are you an atheist?

more like George Lucas's wallet is the universe, and our consciousness is the money inside

skywalker green is made out of people

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/22/atheist-rally-billed-as-coming-out-moment-for-nonbelievers/?hpt=hp_t3

um

John Gray still a master at trolling atheists:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470

When he recounts the story of his conversion to Catholicism in his autobiography A Sort of Life, Graham Greene writes that he went for instruction to Father Trollope, a very tall and very fat man who had once been an actor in the West End.

I can't read the rest of this, there's no way it can live up to the opening

In most religions - polytheism, Hinduism and Buddhism, Daoism and Shinto, many strands of Judaism and some Christian and Muslim traditions - belief has never been particularly important. Practice - ritual, meditation, a way of life - is what counts. What practitioners believe is secondary, if it matters at all.

well, there's a kernel of truth here, but it's kind of hard to see for the mountain of bullshit.

I think he's got a good point though - Christianity, esp. Protestant Christianity, is I think pretty unique among world religions in its fixation on belief as the essence of religion.

yeah, but the idea that "belief has never been particularly important" in "most religions" is overstatement to the point of nonsense

it's more accurate to say evangelism has never been particularly important in most religions, right?

yeah, that's fair

yeah, but the idea that "belief has never been particularly important" in "most religions" is overstatement to the point of nonsense

I guess you could quibble about what "particularly important" means. Sure, it's important, but I think his argument is that in most religions it hasn't been considered as of primary importance.

it's more accurate to say evangelism has never been particularly important in most religions, right?

Evangelism is a related but separate thing, I think. Even if you don't think "belief" is important, you could still think it's important to get others to practice as you do - though it's true that many religions don't make a big deal of evangelism.

(like, most of them were just "oh, you don't believe what I do? I guess I will ignore/kill you" (delete where applicable))

it's true that many religions don't make a big deal of evangelism.

Judaism and Hinduism and Buddhism do not, and Christianity does

how much of Christian evangelism can be tied to being a direct reaction to Roman cultural imperialism

I don't know, but apparently there were early Christian sects that had differing views on the importance of evangelism. One sect basically saw Christianity as a subset of Judaism and not something which was available to non-Jews. I think the Apostle Paul, with his constant missionary journeys, was a key figure in making Christianity into the evangelical force it became.

In August 1986 the Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism issued a "letter to the churches" concerning its conviction that the New Testament mandates Christians and the church to bring the Gospel to the Jewish people because "The Gospel. . .is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" (Romans 1:16). This letter has been read and studied widely and, in the process, has been praised as a faithful affirmation of Christian acceptance of the Great Commandment, on the one hand, and roundly condemned as fundamental denial of the Jewish people's relationship with God, on the other. At the very least, the letter has brought the question of the legitimacy of Christian efforts to convert Jews into discussion within the so-called ecumenical churches as well as in the evangelical branches of Christianity represented by the Lausanne Consultation.

http://www.abrock.com/Attempt.html

I do not know about evangelism as a reaction to Roman cultural imperialism. It may be true. I just know about Christians trying to convert Jews.

I'm not really sure what "Roman cultural imperialism" is shorthand for. Romans were pretty okay with their colonies doing whatever as long as they a) didn't get in Rome's way and b) paid up

Well, in the very beginning all Christians were Jews. The original controversy was whether Christians should try to convert non-Jews.

xp

I would venture that the Christian emphasis on proselytization has more to do with the resistance they encountered from Jews - their original target audience - and yeah, goes back to the apostles

early church stuff is super interesting and i wish i knew more about it. there are probably dozens of great key histories of the time, i bet.

Pagels yo

I agree. Sadly it's hard to piece together much about that period because the victors write the history books, and the group that later won and became identified as "orthodox" was very thorough in stamping out any writings that supported alternate views. The book "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman is a place to start.

xp

i think the historical record is fairly open about how contested and wild the period was? i mean the great councils (nicea etc) were all about how out of hand shit was!

Lol @ atheists.

Yeah, that's true, but mostly what survives are proto-orthodox writings denouncing "heretics". It's sometimes hard to distinguish what the "heretics" actually believed from the slurs and libels meant to discredit them.

(that was xp)

it's funny to me how little the Romans gave a shit about Xtianity initially. Off-hand references here and there (Marcus Aurelius, Pliny) to some wacky "cult" etc.

Belief is pretty important if you want to be an atheist.

It's sometimes hard to distinguish what the "heretics" actually believed from the slurs and libels meant to discredit them.

well, we've got the Nag Hammadi at least

well how were they supposed to know this was the wacky cult that had what it took to take over the world

altho how those texts were interpreted/put into practice is obviously a huge open question in a lot of ways

xp

well how were they supposed to know this was the wacky cult that had what it took to take over the world

I know rite? they were just like "wow, these guys really seem into being crucified/being eaten by lions/getting disemboweled. what a bunch of kooks!"

that's still basically my take

the early Xtians were waaaaaay into their martyrdom in a way that really does seem psychotic

The early response to Christians by Roman officials is that they were atheists who refused to pay homage to their cities (or Rome's) gods.

ha yes

Robert Louis Wilken's The Christians as the Romans Saw Them does a nice job of compiling all the extant discussions of the nacent cult from outsiders.

I can't remember what it was, but I recently read a book in which the author at one point argued that Christianity was the first major religion to make a big deal out of believers vs non-believers, and that questions of belief weren't really at issue before that because cultures were more homogenous. (come to think of it, it may have been Julian Jaynes, so take that for what it's worth)

the first major religion to make a big deal out of believers vs non-believers

eh sorta. Judaism makes a big deal out of this, what with the whole "chosen people" thing.

Yeah. But that for christianity belief mattered simply because anyone could be a Christian regardless of race or tribe or whatever.

right. I think Xtianity was the first religion to really consider religion as constituted primarily by adherence to a creed, as something that went beyond simple membership in a particular tribe/culture

xp Ryan - that's probably true. What was important for the Romans wasn't so much that Christians didn't believe in the pagan pantheon, but that they weren't participating in the public displays of religion that were central to the Roman conception of civilized life, and were hence antisocial and heralded cultural decline. Pagan worship was considered the glue that held society together, regardless of its truth. Hell, Seneca was writing contemporaneously that that "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

I think Xtianity was the first religion to really consider religion as constituted primarily by adherence to a creed, as something that went beyond simple membership in a particular tribe/culture

The seeds are there, starting from the Pauline epistles, but this strand in Christianity was taken to its logical conclusion in Martin Luther's credo of "sola fide" - ie., only faith matters.

How is it that belief is a new thing in Xtianity?

John 3:18, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Catholics and Protestants may argue about works but they both require faith. Xtianity's evagenelical bent has little to do with Roman culture imo.

Also, I can name another religion with a powerful evangelical ethos; Islam

There's also evangelism by personal example, as was practiced by Buddhist monks.

How can you separate "adherence to a creed" and the tribal/cultural experience? Can you think of examples of Christian practice arising independent of cultural precedents? I don't think it can easily be done.

All religion is both personal and cultural matter and that balance is as different for individuals as it is for societies throughout all of time imgo.

I am an atheist, an empiricist, and a materialist. I find the universe astounding, and certain things in it to be wonderful. I value ritual and community. I have no problem whatsoever with people having imaginary friends, as long as they don't get offended when you point out that their friend is imaginary, or get all up in your face because their imaginary friend hates gays. And women. And anyone who doesn't believe in 'him'.

I think "friend" is a misleading term for people's relationship with God.