Talk:Christianity/Archive 12

message: 1st paragraph:
"Christian doctrines also emerged, in part, out of the various mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East in antiquity."
This is worse than before, having been turned from "may have emerged" to "emerged" - this portrays a POV as fact. A NPOV version is already included.
::Agreed. This should be fixed. I think I did fix it already in a later version. This must be from an earlier version your quoting. 
"Also, early Christian fathers such as Origen helped to create a synthesis between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, and Christianity."
No objection, but already included above.
"Other scholars ..."
Are you placing Paglia next to Origen?
::I kept the good will version which replaces the above,and I moved the Paglia quote and placed it after Larson, where it fits better. 
"... such as Humanities Professor Camille Paglia assert that Christianity was itself a development of the Dionysian mystery religion."
This is a NPOV statement, though this overview is not the place to go into details. Also consider KHM's dispute of her credentials. Humanities is a very wide field. Romanists, for instance, can comment on language and literature, but not on history (apart from their respective studies) or theology.
::I may be willing to concede to this point. 
"Although many scholars believe that the incorporation and influences of several pre-Christian ideas, especially from Gnosticism and from various amalgamations of Jewish ideas in combination with Stoicism, Orpheism and Dionyseanism Gnosticism explains the many similarities eventually comprising the orthodoxy of the Church,"
So, many scholars believe this. This is definetely overstated.
"... this remains disputed by reglious scholars."
The old trick: paint the opposition as "religious", claim that their opposition has nothing to do with scholarship - are the "many scholars" above all Atheists?
::Its not a trick, its points to the fact that religious bias helps to inform the reasons the disputes (although I have not seen anyone here actually cite disputes), just as secular humanist scholars, including Athieists would include and emphasis this, since it points to their bias, as well. It doesnt follow that it therefore has nothing to dowith scholarship. Scholarship is biased--there is no escaping it. Good scholarship is honest about this and includes footnotes of the other side, and when argues a point uses the best arguments of their opponents, etc. But, in questions of emphasis, bias is easily seen. However, I removed it by simply stating, "this remains disputed." I take this on faith since no one here has yet to prove that its disputed. Unless they to, I may change it.
2nd paragraph:
"It's important to note that in its early years, there was not one Christianity but many, emerging along side a vareity of mystery cults"
Apart from being a condescending advice to the reader, it is also at best POV and misleading, especially since the mystery cults are then mentioned separately. 
::I don't thin its POV or misleading but I do see redundancy and over emphasis on the ideas. 
I guess since the this area of influence has been so neglected I want to bend it the other way and stress the facts of the diversity of thought that existed. I concede this is not necessarily correct and would not remove the redundancy. 
"many of whose members converted into Christitan teachers and leaders themselves and thus were an influence on the Christian developing ideas and practices."
Those converting from MCs to Christianity may very well have influenced it (but how and in what respect?), but certainly couldn't start off something they joined (or radically transform it) and they certainly wouldn't change the substance of something they joined. If so, why did they change in the first place?
::Actually, I've already spoken on this point, but stating here how and in what respect would be beyond the scope of this section/article which is being kept breif. I agree that the article it links to should address these questions.
"Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus,"
As I stated above, the Essenes are not mystery cult at all, it is doubtful for the Therapeutes, the Gnostics are what we are talking about, the Nasseni I don't know. Dionysus should worded better.
::Perhaps but its debatable as they certainly shared many things with the mystery cults. Their "Sons of Light," an influence from Zoroastrianism via their parent ideology of Pythagoreanism. According to Larson, both the Essenes and Pythagoreans resembled thiasoi, or cult units of the Orphic mysteries. 
"... and there is much speculation regarding Mithraism may also have been partly assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris."
That assumes that there was something like a "savior cult of Osiris" at the time and that both Mithraism and Christianity spring from it. Mithraism has Persian origins and a origin in Egypt is dubious. And Christianity certainly didn't spring from that cult. Granted, Larson says so, but how much of an authority is he on that matter?
::Larson never says Christianity springs from that cult, he only says it both derived fromteh same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. Larson's work, from what I've read, is well respected and scholarly.
"Many followers of developing Gnosticism for example (Valentinius being one of the most well-known) were also Christians, and taught a synthesis of the two belief systems."
Granted, but that is Gnosticism and not orthodox Christianity.
::Yes, and that is the point. There was on one orthodoxy (until later)---and the Gnostics merged with Christians, and were both. Similarly with other teachers and members of the early christianity. This helps to explain the influences on each other. 
*3rd paragraph:
"In the 1st century there were at least three well known and distinct divisions within the Christian movement: the Jewish Christians (led by Jesus' brother James, with Jesus' disciples, and their followers), Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul) and Gnostic Christians (people who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge).Each believed themselves to be the true church, and were highly critical each other."
This is a misrepresentation of the situation, conflating various periods in time: there were Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in the first century. The JCs (a term that was attacked by another editor only last week) were hit by the Jewish wars and persecution - parts perished (the church of Jerusalem between 132 and 135), parts survived and stayed with the church, parts founded "heresies". It is only these heresies (and certainly James was not their leader) that separetely existed during times that Gnosticism was really prominent. Gnosticism is also mentioned already in "my" first paragraph. And what is "at least" supposed to insinuate?
::What you say factually true from my own understanding, however thhis doesnt contradict my section. You admit all this was in the 1st century, which is all I state. I don't think I'm misrepresenting only stating briefly. These greater details within the 1st century I leave out to be included in the article itself that deals with early history. 
"A single basic church hierarchy did not establish itself until as late as the 4th century with its ascendancy as the state enforced religion under Constantine the Great who established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I."
What is a "single basic church hierarchy"? There was church hierarchy in the 1st century, at least in some places. Constantine didn't change that. Christianity was not the state enforced religion" under him - it wasn't even under Theodosius. And how is the phrase "Constantine the Great who established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I." syntactically and logically possible.
::Good catch of something in need of correction re Constantine and Theodosius. I think more needs to be clarified regarding the church hierarchy, what did exist, and when. Certainly it did change after it became the state religion.
"The state issued a series of decrees to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions." 
Partly true, but this is what's already subsumed under Theodosius. What is wrong is that "imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions" - pagan temples were closed and private sacrifices forbidden. But there was no iquisiting pagan sympathies - some senators were quite openly pagan.
:: Yes, this doesn't change the decree or what it states, or its purpose, or that fact that it really did carry this out in practice. There is no contradiction here.
"The church used the power of the state to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians."
That's a repitition of what you said before, but it is hardly worded NPOV. There was no organised extermination of Pagans or Gnostics. And the Church did not generally approve of violence, in fact in the case of Priscillian very high-ranking bishops protested his execution.
::I disagree here. There was organized extermination of Pagans and Gnostics. That why only Pauline Christianity had survived (in the Mediterranean area), and while there were some individuals in the church who did not approve, I dont think it can be said that "the church di dnot generally approve of violence." They sure managed to executed a lot of people for "not generally approving of violence." 
"Church authority had became concentrated in the five bishops or patriarchs located in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome."
The pentarchy developed in the 5th century (451 most notably) and was sanctioned into law in the 6th century. BTW, the sequence of sees is completely wrong. It should be Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalm, in descending precedence. 
::In theory they were all supposed to be equal, although in practice Rome was given preference.
"The losing groups, exiled and persecuted, with their property taken, their sacred literature banned and destroyed, were condemned as heretics."
This is inappropriate (apart from the repitition) as it reduces theological conflicts to a power struggle with "winners" and "losers". And Vae Victores!
::Why is that inappriate? There was a power struggle that took the form of theological conflicts and there were clear winners and losers. 
"A sample of that scripture was preserved in a cave at Nag Hammadi. Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas combined from Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and the various mystery teachings makes the origins of Christian doctrine one whose complexity continues to shroud it in mystery."
You are right about Nag Hammadi, but it doesn't "shroud" Christianity's early history "in mystery" but rather illustrates and illuminates what we knew before. It doesn't touch upon the "origins of Christian doctrine" at all, since it only gives as texts of a variation of groups existing at some time. But they don't say where they got their "gnosis" from.
::This alone does not shroud it in mystery. What does it the complexity of the veritable potpourri of religious ideas in which Christianity formed. I included it to show they existed, despite the best effort of the church to wipe out their existence. Actually, in a later version, I removed this as it didnt quite fit and could lead to this confusion. 
* 4th paragraph:
Preface: The following is basically a diatribe wallowing in anti-Christian bigotry of the worst sort. If this all were true no one of us would be sitting her, contributing to a non-existant Wikipedia. Hence I will remove it entirely. But let's go into details.
"The resulting orthodoxy emphasised blind faith, which "renders the impossible possible "(Mark ix. 23, 24),"
Who is advocating a blind faith then or now. Certainly not the Church Fathers or the Scholastiscs of the Middle Ages. There have always been those that have emphasized the potential of human reason and those that have emphasized its limitations, according to the situation. The rendering here is a carricature.
::This overlooks the fact of what the main emphasis was as a religious doctrine which distiguished itself from competing religions, including the other Christian trends. I dont lose sight of the forest for the trees here. I'll provide more support for this argument later after get some sleep.
"produced a thnking that deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology")"
That is patent nonsense. It was the Church and Christianity that saved as much of ancient learning and culture over the following troublesome years. "shown" here is a euphemism for "claimed". As for White see this link.
::Beg to differ. I'll argue this point later. 
"a craving for the miraculous and supernatural created ever new superstitions, under the form of relic-worship from old pagan forms of belief."
Above, Christians exterminated paganism root and branch and now they are pagans themselves. The truth is that Christianity did destroy superstitions one by one. Of course, not everywhere and not immediately, but slowly and surely.
:No, they are not pagans themselves. However, they did incorporate various pagan ideas and practices, albeit in a vulgarized and literalised fashion, redressing it at their own. Yes, Christinity destroyed the other competing superstitions to boster its own dogmatic and authoritarian one. 
"As American religious scholar Kaufmann Kohler writes, "in the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed.""
More patent nonsense. What supposedly was exterminated was in fact rescued over to the Middle Ages. "Free thinking" was either not surpressed or is a euphemism for something else. True, the Academy was closed down, but Justinian also founded the "university" of Constantinople.
:hehe I disagree, but I'll have to debate this later when I can actually still type. Been awake for too long..
Str1977 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis of Giovanni's addition

message: * Since this is starting to go a bit too far with bais, I think this article should be promptly semi-protected, gutted of most of it's content and re-written by more trustworthy users. Pure inuyasha 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To which alleged bias are you referring? Corax 06:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect.