately won the day. Those faith-inspired movements are disciplined by democracy, meaning they don’t expect to win just because they are “Christian.” They have to win the debates about what is best for the common good by convincing their fellow citizens. And that is best done by shaping the values narrative, as opposed to converting everyone to their particular brand of religion.”

______________________________________________________________________________-
If Christians happened to be on the margins again where their views were not the main ones in dominance, cool - as it is, Christ did not have the mindset that those in the world of non-believers destroyed the truth of Torah/God’s instructions simply because they happened to have freedom to do their lifestyles as they please or that believers were not at the top of the ladder (so to speak).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I recall quite well our discussions in the past. I think that is one of the neat aspects of paganism and my main draw to it; that it could integrate very easily into just about anything had no problems with it.

Christian


Technically, with paganism, there have been many who noted the nature of it meant that not all aspects could simply come into any system - as some things would never be compatible or accepted.
American Christianity especially has a major problem with this and is designed in a way that its either 'my way or the highway', so to speak. Coupling that with Christianity's exclusive claims implies hostility where maybe none is intended.
American Christianity, of course, is not nor has it ever been the focused solely on 'my way or the highway' ideology. Certain aspects and camps of Christianity have had that focus - but there were always various forms of American Christianity.

This basic fact is why the Christianity of Blacks/Slaves was radically different than what Slave Masters (in support of slavery/abuse) held to when they claimed Christianity....and why there has always been competition even within Christianity since the founding of the U.S (more shared in #32 and #11 ).

Again, generalizing never really helps in actually establishing accuracy - and this also goes for saying "American Christianity is all about DOMINANCE" when not separating a part of what happened in the American context from all other contexts in America who were Christians but not included in the assessment. Christianity, from the perspective of Christ, never was about establishing itself from a position of dominance....but one of both subservience and subversiveness by action/lifestyle.

Christianity's cultural impact has spread is much different in other parts of the world is reassuring as I have a lot of complaints with the way American Evangelical Christianity (AEC) is conducted
Depends on the part of Evangelical Christianity one is coming from in America - as noted before in #10 and #103 in regards to how American Christianity in Evangelical circles has ALWAYS been a bit different for minorities than it has been for Whites in the majority (and of course, this is not to dismiss whites who worked with minorities either).
[It . QUOTE]
Christianity's growth to the most powerful religion in the world wasn't without consequence. I am not saying that all of the those treacherous and backstabbing kings and bishops of centuries past were Christians or non-Christians, their behavior and belief is not indicative of the religion as a whole and in an alternative world it could have been the pagans who ruled with a bloody iron fist with Christians driven to the underground.
[/QUOTE]Christianity isn't the most powerful religion in the world, however. And it may have been the case that Empires ruled in the name of Christianity - but that's NOT the same as Christianity. Imperialistic Christianity isn't the same as showing what all Christians do or that Christianity from a position of dominance is a symbol of Christianity.

Moreover, there were already times historically where Pagans did rule with bloody iron fists and Christians were driven underground - that cannot be avoided historically if dealing honestly with what happened in many accounts of Pagan kings.
I try my best to not blame Christendom as a whole for specific incidents but when combating members of this board oooh is it hard
I must say, with that in mind, that I do understand why many members on the board may have some form of aggression if and when it seems the same thing others ask of (if supporting Paganism) with not being blamed as a whole for specific incidents isn't done for the Christians - and that the same things Pagans claim Christians did aren't addressed when it comes to their own history.

It can be hard - but facts are facts, on both sides :)

On a side note..

... if there are those practicing this interspirituality, they probably aren't going to just announce themselves. I am sure Christians have much less pleasant words than 'mutt' to describe people that would hold to such beliefs.
Much of that dynamic goes back to whether or not others really understand Christianity if saying that interspirituality wasn't practiced by the Early Church (or even the Lord Christ Himself) - appreciation for thought outside of what believers knew was never something that was outside of the norm in the beginning.

There was an excellent review on the issue which may help to clarify things - as seen in The Christian Distinction - Eclectic Orthodoxy - WordPress ...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You can't force a person to become a Christian. You can politically call them a Christian, but they still won't be a Christian. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"

I do believe that there have been political wars where religion has been named the scapegoat or at least the motive. I do know that in some areas of the world (including where Christian missionaries were tortured and executed) Kings and leaders were converted by missionaries and not through forced conversions. They in turn used their political power to bring their nations into religious unity back in the day when that mattered a lot. Other leaders fought wars to enforce Christianity on other political forces or entities but that never made a single Christian. Declaring a law that everyone will believe the same thing does not make it so.

So I accept all of the political wars etc as part of history, but I will not dismiss the missionary activity, the Christian martyrs, the true conversions by faith etc as being a minor force in the changing of the world. Do a lengthy, sincere study on Christian missionary history and you'll be pretty surprised. They never sent those guys and gals out with swords, but they certainly had a few raised against them and were put to death by the pagans quite often.
:clap:

Very much on point and thanks for noting that side of the issue
 
Upvote 0

steve_bakr

Christian
Aug 3, 2011
5,918
240
✟30,033.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Except that, for the most part, it does not.
"God said it. That settles it. Case closed."
Any line of reasoning that'd put the evaluation of harm at the centre of moral considerations is not theistic in nature, because it's not about a deity or a deity's commandments, but just about an analysis of interpersonal relationships - or about even more fundamental social emotions.

But the pertinent question here is: what came first? The realization that certain actions cause harm - or attributing them to a deity? Judging by the social behaviour of other species such as wolves, apes, or elephants, I'd say that these moral impulses precede the advent of religion by at LEAST one evolutionary step towards the development of sapience and culture.

I'm surprised to see a highly educated person like yourself repeat this rather polemic and somewhat ill-founded argument.
First and foremost, the problem with the -isms of the twentieth century was not that they were (in some cases only supposedly) atheistic, but that they were TOO MUCH LIKE a religion. Communism (and its mirrored twin, Randian Objectivism) have their own eschatology, a sense of mission, a clear compartmentalization of the world into the "good" in-group and the "evil" outsiders, and - last but not least - an unquestioning belief in the authority of the "Revelation".
Secondly, I'd say technological progress accounts for the huge number of casualties much more than the nature of the ideologies involved in the various conflicts. Counting deaths and declaring the party with the smaller body count the morally superior winner does not even make sense when both situations involved the same technology and the same population size. But given that we are comparing people with spears to people with poison gas (and at a time when the global population was significantly larger), it is even more nonsensical.
Last but not least, the often-cited worst offender in this regard (namely the Nazis and the holocaust) weren't even predominantly atheists, and their ideology was building on a millennia-old tradition of anti-semitism that had been perpetuated by Christianity since late antiquity.

"Objectivism" is very much an atheistic religion, including its own eschatology, the repulsion of "heretics", lists of prohibited books, a scriptural canon, etc.

And of course, you kind of missed the point here. Objectivism is not "empathy and sympathy on their own", it's the diametrical opposite - the same mechanism that I also described in relation to theistic religions.

The thing is, though: "religion" did not establish anything of the sort. I mentioned the other social mammals before: our ability to relate to others and to act morally based on these emotions and thoughts precedes the advent of culture (and thus, by extension, religion), as does a group's outrage at seeing an individual do wrong, or an individual's guilt at acting in an anti-social manner.

Social instincts are not fool-proof, of course, neither collectively nor individually. The lynch mob, the de-humanization of the out-group, pecking orders - even despots: all side effects of certain behavioural patterns that have been deeply ingrained into our collective psyche, only to be overcome by reflection, reasoning, discussion, learning.
Culture (theistic or not) *can* aid in that process, in theory.

Historically speaking, however, it was more often a hindrance rather than a help. Christianity systematically resisted and blocked any kind of social progress throughout history - yet retroactively claimed that it had been the driving force behind the change afterwards, pointing at a few mavericks who had re-interpreted their stance in a highly unorthodox manner.

The advantage I see in a non-authoritarian culture is that it is significantly more open to debate, to well-reasoned lines of argument, to a questioning of tradition and established practices - in short: to change. Once you point to a text and claim that this is the Supreme Being's indisputable Will, that option flies straight out of the window.

I think that there is an inherent morality in man, although it can go astray. There were several perversions of thought that went into the justification of Nazism. Heidegger supported Nazism in the beginning, and some of the Christian groups in Germany, caught between a rock and a hard place, made concessions to Hitler's movement.

Such concessions bought them nothing but more disdain from Hitler. And the Vatican took a rather morally ambiguous position on Hitler's movement. But there were Christians like Boenhoffer, who took a stand and paid with his life. And that was more or less the choice for many religious folks: compromise morally or possibly die. The third alternative was to go underground, which many did.

At any rate, that inherent morality in man Catholicism calls the conscience and believes it to be of Divine origin. It is believed to be the core of our identity that is so sacrosanct that nothing--not even the Church--stands between it and God. It would follow, then, that everyone has this conscience, whatever their religious or philosophical persuasion.
 
Upvote 0

Eyes wide Open

Love and peace is the ONLY foundation-to build....
Dec 13, 2011
977
136
Australia
✟42,410.00
Gender
Male
Faith
I think that there is an inherent morality in man, although it can go astray. There were several perversions of thought that went into the justification of Nazism. Heidegger supported Nazism in the beginning, and some of the Christian groups in Germany, caught between a rock and a hard place, made concessions to Hitler's movement.

Such concessions bought them nothing but more disdain from Hitler. And the Vatican took a rather morally ambiguous position on Hitler's movement. But there were Christians like Boenhoffer, who took a stand and paid with his life. And that was more or less the choice for many religious folks: compromise morally or possibly die. The third alternative was to go underground, which many did.

At any rate, that inherent morality in man Catholicism calls the conscience and believes it to be of Divine origin. It is believed to be the core of our identity that is so sacrosanct that nothing--not even the Church--stands between it and God. It would follow, then, that everyone has this conscience, whatever their religious or philosophical persuasion.

As I replied below to Woodrowx2 in another thread, conscience IS the judgement tool we apply to our lives, to attain some control over our creative capabilities, otherwise they can run amok. The issue is that we constantly justify our actions, some justifications are valid, others not. This is why I don't listen to a anybody else regarding my life, and I do mean nobody, because the living word is ever present. That's not to say I'm oblivious to others words but I apply them to how I feel about it rather than what I think, because the thinking is where our skewed justifications can be found.





The following is on my phone notes and I've forgotten the origin, but it's the best understanding (bolded) I have read about prayer, and what it means in relation to submitting to God. It isn't even religious when you attribute your conscience to judging your creative expressions but its the introspection element that is missing from many people's lives. To judge oneself is to submit elements of your creative drives, that may indeed be (or were) dysfunctional in their creation, so prayer in this context IS the submissive component.

Tefilah: Prayer
The Hebrew word for prayer is tefilah. It is derived from theroot Pe-Lamed-Lamed and the word l'hitpalel, meaning to judge oneself. This surprising word origin provides insight into the purpose of Jewish prayer. The most important part of any Jewish prayer, whether it be a prayer of petition, of thanksgiving, of praise of God, or of confession, is the introspection it provides, the moment that we spend looking inside ourselves, seeing our role in the universe and our relationship to God.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
If one looks at how conversions occurred in certain places in Europe, they will find a pattern. A king/ruler converts to X religion and so must everyone else by default. Often, a bunch of converting back and forth between Christianity and Paganism occurred depending on who was in charge and who won which conflict. Most of it amounted to warring between various leaders. It didn't seem to matter what the religion was. Also, if you look at events like the Crusades, the goal wasn't about spreading Christianity. However, most of Christendom over time was not like this, and when people converted they got rid of pagan things of their own will. It was certainly not all coercion. To paint a peaceful pagan utopia mythos is just as much of a historical revisionist fantasy as those who try to say there weren't Christians out there who used violence to coerce others into believing.
What's interesting to witness is the ways that Christianity developed in many cases by winning others to their side.

Others may feel that Christianity systematically resisted/blocked any kind of social progress throughout history - yet in many cases, it had been anything but that ...and directly responsible for many cases of history going forward in a good direction, with this not always being something that was evident....for the strength of Christianity was about being subtle.

In example, we know that St.Paul advocated the concept of subversion and that the early believers lived in an era where slavery was allowed in the Empire and often abusive...and Paul could have said that he didn't think slavery should exist (as the scriptures condemn it in great detail - and of course, when we come to the NT situation, the situation gets much more complex, but we will STILL have the issue of "how slavery was NT slavery ). But he went for the heart of the issue by saying that both slaves/masters needed to learn to love one another and serve each other faithfully.

Although he said a slave should seek his or her freedom if they had the chance (I Corinthians 7), he set it up to where believers could be subversive to the worldly systems of the day by living in such a way that people on the outside would marvel at how believers do things.....and thus, they'd effectively convict/change the hearts of others. Some of it has a pragmatic aspect to it as well, seeing how you can't just write openly that you're against certain things since your mail/letters are investigated and inspected...and in many ways, if the empire supported/thrived on an industry you saw as corrupt, to speak against it could be deadly. Thus, wisdom would dictate to write in such a way as to get your message out without coming out too strongly on it so that people who understood you/had your heart would see where you're coming from.

In the context St. Paul lived in, the Pagan world was not one of peacefulness - and many pagans were deeply impacted by what other pagans did in support of a bad system....but St. Paul challenged the Pagan systems of his day in a very subtle way.

What Paul did actively was a form of social resistance to bad authorities who advocated differently than what he believed...and that's similar to Christ. In a world dominated by Roman rule, Jesus proclaimed an alternative way to live. Instead of living in fear and trusting Rome for their daily bread, Jesus encouraged his followers to live into God’s reign on earth as it is in heaven and trust in God’s provision. He called those living in luxury at the expense of others to give it back to the poor.

He encouraged his followers to expose Rome’s oppression through creative acts of nonviolent resistance (such as turning the other cheek or going the extra mile). The same thing seemed to occur even in the U.S when it came to many of the battles behind blacks being able to vote. They fought for the ability to have it, although many saw that even having the freedom to do so would mean little so long as hearts of their oppressors were not changed and they were not convicted....and so for many, more focus went into proclaiming the truth of the Word/loving their enemies. A change happened over time...one battle at a time.

The way He called His followers to did NOT support all things in the political establishment. It required for believers to take care of abandoned children when the government didn't...and to worship God even when people said Caesar was God. Much of the concept of non-violent resistnce is labeled as being "Ghandi-like" when the reality is that it didn't start with Him. It started with scripture...

Many scholars have noted the ways that what Christ did in how he worked with others challenged many economic systems of His day, especially those that'd not favor the poor and instead allowed a caste system to continue where neighbors were not treated equally lest they were rich (much as the Book of Amos discusses....widows and orphans being taken advantage of, Amos 2-8, Amos 2:5-7 , Amos 8:5-7 ). He wasn't fitting in with the staus quo when it came to denouncing mess within the temple systems with the money changers in John 2 and Mark 12:39-41/Matthew 21:12-14 / Matthew 21 --or calling the Pharisees out for their love of money/taking advangate of widows ( Mark 12:39-41/Luke 16:13-15/Luke 16 [I

...Even if following Jesus had significant loss to the disciples in their business on some level, it was still all good/beneficial since in the process new fictive-kin groups quickly emerged and developed their own patron-client economy----and by meeting the basic needs of its members, the household-based domestic economy also created a safety-net for its disenfranchised and honored poor which was non-existent before.......very much as it was later in urban Christian households, especially those in Acts in Acts 2:43-45 / Acts 2[/FONT]
Outside of the monastic community of the Essenes, who also had the closest structures to the early Jewish church, there were no others in Jerusalem who lived life as the early church did. This went hand and hand with the ways believers addressed people in the Empire who were against believers.

Some quotes from others in Church History, as it relates to how Christians conquered Rome through Acts of Love/taking action by helping others:

“It is incredible to see the ardor with which the people of that religion help each other in their wants. They spare nothing. Their first legislator (i.e. Jesus) has to put it into their heads that they are all brethren.” (~Lucian–ardent persecutor of Christians)
“It is to our shame that we leave our own without support while the Galileans nourish not only their own but even our poor.” (~Julian the Apostate–a Persecutor of Christians..in Julian the Apostate, Against the Gallileans: remains of the 3 books …& History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene …)
“It was the CHristians who rescued exposed babies from the garbage dumps, who welcomed the outcasts of society, who ministered to victims of sickness, even during times of plague that no one else would touch.” (~Spickard & Cragg, A Global History of Christians).
Change in unique ways...in line with the Words of Christ when he noted what it meant to be Good Samaritans (Luke 10:25-39).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Neo-pagans have no influence because they have no real contribution to religion for the current age. Sorry to say it, but that's why paganism died the first time- there's just not enough truth or wisdom on offer that hasn't been surpassed by major religions already or wasn't already in their possession. What makes neo-pagans think society is now willing to accept something civilisation already rejected en masse?
In the times we live in, I think it'd be beneficial to realize where Paganism has not only remained - but is now becoming the dominant group....there were always pagans present (Even though Neo-Paganism isn't the same as the Paganism of old). Although not on the same levels as with before, it does seem that Paganism has been something people are slipping back into, even though not all aspects of it are necessarily counter to a biblical worldview. For an excellent article, one can consider the following:

 
Upvote 0

Lollerskates

Junior Member
May 2, 2013
2,992
250
✟4,340.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Gxg (G²);65593051 said:
What's interesting to witness is the ways that Christianity developed in many cases by winning others to their side.

Others may feel that Christianity systematically resisted/blocked any kind of social progress throughout history - yet in many cases, it had been anything but that ...and directly responsible for many cases of history going forward in a good direction, with this not always being something that was evident....for the strength of Christianity was about being subtle.

In example, we know that St.Paul advocated the concept of subversion and that the early believers lived in an era where slavery was allowed in the Empire and often abusive...and Paul could have said that he didn't think slavery should exist (as the scriptures condemn it in great detail - and of course, when we come to the NT situation, the situation gets much more complex, but we will STILL have the issue of "how slavery was NT slavery ). But he went for the heart of the issue by saying that both slaves/masters needed to learn to love one another and serve each other faithfully.

Although he said a slave should seek his or her freedom if they had the chance (I Corinthians 7), he set it up to where believers could be subversive to the worldly systems of the day by living in such a way that people on the outside would marvel at how believers do things.....and thus, they'd effectively convict/change the hearts of others. Some of it has a pragmatic aspect to it as well, seeing how you can't just write openly that you're against certain things since your mail/letters are investigated and inspected...and in many ways, if the empire supported/thrived on an industry you saw as corrupt, to speak against it could be deadly. Thus, wisdom would dictate to write in such a way as to get your message out without coming out too strongly on it so that people who understood you/had your heart would see where you're coming from.

In the context St. Paul lived in, the Pagan world was not one of peacefulness - and many pagans were deeply impacted by what other pagans did in support of a bad system....but St. Paul challenged the Pagan systems of his day in a very subtle way.

What Paul did actively was a form of social resistance to bad authorities who advocated differently than what he believed...and that's similar to Christ. In a world dominated by Roman rule, Jesus proclaimed an alternative way to live. Instead of living in fear and trusting Rome for their daily bread, Jesus encouraged his followers to live into God’s reign on earth as it is in heaven and trust in God’s provision. He called those living in luxury at the expense of others to give it back to the poor.

He encouraged his followers to expose Rome’s oppression through creative acts of nonviolent resistance (such as turning the other cheek or going the extra mile). The same thing seemed to occur even in the U.S when it came to many of the battles behind blacks being able to vote. They fought for the ability to have it, although many saw that even having the freedom to do so would mean little so long as hearts of their oppressors were not changed and they were not convicted....and so for many, more focus went into proclaiming the truth of the Word/loving their enemies. A change happened over time...one battle at a time.

The way He called His followers to did NOT support all things in the political establishment. It required for believers to take care of abandoned children when the government didn't...and to worship God even when people said Caesar was God. Much of the concept of non-violent resistnce is labeled as being "Ghandi-like" when the reality is that it didn't start with Him. It started with scripture...

Many scholars have noted the ways that what Christ did in how he worked with others challenged many economic systems of His day, especially those that'd not favor the poor and instead allowed a caste system to continue where neighbors were not treated equally lest they were rich (much as the Book of Amos discusses....widows and orphans being taken advantage of, Amos 2-8, Amos 2:5-7 , Amos 8:5-7 ). He wasn't fitting in with the staus quo when it came to denouncing mess within the temple systems with the money changers in John 2 and Mark 12:39-41/Matthew 21:12-14 / Matthew 21 --or calling the Pharisees out for their love of money/taking advangate of widows ( Mark 12:39-41/Luke 16:13-15/Luke 16 ). Nazareth's rebellious son: deviance and downward mobility in the Galilean Jesus movement. is an excellen article on the issue, IMHO, as it deals with the reality of the loss experienced by the disciples from their business and how Christ crossed boundaries. The author of that research article referenced the work of another called K.C. Hanson, who has written of the economic and social systems that typified the Galilean fishing culture...and who disagrees with those claiming Galilean fishermen were “middle class.” since, according to Hanson, the system of taxes, licenses, and tribute would have kept them at a subsistence level..as seen in his work entitled “The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition,”

The "Nazareth's Rebellious Son" piece had many very solid points concerning the dynamics that Jesus may have encountered when doing work among the impoverished/challenging many of the norms of his day that would have kept the impoverished from recieving help (especially in regards to his beginning social networking among others to look out for their own). Of course, due to other factors that were common during the days of the Roman Empire, I (as do many others, of course) take exception with some of the points of the "fishermen" trade being one for the disciples as "poor", as it relates to the size of Peter's house/the various roles of fishermen since fishing was a lucrative industry in the Roman Empire ( more discussed elsewhere more in-depth here ). One may also wish to look into the work of Jerome Murphy O’Connor -who DISCUSSES in depth another view on how those who were fishermen were actually required to be EXTREMELY competitive/educated on many points in order to survive in the world they lived in..

And on the article about ""Nazareth's Rebellious Son"", there were some points one could disagree with and yet be cool.....for even if following Jesus had significant loss to the disciples in their business on some level, it was still all good/beneficial since in the process new fictive-kin groups quickly emerged and developed their own patron-client economy----and by meeting the basic needs of its members, the household-based domestic economy also created a safety-net for its disenfranchised and honored poor which was non-existent before.......very much as it was later in urban Christian households, especially those in Acts in Acts 2:43-45 / Acts 2

Outside of the monastic community of the Essenes, who also had the closest structures to the early Jewish church, there were no others in Jerusalem who lived life as the early church did. This went hand and hand with the ways believers addressed people in the Empire who were against believers.

Some quotes from others in Church History, as it relates to how Christians conquered Rome through Acts of Love/taking action by helping others:





Change in unique ways...in line with the Words of Christ when he noted what it meant to be Good Samaritans (Luke 10:25-39).

Are you are professor or teacher? I am not necessarily lauding your postings, but I have become familiar with your postings, and you seem didactic in your approaches - like you are giving a lecture, or class. Not in a boring way, either.
 
Upvote 0

Zoness

667, neighbor of the beast
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2008
8,384
1,654
Illinois
✟490,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Gxg (G²);65591342 said:
[truncated]

Moreover, there were already times historically where Pagans did rule with bloody iron fists and Christians were driven underground - that cannot be avoided historically if dealing honestly with what happened in many accounts of Pagan kings.
I must say, with that in mind, that I do understand why many members on the board may have some form of aggression if and when it seems the same thing others ask of (if supporting Paganism) with not being blamed as a whole for specific incidents isn't done for the Christians - and that the same things Pagans claim Christians did aren't addressed when it comes to their own history.

It can be hard - but facts are facts, on both sides :)

On a side note..

Much of that dynamic goes back to whether or not others really understand Christianity if saying that interspirituality wasn't practiced by the Early Church (or even the Lord Christ Himself) - appreciation for thought outside of what believers knew was never something that was outside of the norm in the beginning.

There was an excellent review on the issue which may help to clarify things - as seen in The Christian Distinction - Eclectic Orthodoxy - WordPress ...

Hi Gxg, there's so such to address. I read it all and don't honestly have much to say, your assessment is much more academic and mine is more emotional/reactive.

I haven't read that Eclectic Orthodoxy article yet, I'm curious as to what it has to say.

I only defend paganism because of my very positive experiences with a neopagan community in contrast to my Christian experience. I have a Deist icon but honestly I don't know what I believe any more. There's just too much out there and life gets in the way, its quite distressing.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Hi Gxg, there's so such to address. I read it all and don't honestly have much to say, your assessment is much more academic and mine is more emotional/reactive.
I'd think it'd be fair to say that everyone on an online forum has emotion behind responses - no matter how much they either are (or are not ) focused with logical response. I tend to be quick in response/thinking and able to process faster than most...but for me,it's not so much a matter of being academic as much as about simply having facts verified (and some do so in a casual manner while others do so in a different manner).

I haven't read that Eclectic Orthodoxy article yet, I'm curious as to what it has to say.
You'd probably enjoy it...

He did some others I was thankful for - such as God is not Odin, God is not Zeus, God is not Marduk | Eclectic Orthodoxy and The Christian Distinction: God + World â‰[bless and do not curse] 2 | Eclectic Orthodoxy and St Gregory the Theologian: Oration 39 (part 1) | Eclectic Orthodoxy
I only defend paganism because of my very positive experiences with a neopagan community in contrast to my Christian experience. I have a Deist icon but honestly I don't know what I believe any more. There's just too much out there and life gets in the way, its quite distressing.
I can understand why you defend paganism due to having better experiences with it than what you saw within Christianity - I don't think anyone missed that dynamic (speaking for myself, as well) - although what was being noted was that one cannot take negative experiences they saw in one part of the American experience with Christianity and superimpose that onto ALL of American Christianity while simultaneously not having talked to every poster (Christian) who has been present on the forum or within American Christianity in general.

Deism does suit you in many respects - although even with that, there are wrestling through what we believe (just as it is with others who are Christians and yet they don't know fully where they stand on all issues). Life does get distressing
 
Upvote 0

Zoness

667, neighbor of the beast
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2008
8,384
1,654
Illinois
✟490,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Gxg (G²);65598267 said:
I'd think it'd be fair to say that everyone on an online forum has emotion behind responses - no matter how much they either are (or are not ) focused with logical response. I tend to be quick in response/thinking and able to process faster than most...but for me,it's not so much a matter of being academic as much as about simply having facts verified (and some do so in a casual manner while others do so in a different manner).

You'd probably enjoy it...

He did some others I was thankful for - such as God is not Odin, God is not Zeus, God is not Marduk | Eclectic Orthodoxy and The Christian Distinction: God + World â‰[bless and do not curse] 2 | Eclectic Orthodoxy and St Gregory the Theologian: Oration 39 (part 1) | Eclectic Orthodoxy

The whole site looks interesting; I'll try to flip through most of it tonight.

Gxg (G²);65598267 said:
I can understand why you defend paganism due to having better experiences with it than what you saw within Christianity - I don't think anyone missed that dynamic (speaking for myself, as well) - although what was being noted was that one cannot take negative experiences they saw in one part of the American experience with Christianity and superimpose that onto ALL of American Christianity while simultaneously not having talked to every poster (Christian) who has been present on the forum or within American Christianity in general.

Fair enough. I will be more mindful of this in the future.

Gxg (G²);65598267 said:
Deism does suit you in many respects - although even with that, there are wrestling through what we believe (just as it is with others who are Christians and yet they don't know fully where they stand on all issues). Life does get distressing

You're right; Deism isn't just an easy middle between Atheism and a Theistic religion. I still do not understand the nature of the God I presume to exist. I have to look at religions critically and determine what revelation if any are valid. If they are all not valid I then need to determine if any such belief in a creator is relevant. If not, then why hold them system? If so, then what impact does it have on my morality and analysis of the world around me, if any? There's the tug between Modern and Classical Deism that is pretty interesting.

Revealed religion is probably the stumbling block for most Deists since it would be taking the meaning or idea of a pure, perfect God and translating it down into imperfect, human terms. Long story short, its a more complicated system than it seems and like with anything it doesn't magically guarantee any understanding.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟183,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
Gxg (G²);65593051 said:
What's interesting to witness is the ways that Christianity developed in many cases by winning others to their side.

Others may feel that Christianity systematically resisted/blocked any kind of social progress throughout history - yet in many cases, it had been anything but that ...and directly responsible for many cases of history going forward in a good direction, with this not always being something that was evident....for the strength of Christianity was about being subtle.

In example, we know that St.Paul advocated the concept of subversion and that the early believers lived in an era where slavery was allowed in the Empire and often abusive...and Paul could have said that he didn't think slavery should exist (as the scriptures condemn it in great detail - and of course, when we come to the NT situation, the situation gets much more complex, but we will STILL have the issue of "how slavery was NT slavery ). But he went for the heart of the issue by saying that both slaves/masters needed to learn to love one another and serve each other faithfully.

Well, Paul's stance on the matter can surely be read in this fashion - yet what ACTUALLY happened when Christianity finally rose to power was profoundly different from that: Down to the year 1000, no Christian leader, much less a pope or Council, condemned slavery.

The pagan Roman Republic took many steps to alleviate the lot of slaves. In 82 BCE murder of slaves were forbidden by the Cornelian Law. Around 30 BCE the Petronian Law forbade the sending of slaves to fight in the amphitheater. The Stoic teacher Seneca (c 5 BCE-65 CE), while he still had influence over emperor Nero (37-68 CE) managed to induce him to pass a law to forbade the cruel treatment of slaves. The Emperor Hadrian (76-138), an Epicurean, revived the laws prohibiting the murder of slaves and of sending them to the amphitheater. He also suppressed the inhuman practice of housing slaves underground. Hadrian was also known to have banished a wealthy Roman lady, named Umbricia, for cruelty to her slaves. By the second century slaves had already acquired the right, under certain circumstances, to bring legal action against their masters. The Emperor Antoninus Pius (86-161) issued an imperial decree which gives freedom to a slave running from a cruel master; on the condition that the runaway slave must embrace a statue of the emperor before he is considered a free man.

The voices of conscience raised against slavery was also pagan. The pagan Dio Chrysostom, who was the greatest orator of his age, delivered a speech around AD100 in a public hall in the Forum of Rome where he explicitly and at great length condemned slavery as unjust.

The first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine (c274-337) actually undid most of the humane laws to alleviate the position of slaves laid down by his pagan predecessors. He permitted parents to sell their children into slavery and allowed finders of abandoned children to bring them up as slaves. He also issued a decree which stipulates the death penalty for any Christian woman who had sexual intercourse with a slave; that the slave would also be put to death is a foregone conclusion.

The Roman pontiffs made many remarks about slaves and slavery. none of which helped to abolish the practice. Pope Leo The Great (d.461) ruled that no slaves can become priests because their "vileness" will "pollute" the sacred order. Pope Gregory the Great (c540-604), who was the richest slave owner in sixth century Europe, forbade the marriage of Christian women to slaves. In the eleventh century, Pope Benedict VIII (d1024), in an effort to stop priests from having sex, decreed that all children produced by these unlawful coupling should be made slaves. Pope Paul III (1468-1549) decreed that all Englishmen who supported the errant King, Henry VIII should be reduced to slavery. In the fifteenth century, the papacy gave the king of Portugal permission top conquer "heathen" countries and reduced their population in "everlasting slavery."

The churches and the monasteries, far from being a haven for escaping slaves, actually owned slaves. When ancient slavery ended, the monasteries were among the last to give up their slaves. Ancient slavery ended in the twelfth century, or more correctly evolved into serfdom, not because of any concerted Christian action but for purely economic reasons. It became cheaper for the wealthy to have serfs working their land and feeding themselves than to own dependent slaves.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Well, Paul's stance on the matter can surely be read in this fashion - yet what ACTUALLY happened when Christianity finally rose to power was profoundly different from that: Down to the year 1000, no Christian leader, much less a pope or Council, condemned slavery.
St. Paul's stance, if dealing with the facts of what ACTUALLY occurred in Christianity, was what Christian people lived by consistently - and as said earlier, there's a stark difference between Imperialistic Christianity/things done in the name of Christianity and what was actually practiced in consistency with Christ. This was noted by the Early Church repeatedly - especially as it concerns how there were people in the culture claiming Christianity in the political sense and others living out the heart of Christ...in opposition with others who were for a version of Christianity divorced from Christ. And on the issue, Christians didn't see it fit to condemn slavery or other things since Christ didn't go out of the way to do so either - it was about lifestyle change individually rather than making changes from the TOP down via power. Desert Fathers noted the same dynamics...

Can't make up the facts on those things if we're to be consistent...
The pagan Roman Republic took many steps to alleviate the lot of slaves. In 82 BCE murder of slaves were forbidden by the Cornelian Law. Around 30 BCE the Petronian Law forbade the sending of slaves to fight in the amphitheater. The Stoic teacher Seneca (c 5 BCE-65 CE), while he still had influence over emperor Nero (37-68 CE) managed to induce him to pass a law to forbade the cruel treatment of slaves. The Emperor Hadrian (76-138), an Epicurean, revived the laws prohibiting the murder of slaves and of sending them to the amphitheater. He also suppressed the inhuman practice of housing slaves underground. Hadrian was also known to have banished a wealthy Roman lady, named Umbricia, for cruelty to her slaves. By the second century slaves had already acquired the right, under certain circumstances, to bring legal action against their masters. The Emperor Antoninus Pius (86-161) issued an imperial decree which gives freedom to a slave running from a cruel master; on the condition that the runaway slave must embrace a statue of the emperor before he is considered a free man.

The voices of conscience raised against slavery was also pagan. The pagan Dio Chrysostom, who was the greatest orator of his age, delivered a speech around AD100 in a public hall in the Forum of Rome where he explicitly and at great length condemned slavery as unjust.
None of that actually deals with where Christians were already sold immensely into slavery and also advocating against slavery/abuse in their churches while also appreciating the concept of being allowed to gain freedom.

Much of the changes occurred when seeing how people in the Churches responded - for during Late Greek and early Roman era, slaves were free in terms of their beliefs and also could get married and have children with the permit of their lord. But children were automatically regarded as the lord’s slaves...and in the 6th century AD because of the influence of Christianity, slaves gained some more rights such as participation in unions or real estate. But having pagan emperors be more supporting of good treatment of slavery didn't mean all things were good for slaves. Even Emperor Hadrian - supporting slavery (while saying he felt there was too much cruel treatment) - did mistreat slaves. He once destroyed the eye of a slave with a pencil.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine (c274-337) actually undid most of the humane laws to alleviate the position of slaves laid down by his pagan predecessors. He permitted parents to sell their children into slavery and allowed finders of abandoned children to bring them up as slaves. He also issued a decree which stipulates the death penalty for any Christian woman who had sexual intercourse with a slave; that the slave would also be put to death is a foregone conclusion.

Seeing that Constantine was never hailed as Christian universally in the Church anyhow and noted to be quite pagan in his stances, of course that is not a reflection of Christianity as it concerns what believers did all over the world.

But since he was brought up, some things should be taken into consideration with him historically. One of them is how unfortunate it is that so many things get laid at the feet of Constantine since he was NOT responsible for - seeing how his actions were really in connection with other Emperors since there was another who he was a Co-Ruler with that made a difference (Licinius in specific). - and to be clear, Licinius was a pagan emperor who ended up punishing/persecuting Christians everywhere in his competition with Constantine to be dominant since he felt that it was not good to have one claim Christ as emperor. People who were Christians were kept from labor/jobs and harmed in several other ways...

For reference, one can go to God Against The Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism - Jonathan Kirsch - Google Books and The Apollo of God: The Oracle and Festivals of Deliverance in Human History - R. Robert Larsen - Google Books

But again, The two co-emperors, the pagan Licinius and the Christian Constantine, reigned together over an indivisible empire at one point and both sides had mistreatment of Christians occur and Pagans.

With Constantine, many do not keep in mind the extensive ways that Jews actually were favored more so than Christians throughout Roman History - with Constantine not changing various parts of those laws and with other benefits given to the Jews that were not present before his rule - and many extensive sites pertaining to Jews/Judaism being preserved rather than allowed to be destroyed (and destroying Hadrian's temple in the attempt to restore archeological history in the Holy Land ) with anti-Semitism not being traced back to him so much as to previous Emperors (i.e. Hadrian or Vespasian) who slaughtered the Jewish Population. The man did grant everyone - Christians, Jews and others - the liberty to worship as they pleased....but his religion to promote was Christianity - with believers rejoicing in it in the same way that the Jews of Ezra's time rejoiced when the King of Persia promoted their culture/beliefs politically (Ezra 1-4) .

As one believers noted to me when it came to the ways others may blast Constantine:
Constantine had a specific vision of the cross and established not only Christian "tolerance", but also worked toward Christian exclusivity. When he found that Rome was too paganized to serve as the center of Christianity, he moved that center to Byzantium (later called Constantinpole), which is in modern day Turkey. If anything, Constantine helped to shield Christianity from pagan ideas



And as another noted best with regards to merging the Christian faith with the Roman Empire and showing how certain groups benefited from it more than others realize (for brief excerpt):

What about Constantine and the Jews? Were his policies a change towards anti-Semitism? In fact Roman law long before Constantine had basically prohibited Jews from proselytizing for their faith. For example they had been prohibited from circumcising converts unless they were slaves. Constantine did not change this law, but what he did do was give rabbis and other Jewish leaders the same tax exemption as clergy, and under Constantine, for the first time since Hadrian’s rule, Jews were allowed to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Furthermore, Constantine left the Jewish patriarch in Constantinople alone, and allowed him to judge religious issues within his own community, but not only religious issues, also civil issues. The same privilege would be extended to Christians as they built up church law and canon law. It is true of course he threatened Jews who harassed converts to Christianity and strengthened rules against circumcising non-Jews. Constantine does not appear to have been as anti-Semitic as many of his predecessors in the Emperor’s chair, but there is clearly some prejudice in evidence in his life and work...... Christianity was overwhelmingly Gentile in character long before Constantine. Indeed, it may even have had a majority of Gentile members by the end of the first century A.D.

On a good review on the subject:
And for other books on the issue which stand out, one can consider Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation

Of course, between executions of Crispus and Fausta and all the bloodshed he man caused ( patronizing the Church but living a debauched life married to a prostitute, killing his son Crispus and wife in cold blood and embroiling the empire in horrific wars, torturing people...more discussed here, here ), many do not see him as saintly material. They feel that what was credited to him with the Edict of Milan is something that should be given to Christ--and others feel that Constantine was the instrument used by the Lord even though he was very political and ambitious in his use of Christianity....paticularly, IMPERIAL CHRISTIANITY (more discussed here).

Additionally, others are of the mindset that what he did made it possible for Christianity to become secularized in a rather quick amount of time---with Christianity being a religion that became one of preference for political reasons since all of the leaders could now use Christian language/terms .....and with Constantine forcing all of the churches together in councils to decide (in light of many herectical ideas of the day), the amount of blood shed (i.e. Gangster Synod in example) that went down due to certain church groups wanting to have more political power was horrendous.

Although councils were established, it often seemed based more so on who had the most power or the right politican to back up their views that often determined what was either "right" or "wrong"---and many in that era saw the Church becoming extremely wordly/corrupt due to what Constantine made possible.

One very prominent leader within Christendom and Messianic Jew, known as Alan Hirsh noted how traditional/institutional forms of the Church that were birthed in Christendom are things which did not necessarily have to be where all focus goes...and he alongside others have shared the thought that some dynamics with Constantine thought are similar to the battles others have had with the U.S when it comes to saying they want a "Christian" nation and yet there's no discussion on what happens when one form of Christianity is pushed above all others, with the differing versions of it either marginalized or persecuted. To be clear, Allan Hirsch relies on the restorationist meta-narrative that the New Testament church was pure in all things but at one point in history, identified by him as the conversion of Constantine/that era, everything went wrong, and has continued wrong.. That meta-narrative is something I cannot go with fully, even though I do feel there were many things in early Christendom that were not necessarily the ultimate in what the Lord desired ---and one can go either here , here , here or here in his book entitled "The Forgotten Ways" for more on his view/where it has been critiqued.

Christianity of Antiquity looked radically different than how many today believe it to be - and no one reading the life of Constantine can say that his revolution didn't have alot of blood that went with it..and yet, as another wisely said to me before, God consistently "paints" using broken brushes. .
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The Roman pontiffs made many remarks about slaves and slavery. none of which helped to abolish the practice. Pope Leo The Great (d.461) ruled that no slaves can become priests because their "vileness" will "pollute" the sacred order. Pope Gregory the Great (c540-604), who was the richest slave owner in sixth century Europe, forbade the marriage of Christian women to slaves. In the eleventh century, Pope Benedict VIII (d1024), in an effort to stop priests from having sex, decreed that all children produced by these unlawful coupling should be made slaves. Pope Paul III (1468-1549) decreed that all Englishmen who supported the errant King, Henry VIII should be reduced to slavery. In the fifteenth century, the papacy gave the king of Portugal permission top conquer "heathen" countries and reduced their population in "everlasting slavery."

Indeed..

Nonetheless, none of that deals with the various other Christian leaders and Bishops who spoke out against slavery - St. Patrick being one of the most basic in the 5th-century ...as seen plainly in his rebuking British kings/rulers outside of the Roman Empire in his Letter to Coroticus. For the text of the Letter to Coroticus, one can see see The Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition

Even Between the 6th and 12th century there was a growing sentiment that slavery was not compatible with Christian conceptions of charity and justice; some argued against slavery whilst others, including the influential Thomas Aquinas, argued the case for slavery subject to certain restrictions - in the same way minimum wage jobs are allowed even though it is not the ideal for all. Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery could not be justified under natural law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law....AND that Christians were to learn how to live within the system.

And when it comes to the issue of slavery - or any other social wrong - for Christians it always went back to the central question of whether or not believers were to change the world by being DOMINANT/ENDING ALL social wrongs - or whether they were to change them through their individual lifestyle. Christians often debated the issue of Politics and whether they were to be subservient or subversive - and This is why, again, you often did not see many speaking out against slavery (in the same way Christ Himself never spoke out against it even though he did speak out against injustice/mistreatment...and even others like John the Baptist did the same when telling in Luke 3 how Roman Soldiers could have the Kingdom of God by practicing right action/not extorting the people).

And those within the Church - as it concerns the Byzantine Empire (which was different in many respects from what happened in Rome with her church) - often did much to alleviate many things with slavery/mistreatment. Some of this was discussed elsewhere more in-depth - as seen here:

G

The Law of Moses was a combination of capitalism and socialism. Because every 7th year ones debt was forgiven and freed of slavery. I think that's significant. Neither the right nor the left have the answer today.
Gxg (G²);63479346 said:
What was present in the Law of Moses was quite astounding when it came to showing how others could be helped out/enabled to be taken care of...

We can see how the Law saved in the examples given on generosity. There is evidence that ancient Near Eastern law codes required rulers to exercise equity and justice toward the poor and to encourage economic assistance to alleviate their financial burdens. Some of these laws are similar to laws in the Old Testament (see The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, 101-102). Without question, the poor of the ancient world were a group in need of protection and charity. Just as in other ancient Near Eastern societies, being poor in Israel could be socially and economically disabling. But there was one critical difference: The God of Israel had such affection for the poor that he directly identified with them and required all others to provide for their needs and to give them justice (Psalm 12:5; 34:6; Proverbs 14:31; 19:17). The plight of the poor is one of the issues that matters most to God, and his Law made truly astounding provisions to help them, not the least of which were economic protections:

  • Gleanings and Harvests: The corners of fields and the grapes dropped by the workers were reserved for the poor (Deuteronomy 24:17; Leviticus 19:9-10). The poor were also allowed to eat from land that lay fallow or idle in the Sabbath years (Leviticus 25:1-7; Deuteronomy 15:1-11).
  • Protection from Creditors: Creditors could not charge interest or keep garments (which provided warmth and doubled as one’s blanket at night), nor could they take the tools of a man’s trade as security for a loan. These provisions ensured people’s ability to earn a living and also prevented extreme hardships (Exodus 22:25-27; Deuteronomy 24:12-13).
  • Right to Timely Wages: The poor worker, whether a stranger or brother, was to receive his wages on the day of his labor, all the more so if he had need of it immediately (Leviticus 19:13; Deuteronomy 24:14-15).
  • Year of Jubilee[/b]: Once every 50 years, Jubilee provided a comprehensive program of debt cancellation, liberation from indentured servitude, and the complete restoration of each family’s ancestral property, granting the poor a fresh start (Leviticus 25:8-22).
  • Kinsman Redeemer: Family members were to help each other repurchase their land if they fell into debt and lost it (Leviticus 25:23-34). Family members could also purchase freedom for one another if they were forced into slavery to meet financial needs (Leviticus 25:47-55). Widows could also be saved from their plight by kinsman redeemers, as in the case of Boaz’s aid to Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi (Ruth 4:1-10).
Gxg (G²);63365800 said:
I so love learning about the beauty of Eastern Christianity, specifically Byzantine Christianity and the ways it has been a root for so much of what developed later all over the world:



Although there are many differing empires historically one could study, I was curious as to the ways that the religious empire of Byzantine could give much needed perspective on the ways that people in the U.S approach politics/economics ---especially believers who argue for systems in the name of thinking certain things cannot happen and yet they have no idea of what went down in history. I've shared elsewhere how I was blessed to come across an excellent work on Social Welfare from the perspective of Byzantine Christianity, concerning the ways believers were bridges between the State and the Church in seeking the social welfare of others. It's called The Orphans of Byzantium: child welfare in the Christian empire By Timothy S. Miller


the-orphans-of-byzantium.jpg



I thought it was a very fascinating read, especially as it concerns the ways people often label similar things with the term "communism" or "socialism" and go from there claiming the systems are doomed to fail because of where others did (even though not all systems labeled as such were universally the same in application/design just as not all systems of capitalism were the same). It was really enjoyable learning on how the Byzantine Empire had an extensive social safety net - funded by the govt. and private donations, and administrated by the Church. This included (free) services such as:
*Hospitals - which were also teaching hospitals, providing education and training for both male and female physicians

*Orphanages - which included medical care and free education/training through the age of majority (abortion and abandonment were illegal, but women were free to and encouraged to give their infants and children into orphan care)

*Hostels/housing for travelers and indigents - for the unemployed, each concern had a state paid official to help with job placement (if employment by the able bodied in these institutions was refused, they were escorted to the edge of town - to leave)

*Gerontikons - day and long term care centers for the elderly so that their families could work

*Free bread distribution (up to 60,000 loaves a day), staffed by the previously unemployed

*Halfway houses for women who desired to leave prostitution (instituted by Empress Theodora iirc, who would buy the prostitutes freedom from their pimps with her own money)
From what I understood, the idea was that as a Christian nation, it was incumbent to live according to the ethos of Christ....with the Emperor caring for the physical needs of the people while the patriarch took care of the spiritual needs of the people.

In the book "The Orphans of Byzantium" the author gave a very unique/insightful ,study of the evolution of orphanages in the Byzantine Empire. Medieval child-welfare systems were sophisticated, especially in the Byzantine world. Combining ancient Roman legal institutions with Christian concepts of charity, the Byzantine Empire evolved a child-welfare system that tried either to select foster parents for homeless children or to place them in group homes that could provide food, shelter, and education. The book also did an wonderful job showing how successive Byzantine emperors tried to improve Roman regulations to provide greater security for orphans, and notes that they achieved their greatest success when they widened the pool of potential guardians by allowing women relatives to accept the duties of guardianship. The book did an excellent job showing how Byzantine orphanages provided models for later Western group homes, especially in Italy. From these renaissance orphan asylums evolved the system of modern European and American religious orphanages until the foster care movement emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century.

IMHO, it's truly a noteworthy study of differing systems which can provide useful models for reforming the troubled child-welfare system today.




But in studying on the issue, part of me was intrigued in seeing the ways that it seemed that their ecomony was radically different than the ways many economies base themselves on today. It didn't seem (unless I'm missing it) that they had a mindset that they would only provide for others if it was profitable.....and the society in the Byzantine era seemed based off of doing good will to others freely. They seemed very radical in understanding what it means to develop materials...and what it means to have real wealth.






And outside of that, if wanting to go to the fifteenth century with things (long after Pagan Rome was gone), we can also deal with the many Christian abolitionists against slavery who spoke on the issue multiple times - including regards slavery of other countries/people...AND the Irish, for that matter. The Irish were often 'set apart' by the Brits as being less human. In England, these "native Irish " suffered something very similar to American slavery under English Penal Laws. If aware of Thomas Nast’s 19th-century anti-Irish cartoons, it's hard not to consider the ways Irish were often treated the same as Blacks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.