Looks like the secularists really are taking over.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Interesting article, but I'm not seeing the bashing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Those darn anti-Christians are trying to force evangelical Christianity out from sponsorship at the Air Force Academy, too (AP artcle, CNN article).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Proud to be a "card-carrying member".
Literally, they send you a card.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, I've never quite known what that was all about. I mean, what am I supposed to do with this card? Other than carry it, I mean.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Lisa, I don't get how that article says that the ACLU is bashing religion. Am I being totally dense, or is the ACLU defending the complaintants freedom of religion?
Is your tongue in your cheek? Perhaps you are being too cryptic for me.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think comments along the lines of "the ACLU is attacking Christianity" have been voiced a few times in various threads over the past couple of days.
Perhaps that's what starLisa is referring to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Used to be that carrying a card would identify someone as a member of a group. I think that these days with the ACLU it is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek reference to people being accused of this membership. Was it Dukakis who got slammed for being a "card-carrying member"?
Posted by etphonehome (Member # 999) on :
Yeah, I see no "bashing" in this case. The ACLU is trying to make sure that nobody is forced by the government to choose between prison or switching religions. The fact that the only alternative to prison was a pentecostal religious conversion center that doesn't even try to do meaningful drug treatment seems to clearly violate the First Amendment prohibition on the government favoring one religion over another.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Used to be that carrying a card would identify someone as a member of a group. I think that these days with the ACLU it is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek reference to people being accused of this membership. Was it Dukakis who got slammed for being a "card-carrying member"?
Yeah, I know, I was just being silly. It was Dukakis. Bush Sr. slammed him (to good effect, too, much to my dismay at the time) for being one when they were running against each other.
[ December 09, 2005, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah, yes. It is all coming back...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Yeah, I've never quite known what that was all about. I mean, what am I supposed to do with this card? Other than carry it, I mean.
If you rip it in half, it summons the spirit of Madeline Murray O'Hair to your aid for one hour.
Edited for spelling
[ December 09, 2005, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have to assume that starLisa is being sarcastic and is actually supporting the ACLU.
Good article on good things the ACLU does. ACLU bashing is more widespread than religion bashing from the ACLU.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote: If you rip it in half, it summons the spirit of Madeline Murray O'Hare to your aid for one hour.
But...conjuration is one of my barred schools.
::curses::
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: the ACLU is attacking Christianity"
It seems in this case they were fighting for his right to practice the type of Christrianity of his choice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's alright, Jake. You're not casting the spell, it's all in the card.
Freakin' hilarious, SS.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Am I supposed to know who Madeline Murray O'Hare is?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, see, I just figured that it was the material component for the spell. I didn't realize that it was an enchanted object.
And yeah, Storm, I laughed aloud when I read that post.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Miro, [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair]Madalyn Murray O'Hare[/url]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude, you must be a sorceror, not a real wizard, otherwise you'd know that since just ripping the specific card in half was the only requirement, obviously it was not a spell you were casting.
That's why Sorcerors only have to get an AA, not the whole four years.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Hey, I was in a hurry to get out there and start adventuring! No ivory tower for me!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, next time I'll just let you muck around with magic when you don't know what you're doing so your head will asplode, Mr. Hasty.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Oh.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Those darn anti-Christians are trying to force evangelical Christianity out from sponsorship at the Air Force Academy, too (AP artcle, CNN article).
The US miliatary is not the place to spread religion. Respect it yes, shoving it in the face of others, no.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I didn't know anything about O'Hair. That was an interesting read.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Incidentally given starLisa's past rather firm stances on seperating religion from government, I rather think she's sticking up for the ACLU and the title is tongue-in-cheek.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm still waiting on someone to post "And boy is she suprised!" Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Informative and hilarious. What a great thread! Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I'll have to join just to get one of those summoning cards. Think of what fun it would be at parties...
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:forced into a three-day "word fast" during which time he was required to remain silent and read the bible continuously
I'm Christian, so don't think I'm mocking Christianity. But that to me sounds like cruel and unusual punishment of the cult kind.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
The limitation of outside contacts, the "word fast," yeah, sounds like a cult. Scary.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have to admit I think I'd still be in the place if they tried a "word fast" on me. I think I'd come up with new and exciting combinations of profanity.
Well, probably not, actually. I'd probably eventually get the message, do what the chimps wanted, and get out and then sue their pants off for money they hadn't even heard of. But I'd like to think I'd be defiant.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think comments along the lines of "the ACLU is attacking Christianity" have been voiced a few times in various threads over the past couple of days.
Perhaps that's what starLisa is referring to.
Yeah, it is. The truth is, that the ACLU is attacking those Christians who are champing at the bit to impose their religion on everyone else. Again. As though we haven't had enough of that over the past 2000 years.
Kinda makes you wonder if there'd be any Christians left if they'd hadn't spent the past 2000 years forcing people into it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::pies starLisa::
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hmmmm... lemon meringue. My favorite.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Kinda makes you wonder if there'd be any Christians left if they'd hadn't spent the past 2000 years forcing people into it.
I guess you're not fond of the moral high-ground, are you starLisa?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Dag, it's okay! She's been pied! Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Yeah, let's skip those comments. While Christianity wasn't a powerful world force, they were still gaining many converts.
What happens if I rip my Star Trek Fan Club card i nhalf?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Kinda makes you wonder if there'd be any Christians left if they'd hadn't spent the past 2000 years forcing people into it.
What the hey, another lost cause.
starLisa, are you seriously suggesting that Christianity would not today be a major religion, would have died out in fact, if force had played no part in its rise?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, yes? Obviously. Have you taken a good look at the conversions of northern Europe lately?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*laugh* Mormons-to make the most obvious and easiest example for me-have been doing a massive job converting with little force at all beyond persistance and sometimes annoynace (for those who don't convert), KoM.
Thanks for playing, though! And for fielding such a ridiculous assertion, to both of you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
All five million of them? Come now, that qualifies as 'large-scale cult', but major world religion? I think not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are 10 million non-infant Catholic baptisms a year, KoM. Most of them are adults converting from another denomination or religion.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I think it's already ridiculous that somebody charged with a nonviolent marijuana offense would be sentenced to 3 months in jail, 3 months boot camp, 3 months "on a tether", and 4 years probation.
Diversion programs like the one described are even more ridiculous.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Kinda makes you wonder if there'd be any Christians left if they'd hadn't spent the past 2000 years forcing people into it.
I guess you're not fond of the moral high-ground, are you starLisa?
Gee, and here I thought I already had it, and just didn't have to work for it any more.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Kinda makes you wonder if there'd be any Christians left if they'd hadn't spent the past 2000 years forcing people into it.
What the hey, another lost cause.
starLisa, are you seriously suggesting that Christianity would not today be a major religion, would have died out in fact, if force had played no part in its rise?
I was pondering it, yes. I think perhaps that's exactly the case. Understand, Christianity and Islam are the two biggest religions in the world. By far. They are unusual in this. And what they share is that they started out killing anyone who didn't share their religion, and then kept that going by becoming the state religions of the countries they'd conquered. "Heresies", like the Cathars and such didn't try and force people, and they're gone.
Now, of course, they have a huge head start. And they've found that not forcing people leads to serious attrition. That's one of the ideas why there's this radicalized Christian movement in the US that wants to take us back to the halcyon days of theocracy, so that they can stop the attrition. By force.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
starLisa,
Christianity did not start out like you describe, starLisa, and I'm certain you know it. It did not start out by forcing people to convert to itself and killing those who refused. Are you a liar, to say things you know are untrue? Or are you just stupid and didn't know it was untrue?
If someone said something equally stupid and untrue about Jews, for example, I think it likely you would label them bigoted, ignorant, and anti-Semitic. You participated in a discussion regarding the Golden Rule recently. Well, I'm assuming you don't want people spreading bigoted lies about your religion. So don't do it about theirs.
KoM,
Your point was that Christianity would not be successful without force. You specifically brought up conversion rates. I used one example, Dagonee provided another.
Either change the original point you were making, or admit you were full of crap. I expect you'll do neither, of course. But you pinned yourself to the backboard, I'll bet you can find a way-in your own eyes, at least-to unpin yourself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Gee, and here I thought I already had it, and just didn't have to work for it any more.
My point was you sacrificed it with yet another cheap shot at Christians.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Your diplomatic talent for massive understatement continues to amaze me, Dag. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: starLisa,
Christianity did not start out like you describe, starLisa, and I'm certain you know it. It did not start out by forcing people to convert to itself and killing those who refused. Are you a liar, to say things you know are untrue? Or are you just stupid and didn't know it was untrue?
If someone said something equally stupid and untrue about Jews, for example, I think it likely you would label them bigoted, ignorant, and anti-Semitic. You participated in a discussion regarding the Golden Rule recently. Well, I'm assuming you don't want people spreading bigoted lies about your religion. So don't do it about theirs.
I'm neither stupid nor a liar. The Jewish sect of the first couple of centuries CE was not what I was talking about. And I think you know that. There was a lot of Judaization in those early years. A lot of Romans converted to Judaism or became Noachides. But the Nazarene sect was easier, because it made fewer demands.
It wasn't until the Constantine adopted it as the official religion of the Empire that it really exploded. And it didn't take its foot off of people's necks for another 14 centuries, give or take.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Gee, and here I thought I already had it, and just didn't have to work for it any more.
My point was you sacrificed it with yet another cheap shot at Christians.
At Christianity. There is a difference. And I don't think it was a cheap shot at all. It's a legitimate question to consider.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
starLisa,
quote: They are unusual in this. And what they share is that they started out killing anyone who didn't share their religion, and then kept that going by becoming the state religions of the countries they'd conquered.
...
I'm neither stupid nor a liar. The Jewish sect of the first couple of centuries CE was not what I was talking about. And I think you know that. There was a lot of Judaization in those early years. A lot of Romans converted to Judaism or became Noachides. But the Nazarene sect was easier, because it made fewer demands.
I have a very hard time believing you're being anything but deliberately obtuse here. Obviously I did not say if I said the same thing about Jews you did about Christians. I said that if I said something as untrue and stupid-if I said, for instance, that Jewish moneylenders ruled the planet-you'd label me bigoted, ignorant, and anti-Semitic.
Are you really saying you didn't get that? I called you either stupid or a liar because of this statement...
quote:They are unusual in this. And what they share is that they started out killing anyone who didn't share their religion, and then kept that going by becoming the state religions of the countries they'd conquered.
And I went on to say that Christianity did not "get its start" killing anyone who didn't convert.
Your dodge won't work. Which is it? Are you either stupid as regards this subject, because you believe something like that is true? Or are you lying, because you know it's not true-it took awhile for Christians to start killing in the name of God? Which is it? This is either another bear moment for you, or you were lying. Which is it?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Whether forced conversions were the first recruitment method of an organized Christianity, or that tactic was saved for a later period in history matters less than the fact that they occurred at all.
It was never right, never should have happened, and should not be tolerated today.
It is also impossible to tell how large the Christian faith would have grown without the sinful use of coercion. I suspect it would be extremely large today, and perhaps less splintered. It certainly would have less of a checkered past arguing against it.
If anything, that past makes it harder to recruit people today. Yet people are joining churches in large numbers. That may say something to the question about what would've happened if those earlier leaders had managed to avoid political entanglements, wars and forced conversions.
I think the possibility of a larger more cohesive Christianity is at least as likely as a smaller, sideline cult is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And I went on to say that Christianity did not "get its start" killing anyone who didn't convert.
To bridge the gap in understanding here, may I suggest the possibility that starLisa does not consider Christianity to have gotten its "start" until it became the state religion of Rome?
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
An important distinction to make, Tom, since that position is extremely different from what most people consider to be the "start" of Christianity and therefore leads to some needless confusion. Perhaps something can be said here for speaking in terms which have a (mostly) universally agreed-upon definition, rather than privately changing definitions of words to make them mean whatever one feels like.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Whether forced conversions were the first recruitment method of an organized Christianity, or that tactic was saved for a later period in history matters less than the fact that they occurred at all.
It was never right, never should have happened, and should not be tolerated today.
It is also impossible to tell how large the Christian faith would have grown without the sinful use of coercion. I suspect it would be extremely large today, and perhaps less splintered. It certainly would have less of a checkered past arguing against it.
If anything, that past makes it harder to recruit people today. Yet people are joining churches in large numbers. That may say something to the question about what would've happened if those earlier leaders had managed to avoid political entanglements, wars and forced conversions.
I think the possibility of a larger more cohesive Christianity is at least as likely as a smaller, sideline cult is.
I basically agree with you. Many (including me) would support that idea that being made the state religion of the Roman Empire very nearly killed Christianity, and led to all sorts of horrible practices, since it then became a method of social advancement and a ticket to power, rather than a community of followers of Christ. As I have said before, unfortunately Christianity has usually fared best under persecution, or at least intense opposition. During the persecution by the Romans, the Church grew exponentially.
It's human nature. Give any one group too much power, and unscrupulous, evil people who want nothing but power will gravitate towards that group.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To bridge the gap in understanding here, may I suggest the possibility that starLisa does not consider Christianity to have gotten its "start" until it became the state religion of Rome?
This is what I suspect as well, but that doesn't make what she's doing any more accurate. It just changes what she's being either inaccurate or dishonest about.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
dh is right, before, and even after it was adopted as the "official" religion of the Romans, Christians themselves were heavily persecuted and spread greatly in numbers under Roman oppression. Competing missionaries from different Christian schools of thought heavily converted in the Germanic north during the first days of Constantinian Christianity.
Interesting side note, Constantine wasn't baptized until the day he died.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To eb fair about it, the Jews weren't exactly very nice to people who didn't share their faith either. They didn't even give you the option of 'convert or die', it was more 'move away from the lands we want or die, or better still become our slaves.'
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes but after they got what they wanted, they mostly stayed put and didn't bother anyone.
Right starLisa?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Interesting side note, Constantine wasn't baptized until the day he died.
That was pretty common at the time, because the sacrament of Reconciliation didn't yet exist. It was believed that at Baptism, you got a clean-slate, sin-wise, but that any sins you committed afterward were on your Permanent Record. So it made sense to wait until on your deathbed to be baptised, if you could time it just right, to go to the afterlife with a light conscience.
(Rather cynical of them, no?)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah I know. Not really surprising given the attitude of the rich during this part of the Empire. It's hard to have orgies, go to gladiatorial matches, order people killed, be cruel to slaves and in general be a despot when you had to worry about getting into the afterlife.
You don't really see a true-believer in the Emperor's seat until Theodosius, who bowed to the pressure of the Bishop of Milan for his un-Christian actions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You don't really see a true-believer in the Emperor's seat until Theodosius, who bowed to the pressure of the Bishop of Milan for his un-Christian actions.
Actually, you can make the argument that Constantine, too, was clearly a true-believer. An ability to find loopholes does not forego genuine belief -- and actually, the very fact that he bothered to find one suggests that belief was present.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Or his mother was...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I thought of that same thing too, Tom. If starLisa expects people to believe she is as informed about this sort of topic as she claims to be, though, I must assume that she knows that, and could have made her meaning clearer had she been interested in accuracy or honesty.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I guess I'm left to make my own assumption, then.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Actually, you can make the argument that Constantine, too, was clearly a true-believer."
You CAN make that argument. But I don't think it would be an argument in support of what is accurate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But I don't think it would be an argument in support of what is accurate.
Well, the man CLAIMED to have seen a vision from God. Who are we to call him a liar?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
While I think starLisa is right about Chritianity's past crimes, I don't believe that is the sole reason it is so large today. (Of course many Christians will say it is large probably because it is right.) I think a large part is that the beliefs themselves were designed perfectly to appeal to the masses. It was the first religion I am aware of that preached of a loving single god to non believers. It offered hope of a better afterlife to millions who had no hope in this life. It also allowed for relatively easy conversion methods.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
See, starLisa isn't right about Christianity's past crimes. She did not just say, "Christianity has compelled outsiders to join it or be destroyed." How could anyone argue with that? It's true.
She said that Christianity started by doing that, which is quite different. Islam did not start by hating Jews and all non-Muslims, but in some places, it's become that. Judaism did not start the way it is today. Zen Buddhism didn't start by being the fanatical death-seeking religion of Japanese warriors.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I guess it depends on when you consider Christianity to have started. I consider the early Jewish sects to be Christian, so I agree with Rakeesh.
edit. Jewish sects that followed Jesus' teachings that is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Christianity stopped being limited to "Jewish sects" while the Apostles were still alive.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
""Who are we to call him a liar?"
Hrm. I believe your word choice has typically been "Deluded."
"Well, the man CLAIMED to have seen a vision from God."
Yes, he did. And it was a very politically expedient vision, wasn't it?
I'm not saying Constantine wasn't, at least partially, a believer in christianity. I don't think, though, that its very accurate to call him a "true believer". He jumbled paganism and christianity up so much in his political acts, and performed the rites of the pontifex maximus (at the time, definetely NOT a christian title) which would indicate that he wasn't a true christian. Most of his christian acts had significantly positive political consequences for him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And it was a very politically expedient vision, wasn't it?
The list of inexpedient visions is a short one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Expedient for whom? Many people claiming to have had visions have suffered a great deal for it, and did not derive any direct personal benefit.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The list of inexpedient visions is a short one."
I agree. His whole life seemed to be about political expediency, though, which is why I question whether he was a true believer. You'd think a true believer might, for example, not have put forth imperial decrees on five different dates that the first day of the week, rather then the seventh, is a holy day. Or might not have performed the rights of sacrifice for Sol Invictus. Etc.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Expedient for whom? Many people claiming to have had visions have suffered a great deal for it, and did not derive any direct personal benefit."
Visions were more acceptable in roman culture.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Christianity stopped being limited to "Jewish sects" while the Apostles were still alive.
Good point. As soon as they went outside of Judaism to convert people to their belief, it became a new religion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Good point. As soon as they went outside of Judaism to convert people to their belief, it became a new religion."
SO what you're saying is that every time an LDS goes on a mission, we're talking about a new religion?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Christianity stopped being limited to "Jewish sects" while the Apostles were still alive.
Good point. As soon as they went outside of Judaism to convert people to their belief, it became a new religion.
So basically, the religion practiced by Reform Jews is a new religion as well, right? I mean, they actively seek converts, and their beliefs are vastly different from those they broke away from.
But the thing is, they still consider themselves to merely be practicing a different form of Judaism. And I think a lot of those early sects, if not all of them, thought the same.
Rakeesh wants to play games. There were thousands of sects all over the place back then. It wasn't until the Roman Empire adopted it as a religion that Christianity really took off. That's when it started. Hell, for the first few centuries, Easter was determined by the Jewish determination of the years and months. That's not a separate religion.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Christianity stopped being limited to "Jewish sects" while the Apostles were still alive.
Good point. As soon as they went outside of Judaism to convert people to their belief, it became a new religion.
So basically, the religion practiced by Reform Jews is a new religion as well, right? I mean, they actively seek converts, and their beliefs are vastly different from those they broke away from.
But the thing is, they still consider themselves to merely be practicing a different form of Judaism. And I think a lot of those early sects, if not all of them, thought the same.
Rakeesh wants to play games. There were thousands of sects all over the place back then. It wasn't until the Roman Empire adopted it as a religion that Christianity really took off. That's when it started. Hell, for the first few centuries, Easter was determined by the Jewish determination of the years and months. That's not a separate religion.
I can't speak for all Reform Jews, but after going to Israel, I will happily agree that Reform Judaism is a separate religion. The difference in beliefs on conversions and practices are more then many of the Christian protestant religions.
Though as far as I know, no Reform temple I have ever gone to ever ACTIVELY sought converts. Jews found there where there because they didn't feel accepted by conservative or orthodox temples for one reason or another. Either that or, they found more truth in Reform then the either two.
[ December 13, 2005, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Good point. As soon as they went outside of Judaism to convert people to their belief, it became a new religion."
SO what you're saying is that every time an LDS goes on a mission, we're talking about a new religion?
Only if a missionary was trying to convert people AND teach them about something contrary to Mormon belief.
The moment they started converting people they became another religion. Judaism does not believe in having missionaries. They weren't Jewish any more then the modern day Jews for Jesus.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a state religion because it had really taken off.
If Constantine's conversion was expedient (and there is every reason to believe it was) this would only make sense if he were converting to a relatively popular religion.
Christianity didn't become a "state religion" until the Milvian bridge (ce 312 - I think). Certainly "the state" recognized a difference between Jews and Christians for a couple hundred years. There were sufficient numbers of Christians to bother trying to get rid of them (larger scale persecutions) by the middle of the third century. And too many to wipe out easily.
Actually, I often think that Constantine was the worst thing to happen to Christianity.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The moment they started converting people they became another religion. Judaism does not believe in having missionaries. They weren't Jewish any more then the modern day Jews for Jesus."
Jews not beleving in having missionaries is a philosophical view point, not a religious one. Currently, reform jews try to convert non-jews who marry jews. At the time of the late roman republic and early empire, some jews were actively converting people.
So I'm not sure how "trying to convert" people makes christianity "not-judaism"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh wants to play games. There were thousands of sects all over the place back then. It wasn't until the Roman Empire adopted it as a religion that Christianity really took off. That's when it started. Hell, for the first few centuries, Easter was determined by the Jewish determination of the years and months. That's not a separate religion.
Alright, you'll weasel your way out with semantics. No big surprise there, really. I didn't expect you to be as fierce with admission of mistake as you are in condemnation.
So Christianity didn't really start when people started preaching that Christ was the Son of God, died and was resurrected...it started when it became Big Time? Don't make me laugh.
How in the heck does one say that Easter-the recognition of Jesus being the Son of God and his death and resurrection for Christians-being determined by a Jewish calender not be a seperate religion? In what reality does one have to live to think that Jews-who do not believe the Messiah has come yet-and Christians-who do-aren't seperate religions, just because of similarity in annual reckoning?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "The moment they started converting people they became another religion. Judaism does not believe in having missionaries. They weren't Jewish any more then the modern day Jews for Jesus."
Jews not beleving in having missionaries is a philosophical view point, not a religious one. Currently, reform jews try to convert non-jews who marry jews. At the time of the late roman republic and early empire, some jews were actively converting people.
So I'm not sure how "trying to convert" people makes christianity "not-judaism"
If my fellow reform Jews are pressuring non-Jewish spouses into converting, it is news to me. I'm marrying a Methodist, and the Rabbi hasn't even mentioned the idea of conversion. My Rabbi growing up never even brought up the topic to my Catholic father. I would rather my fiance remain a non-Jew that only must follow the 7 laws of Noah. This is also why Jews not having missionaries is a religious belief. The Jewish faith believes that non-Jews have a much easier time of getting into the world to come.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:There were thousands of sects all over the place back then. It wasn't until the Roman Empire adopted it as a religion that Christianity really took off. That's when it started.
Hmmm. That's basically the situation that we're in now. Does that mean that Christianity is stopped right now? Please call your local ACLU office.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
quote: What happens if I rip my Star Trek Fan Club card i nhalf?
Why would you do that?!
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If my fellow reform Jews are pressuring non-Jewish spouses into converting, it is news to me.'
Recent change in views. I can't find any web articles on it at the moment, but if you poke around, there should be something.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "If my fellow reform Jews are pressuring non-Jewish spouses into converting, it is news to me.'
Recent change in views. I can't find any web articles on it at the moment, but if you poke around, there should be something.
There is misinformation spread by all parties. Orthodox Jews have told me "facts" about my beliefs which hold no truth. I am also sure that I am told stuff about them that is not 100% accurate.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
So I'm not sure how "trying to convert" people makes christianity "not-judaism"
It was actively converting others AND the belief in Jesus that no longer made them Jewish. Among many other factors including lack of circumcision of converts.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I have no idea what you hope to accomplish by reposting without additional commentary. In the last couple weeks, the reform movement officially changed its position on conversion. *shrug* Doesn't make reform jews less jewish.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I have no idea what you hope to accomplish by reposting without additional commentary. In the last couple weeks, the reform movement officially changed its position on conversion. *shrug* Doesn't make reform jews less jewish.
I'll look for articles. If this is truly the case then I need to actively look deeply into my own beliefs. There are many things Jews can even argue among themselves about our own beliefs, but actively trying to convert non-Jews to me is wrong on so many levels. If true I'll have to thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Of course those who convert to Reform Judaism are not considered Jewish by any other Jews but Reform.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Rakeesh wants to play games. There were thousands of sects all over the place back then. It wasn't until the Roman Empire adopted it as a religion that Christianity really took off. That's when it started. Hell, for the first few centuries, Easter was determined by the Jewish determination of the years and months. That's not a separate religion.
Alright, you'll weasel your way out with semantics. No big surprise there, really. I didn't expect you to be as fierce with admission of mistake as you are in condemnation.
So Christianity didn't really start when people started preaching that Christ was the Son of God, died and was resurrected...it started when it became Big Time? Don't make me laugh.
Actually, I'm not saying that at all. I don't think they were preaching that at all until it was Romanized. In fact, I think the original Nazarene sects were absolutely appalled at the adoption of the beliefs you refer to.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: How in the heck does one say that Easter-the recognition of Jesus being the Son of God and his death and resurrection for Christians-being determined by a Jewish calender not be a seperate religion? In what reality does one have to live to think that Jews-who do not believe the Messiah has come yet-and Christians-who do-aren't seperate religions, just because of similarity in annual reckoning?
<blink> Are you serious? Rabbi Akiva thought that Bar Kochva was the Messiah. Until he died, anyway. That kind of belief wasn't the huge divide that it is today. And it's only like that today because of the Christianization of the concept of Messiah into a "savior" or "deity".
Don't get then confused with now.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Actually, Reconstructionists pretty much accept anyone. They'd probably accept a collie.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
To claim that Christianity was simply a branch of Judaism until 312 AD when Constantine converted, requires either a complete ignorance of Christian history or an intentional distortion of the facts.
Secular historic text from as early as the end of the first century AD recognize Christians as distinct from Jews. By the mid-second century Christianity had established clerical schools and there were numerous Christian writers including Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Quadratus, Melito of Sardis, Apolli-naris of Hierapolis. By the late 2nd centrury, there were many division within the Christians including several groups that were later declared heretical including the Arians, the Marconians and the Gnostics who have no connection with Judaism.
Before Constantine converted to Christianity, two countries, Armenia (301 AD) and Ethiopia (302 AD) had made Christianity their state religion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: So Christianity didn't really start when people started preaching that Christ was the Son of God, died and was resurrected...it started when it became Big Time? Don't make me laugh. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I'm not saying that at all. I don't think they were preaching that at all until it was Romanized. In fact, I think the original Nazarene sects were absolutely appalled at the adoption of the beliefs you refer to.
Paul was pretty clearly preaching that two and a half centuries before Constantine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So basically, the religion practiced by Reform Jews is a new religion as well, right? I mean, they actively seek converts, and their beliefs are vastly different from those they broke away from.
But the thing is, they still consider themselves to merely be practicing a different form of Judaism.
And I think a lot of those early sects, if not all of them, thought the same.
starLisa, you are speaking of what you do not know when you compare reform Judaism to early Christianity. One of the first big controversies in the church was whether non-Jewish converts to Christianity had to follow Jewish Law. It was decided that, no, they didn't. They were told to follow a list of laws that is remarkably similar to the Noachide laws.
In other words, Christianity carefully considered the question of whether it consider itself to merely be practicing a different form of Judaism, and it answered no. Definitively.
quote:Rakeesh wants to play games. There were thousands of sects all over the place back then. It wasn't until the Roman Empire adopted it as a religion that Christianity really took off. That's when it started.
You're the one playing games. The Christian Church holds its founding event to be Pentecost. We have a date for when it started. 50 days after the Ressurection.
quote:Hell, for the first few centuries, Easter was determined by the Jewish determination of the years and months. That's not a separate religion.
They were commemorating an event that happened at the time of the Passover celebration. For a few centuries, this was done following the Jewish calendar because that's when Passover was. It was later changed to follow a solar calendar rather than a lunar calendar.
quote:Actually, I'm not saying that at all. I don't think they were preaching that at all until it was Romanized.
Wow. Just...wow. As kmboots said Paul was preaching this. Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
quote: I basically agree with you. Many (including me) would support that idea that being made the state religion of the Roman Empire very nearly killed Christianity, and led to all sorts of horrible practices, since it then became a method of social advancement and a ticket to power, rather than a community of followers of Christ.
dh
See, this is yet another reason why the religiously charged political climate of today makes me so freekin nervous. I completely agree with this statement, dh, and wonder how this affects your view of religion in politics today?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
That makes me wonder - is today's political climate any more religiously charged than, say fifty years ago? If so, in what ways? Why? Could it be a good thing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Could it be a good thing?
I doubt it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Everything in politics is more charged today. Most of the time it feels like a Mountain Dew commercial, Politics to the Xtreme! There are kooks in every group and with out ability to communicate so much faster and in so many different ways, the kooks can be heard much louder than they ever were before
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
That, and of course the fact that Mark started out his gospel (thought to have been written somewhere btwn AD 55-65) with the phrase:
"1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in the Prophets:" *emphasis mine
And of course in John's letter to the Churches in Asia (his attempt to fight Gnosticism written sometime in the AD 90's), John refers to Jesus as Christ, and the son of God. (1 John 1:3)
Of course, you can't forget Paul, who called Jesus the son of God in Roman's 1:1-3.
The list goes on and on. For some reason many people like to make the claim that only the main gospels referred to Jesus as the son of God, and then go on to claim that they believe that the gospels were put together much later and were not the beliefs of the early church. This completely ignores the fact that Jesus is frequently referred to as the son of God in the letters written to the early Christian churches...some of which were written before the destruction of the Temple (AD 70).
Even if you ignore the fact that the early Christian church referred to Christ as the son of God, there is the fact that it was preached that many of the old laws, particularly dietary laws (Acts 11) and circumcision (Acts 15) were not needed...particularly for gentiles. As for the dietary laws, Luke's account of Peter's dream in Acts 11 said that God had made the previously unclean foods clean. That was a large shift from previous Jewish beliefs...and would have had to have taken place between AD 61-64, since it was after Paul was arrested, but before he was killed.
There is also the fact that the early Christian church faced a lot of persecution that the Jewish people did not face, much of it from Jewish people who chose not to convert (Saul was an example of one of the persecutors...though he of course did later convert).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Dude, I'm a daughter of God. That phrase never meant what Christians eventually came to see it as meaning. Check out Psalms 82:6.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In Acts, the entire debate is documented that says you don't have to be Jewish to be Christian.
Further, in Acts 9, Ananias refers to Jesus as "the Lord."
You're flat out wrong about when Christianity started. Admit it and move on.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by foundling:
quote: I basically agree with you. Many (including me) would support that idea that being made the state religion of the Roman Empire very nearly killed Christianity, and led to all sorts of horrible practices, since it then became a method of social advancement and a ticket to power, rather than a community of followers of Christ.
dh
See, this is yet another reason why the religiously charged political climate of today makes me so freekin nervous. I completely agree with this statement, dh, and wonder how this affects your view of religion in politics today?
I think you are nervous for no reason. No state religion has been established. The seperation of church and state is as healthy and vibrant as it ever was, despite all the vitriolic rhetoric that is tossed about these days. As it is now, a system where everyone, included elected officials, are free to express their belief or unbelief, with no coercion in one direction or the other... well, that's just the best setup you could imagine, wouldn't you say?
What makes me nervous is these people who insist that all religious discourse be silenced in the name of seperation of church and state. Which is why I see the US as pretty much the only beacon of hope in the world today. It's the only place where the nihilists haven't won yet.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"As it is now, a system where everyone, included elected officials, are free to express their belief or unbelief, with no coercion in one direction or the other... well, that's just the best setup you could imagine, wouldn't you say?"
No. I have a serious problem with government officials, in their role as government officials, when they have a forced captive audience, expressing their views on religion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:No. I have a serious problem with government officials, in their role as government officials, when they have a forced captive audience, expressing their views on religion.
What kind of "forced captive audience" are you talking about? Who is forced to listen to our officials?
Do you have the same issue with them sharing their views on other things unrelated to their office? Like, say, broccoli?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Do you have the same issue with them sharing their views on other things unrelated to their office? Like, say, broccoli?
Do you think the pundits would get their knickers twisted if we attempted to ban the promotion of broccoli?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Dude, I'm a daughter of God. That phrase never meant what Christians eventually came to see it as meaning. Check out Psalms 82:6.
You also have to look at context and what he is called in other locations to determine what kind of son he is.
While psalm 82 may have referred to judges as children of God, it doesn't single out a specific person as a son of God. It also says that while they may be children of God, they will die like men.
On the other hand, Jesus is referred to as both Lord, and Christ. In addition, John 3:16 refers to Jesus as God's only begotten son. It also says that whoever believes in him will have everlasting life.
Besides, Psalms 82 is not talking about everyone...it is one of Asaph's Psalms talking about Judges (who were often called gods (not God) in the OT). If you back up a bit to the beginning of the Psalm, rather than picking out the one verse that talks about "children of god" you can better see the context.
When he was being persecuted, Jesus repeats the fact that through him people can be saved (John 10:25-30). If you continue to read John 10, you see that Jesus not only says that God is his father, but that he and his father are one. Yes he is a judge as the OT describes, but he goes beyond what is talked about by Asaph in Psalms 82, he is also ONE with God, and can transcend death (which the judges in Psalm 82 could not do.
Of course this is all off track from the original argument of whether Christianity was a part of Judaism. As Dagonee and I have mentioned before, Acts is the best evidence that even the early church was thought of as distinct from Judaism. We have quoted bits and pieces from it...but if you read all of Acts, you can see that there was quite a bit of debate about what Christianity was, and that they ended on deciding that it had moved away from Judaism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You're flat out wrong about when Christianity started. Admit it and move on.
This admission would necessitate a further admission of mendacity or ignorance. So far it's happened only with bears.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
That, and of course the fact that Mark started out his gospel (thought to have been written somewhere btwn AD 55-65) with the phrase:
"1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in the Prophets:" *emphasis mine
And of course in John's letter to the Churches in Asia (his attempt to fight Gnosticism written sometime in the AD 90's), John refers to Jesus as Christ, and the son of God. (1 John 1:3)
Of course, you can't forget Paul, who called Jesus the son of God in Roman's 1:1-3.
The list goes on and on. For some reason many people like to make the claim that only the main gospels referred to Jesus as the son of God, and then go on to claim that they believe that the gospels were put together much later and were not the beliefs of the early church. This completely ignores the fact that Jesus is frequently referred to as the son of God in the letters written to the early Christian churches...some of which were written before the destruction of the Temple (AD 70).
Even if you ignore the fact that the early Christian church referred to Christ as the son of God, there is the fact that it was preached that many of the old laws, particularly dietary laws (Acts 11) and circumcision (Acts 15) were not needed...particularly for gentiles. As for the dietary laws, Luke's account of Peter's dream in Acts 11 said that God had made the previously unclean foods clean. That was a large shift from previous Jewish beliefs...and would have had to have taken place between AD 61-64, since it was after Paul was arrested, but before he was killed.
There is also the fact that the early Christian church faced a lot of persecution that the Jewish people did not face, much of it from Jewish people who chose not to convert (Saul was an example of one of the persecutors...though he of course did later convert).
I mean no disrespect to your faith, however quoting New Testament scripture to back up arguments to someone who doesn't even accept the validity of the document won't help.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I mean no disrespect to your faith, however quoting New Testament scripture to back up arguments to someone who doesn't even accept the validity of the document won't help.
It will when the argument is not about what is true but about when the people in a particular faith believed a particular doctrine. The fact that these documents represent the teachings of the Church during the first century is what's at issue, not whether these documents represent truth.
And while I have no doubt that you mean no disrespect to our faiths, I also have no doubt that Lisa does. And I won't let her get away with spreading statements that are either in severe error or are outright lies in her attempts to do so.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I mean no disrespect to your faith, however quoting New Testament scripture to back up arguments to someone who doesn't even accept the validity of the document won't help.
It will when the argument is not about what is true but about when the people in a particular faith believed a particular doctrine. The fact that these documents represent the teachings of the Church during the first century is what's at issue, not whether these documents represent truth.
And while I have no doubt that you mean no disrespect to our faiths, I also have no doubt that Lisa does. And I won't let her get away with spreading statements that are either in severe error or are outright lies in her attempts to do so.
Is there evidence outside of Christian faith that they were written that early? Just curious for my own education.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's like Dagonee said, Stephen. Unless you accept Jewish beliefs to be true about what other people believe and tell themselves, then you have to look at the history of the New Testament to decide what Christians believe about themselves and when they started believing it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lots, but I'll need to leave it to others with more expertise than I to explain.
quote:According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although evidence for this tradition is generally not convincing. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later. Evangelical and Traditionalist scholars continue to support this dating. Some other modern critical scholars concur with the dating of the majority of the New Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical (i.e. those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). Some do not. For the Gospels, they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70-85. Luke is usually placed in the 80-95 time frame. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was 1 Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with 2 Peter usually being the latest. However, John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (1976), proposed that all of the New Testament was completed before 70, the year the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed. Robinson argued that because the destruction of the temple was prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 23:28-31, the authors of these and other New Testament books would not have failed to point out the fulfillment of this prophecy. Robinson's position is popular among some Evangelicals. In the 1830s, German scholars of the Tübingen school dated the books as late as the third century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts, not including some of the later writings, dating as far back as 125 has called such late dating into question. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95, quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first draft stage, although others were probably not completed until later, while editing, some minor, some major, continued until the present day.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
For whatever it's worth, in my Jewish History class in my yeshiva days, Christianity as a religion per se -- rather than a Jewish apocalyptic sect -- was dated back to Paul, roughly 50 CE. The salient issue back then wasn't the messiah thing so much as not confining the target audience to Jews and changing the laws, particularly the bit about metaphorically circumcising the heart rather than literally circumcising the flesh. Whatever might have come later, the religion started out as a persecuted minority.
Nor do the Jews have a perfect track record with regard to forced conversions, although we haven't had the occasion to be on anything but the receiving end for the past couple of millennia. Frankly, it's less a function of religion than of political power; when there was a Jewish empire, conversion was one of the tools in the arsenal. It didn't work out very well for us, which, when added to the bit where we stopped having our own turf, may explain why we abandoned the practice.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Do you think the pundits would get their knickers twisted if we attempted to ban the promotion of broccoli?
I think there was some twisted knickers back during the first President Bush's term? Didn't they take tons of broccoli to the White House? I remember hearing a lot about it on the news too and that was all because he said he didn't like it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you think the pundits would get their knickers twisted if we attempted to ban the promotion of broccoli?
Do you think attempting to ban the promotion of broccoli is likely to happen?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I remember hearing a lot about it on the news too and that was all because he said he didn't like it.
As far as I remember, people were annoyed that he said he didn't like it. Nobody was vocally complaining that he had talked about broccoli at all.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Heh-heh-heh. You said "broccoli."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Choppin' broccoli.... Posted by digging_hoIes (Member # 6963) on :
Personally, I really like broccoli, and I am dismayed that you people are launching an all-out, bigoted, hateful attack on my eating habits. This is just another example of the far-reaching conspiratorial anti-broccoli media bias. Broccoli is essential to everyone's health, and if you don't eat any, you will die, and I have no problems with elected officials promoting the consumption of broccoli. In fact, I encourage it. What's more, evolutionary theory should be replaced in the schools with a theory of broccoli and (etc. etc.).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
And let's not forget his implicit criticism of clams. The Japanese ambassador certainly won't.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Why would you do that?!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)