From: downey@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: Celts-Christianity-Catholicism
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:25:54 GMT
Organization: NIST



I wrote earlier:
>Creationism is taught from the
>Bible, and the Bible is the "holy word" and the ruling
>authority for Christianity, historically.  I was attempting
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^
From:  mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
>>The Bible is full of metaphor, and comes from a culture which
>>loved myth and metaphor. Right from the very start of
>>Christianity (I'm sorry I can't give quotations from the early
>>Church fathers, but they exist) the idea that the creation
>>story was literally true rather than a metaphor is discounted.

   I disagree.  Right from the very beginning?  I think not.
   Darwin's theory of evolution appeared around 1864 according
   to the dictionary.  That's a long way from "the beginning"
   of Christianity.  During the early 20th century (I think),
   a great debate raged about whether to teach creationism
   or evolution in public school here in America.

>>It is only those extreme Protestants who worship the Bible
>>rather than God who don't hold to this. Most Christians (most
>>Christians are not Protestants) don't see the Bible as the
>>"ruling authority" for Christianity. The ruling authority for
>>Christianity is the existence of the Church directly descending
>>from the Apostles.

  Christianity as defined by Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
  Dictionary is:  "the regligion derived from Jesus Christ, based
  on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern,
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies."

  And, one of the meanings of scripture is:  "a body of
  writings considered sacred or authoritative."
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Most extreme evangelical sects are based in the USA or heavily
>>influenced by the USA. I am sorry that Americans are so
>>nationalistic that they see "American-bashing" everywhere. I
>>simply pointed out a fact. In no other Western country is "creationism"
>>treated as anything more than a joke by all but a tiny fraction
>>of the people.

  Button pushed!  Blast off!  Obviously, this one American has
  no influence over you.  How can that be?  I thought all Americans
  had this great power. ;-)  It is EASY to see your American
  bashing, because it is so blatant!!!!!!  Touch down.

I wrote earlier:
>By the way, can you
>tell me about any RC churches that preach evolution.  Does the
>Pope now preach evolution?  Creationism was still being taught,
>last I heard; and, in many NON-lunatic denominations.

>>There is only one RC Church. Please give me evidence you have
>>that the RC Church teaches "creationism". I have never seen any
>>reference to it in anything from the RC Church, even from
>>fairly conservative theologians. I have seen it written down in
>>black and white that the creation story is to be taken as a
>>myth in books which have the official seal of approval from the
>>RC Church (the "Nihil Obstat").

  Your are arguing semantics.  When I asked about RC churces I
  meant churches in individual parishes.  You have still not
  answered the question,  does the Pope now preach evolution?


From DOWNEY@ENH.NIST.GOV Mon Oct 12 19:16:28 1992
>  Again, this is further support.  Rather than "spreading the
>  word" these early saints chose to pursue intellectual
>  activities.  Let's see, wasn't intellect an important
>  part of ancient Celtic culture, i.e. the bard or historian
>  of a group?  And, ancient Celtic culture is classified as
>  pagan not Christian.  I'm trying to illustrate an integration
>  here, rather than a replacement.

>>An extremly weak link. "Early Irish Christians were
>>intellectuals, therefore they were really pagans".

  Matthew you are drawing the wrong conclusion.  I'm merely
  pointing out a similarity between the early Irish saints
  and Celtic culture.  I said ancient Celtic culture is
  classified as pagan, not that the early Irish saints
  were pagan.  

  Let me try again.  My original point was that some aspects
  of existing Celtic culture (which was pagan, during the time
  Christianity was introduced) were adapted and integrated into
  Christianity in Ireland.


>>I am not
>>saying that racial or cultural features completely disappeared
>>when peoples converted to Christianity. It is no more
>>surprising that Irish Christianity should have some unique
>>Irish aspects than that, say Ethiopian Christianity should have
>>some unique Ethiopian aspects. In both cases the geographical
>>remoteness added to the difference.

  I think these statements support my argument.

>>However this does not mean, as some would like to think, that
>>Irish Christianity was in some sense more pagan than any other
>>form of Christianity,

  Who said it was in some sense more pagan than any other form
  of Christianity.  I was comparing it to the original form,
  not adapted forms once it was spread.

>>or that the Irish saw themselves as in
>>any way in opposition to the Universal Church as represented by
>>the See of Rome.

  Frank gave us a detailed account about early Irish Christianity
  (before approx. 1174) in which the above statement was directly
  contradicted.  Something  along the lines of "independence."
  He also related "The Easter Controversy," which illustrates
  the "independent spirit" of the Irish Church during that period.
  Did you see his posting?  

>>Part of your problem is that you are
>>supposing, wrongly, that the RC Church was at that time as
>>centralised as it is now. Clearly it could not have been given
>>the barriers to communication that existed then.

  I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying here.
  Would you care to clarify?


Laura