About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 7:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Actually, the only basis for Christianity lies not in any of the Old Testiment as such, but only on one fundamental thing, without which Christianity had no basis for being - the doctrine of Original Sin... it is that, and that alone which necessitated the cross - and the all that followed, which in essence sought to negate that 'fall of Adam' which Christ was supposed to abrogate....  the rest is merely padding....

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 7:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Historical Origin of Christianity

Historically speaking, the roots of Christianity lay in one of the many messianic sects of Judaism that existed in the First Century. After Jesus' death, his apostles and their followers spread to many areas. In Jerusalem, James, Jesus' brother led a sect which adhered strictly to Jewish Law and which preached the coming end of days and that Jesus would return immanently. They did not allow uncircumcised gentiles to join. Outside Jerusalem, and throughout the empire existed many sympathizers to Judaism who were kept from the religion due to their reluctance to be circumcised or follow strict kosher prohibitions as well as the reluctance of the Jews to admit outsiders. In Antioch, Paul led his own paganizing sect which admitted gentiles without requiring them to follow Judaic law. It is he who invented what we now know as Christianity, with a mixture of Oriental resurrection cults and Judaic monotheism and Jesus' message, suited to his needs. Had Jerusalem not fallen and James' cult been scattered, Christianity might have remained a sect of Judaism and Paul might have been ostracized for the paganizing opportunist that he was. But after the Romans put down the Judean revolt and expelled the Jews from Palestine, Peter in Rome and Paul in Antioch formed an alliance and settled on the side of allowing converts without their having to undergo adult circumcision and abandon their non-kosher ways. Evidently Peter got the prestige of being the first among the apostles and Paul was allowed to develop the theology which became repugnant to strictly adherent Jews. It was a Jewish Rabbi who formalized the split about the year 80 when he included a curse against those who believed that the messiah had already come in the "blessings" read during the Sabbath observance at synagogue. At this point, observant Jews who were followers of Jesus had to choose between attending synagogue and praying for themselves and their co-believers to be cursed, or abandon Judaism and the schism was cemented.

All of this was centuries before the New Testament was codified. The doctrine of original sin was developed over those centuries and served as a means to sell salvation to those who were interested in the Church. The early Church was spread mostly through women and orphans raised by Christian charities. Once Christianity became powerful enough, it was co-opted by Constantine and codified to ensure Episcopal supremacy and the submission of women.

The idea that the Bible is the foundation of Christianity is a late-mediaeval heresy that allowed those who were outside the power structure of the apostolic church (a church where authority was passed down through ordination from Peter onward) to "ordain" themselves by interpreting the bible according to their own tastes. We then get Luther's doctrines of sola scriptura (by scripture alone) and the ordination or priesthood of all men in Christ. Luther opened the door to scriptural literalism. Calvin and the other protestants reacted against the Church not by moving toward reason, but by moving away, with their doctrines of predestination and so forth, and the Jesuits were eventually formed to spread Catholic Scholastic doctrine based on Aquinas both in the New World and the Orient as well as to fight against strict biblical literalism and other Protestant ideas.

Remember that Galileo was not punished for challenging the interpretation of the Bible, but for challenging Church authority, which felt itself alone qualified to interpret scripture and to rest on Ptolemaic and Aristotelian doctrine when it suited them.

As for the Old Testament, certain early Christian theologians wished to jettison it, but the entire idea of Jesus being the messiah had depended un his fulfilling various Old Testament prophecies, and thus the Old Testament was retained.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/28, 11:45am)


Post 22

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 11:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Postscript: The First Post-Modernists

Indeed, rather than the Bible being the "source" of Christianity, it had always been Curch tradition which was the source of Catholic and Orthodox belief, with the Bible as a result of that tradition. One can almost think of Protestants as the first post-modernists with their utter rejection of prior "scholarship" and the evidence of reason and the sole and strict adherence to the text alone, with all its inherent contradictions, justifying whatever the protestants should like. The New Testament was a product of Oral Tradition, just as were all the traditions surrounding Jesus' Birth and much that Catholics still hold on to as tradition. With the rejection by fundamentalist protestants of anything not in the bible (Often the KJV - as the apocryphal lady Texas Governor said, if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for her) we see the upsurgence, especially in the Bible Belt, of a Biblical literalism which was unheard-of in my days of being taught at CCD (Catholic Sunday School) that if God was smart enough to make the world, he could surely have used the ingenious mechanism of evolution. Always having lived in what are now "Blue States" I may not realize just how scary fundamentalist Red State Christians can be.

Ted Keer

Sanction: 31, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 31, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 31, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 - 2:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

I don't suspect you are a Christian. I just pointed out that you consistently defend them and attack their attackers. You're desire to defend Christianity could be for any reason. I simply asked you what your reason was. There's no debate over the fact that you do this. Your posts speak for themselves. Only the motivation is in question.

One of the things I like about the New Atheists is that they recognize a strange fact about our world. Religion is considered off-limits. You can't criticize it. Any criticism comes off as incredibly rude, as if you're trying to hurt people. We can insult people all day long for their political beliefs, but once you say anything about a person's religious beliefs, you're just a jerk.

This view of so prevalent that even atheists get upset when people criticize religion. There is a presumption that if you argue against religion, you must be traumatized by it and are just acting irrationally. Even saying that you're an atheist is considered offensive, as it tells religious people you think they're wrong about something they really care about.

And so we live in this strange world where Christians can happily say that atheists are immoral, have no reason not to murder or lie, and are all going to burn in hell forever for their wicked ways. And on the other side if someone says they don't believe in god, people become outraged at their viciousness.

And even here, on a site dedicated to the radical philosophy of Objectivism, we still have those who only become outraged at atheism.


Post 24

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 - 3:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible is Literally True

"About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word. This percentage is slightly lower than several decades ago. The majority of those Americans who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally."

Post 25

Thursday, October 4, 2007 - 4:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Of interest to this thread is a recent speech by Sam Harris at an atheist conference.  While he vows to continue fighting for his views, he is backing off his use of the word 'atheist', and instead wants to advocate 'reason' and 'evidence' based epistemologies.  The full text of it can be found here

Post 26

Thursday, October 4, 2007 - 7:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

I find your Post 23 to be quite compelling.

Ed


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.