it's more accurate to say evangelism has never been particularly important in most religions, right?
― THIS TRADE SERVES ZERO FOOTBALL PURPOSE (DJP), Friday, 23 March 2012 18:43 (twelve years ago) link
yeah, that's fair
― Fozzy Osbourne (contenderizer), Friday, 23 March 2012 18:47 (twelve years ago) link
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.
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.
― o. nate, Friday, 23 March 2012 18:48 (twelve years ago) link
(like, most of them were just "oh, you don't believe what I do? I guess I will ignore/kill you" (delete where applicable))
― THIS TRADE SERVES ZERO FOOTBALL PURPOSE (DJP), Friday, 23 March 2012 18:48 (twelve years ago) link
it's true that many religions don't make a big deal of evangelism.
Judaism and Hinduism and Buddhism do not, and Christianity does
― curmudgeon, Friday, 23 March 2012 18:52 (twelve years ago) link
how much of Christian evangelism can be tied to being a direct reaction to Roman cultural imperialism
― THIS TRADE SERVES ZERO FOOTBALL PURPOSE (DJP), Friday, 23 March 2012 18:53 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― o. nate, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:05 (twelve years ago) link
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
― curmudgeon, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:15 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:17 (twelve years ago) link
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
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:18 (twelve years ago) link
Well, in the very beginning all Christians were Jews. The original controversy was whether Christians should try to convert non-Jews.
xp
― o. nate, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:18 (twelve years ago) link
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
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:21 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― goole, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:23 (twelve years ago) link
Pagels yo
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:24 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― o. nate, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:25 (twelve years ago) link
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!
― goole, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:27 (twelve years ago) link
Lol @ atheists.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:29 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― o. nate, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:30 (twelve years ago) link
(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.
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:30 (twelve years ago) link
Belief is pretty important if you want to be an atheist.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:31 (twelve years ago) link
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
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:32 (twelve years ago) link
well how were they supposed to know this was the wacky cult that had what it took to take over the world
― iatee, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:32 (twelve years ago) link
altho how those texts were interpreted/put into practice is obviously a huge open question in a lot of ways
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:33 (twelve years ago) link
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!"
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:34 (twelve years ago) link
that's still basically my take
― iatee, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:35 (twelve years ago) link
the early Xtians were waaaaaay into their martyrdom in a way that really does seem psychotic
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:37 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― Pauper Management Improved (Sanpaku), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:41 (twelve years ago) link
ha yes
― goole, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:41 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― Pauper Management Improved (Sanpaku), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:43 (twelve years ago) link
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)
― ryan, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:49 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:50 (twelve years ago) link
Yeah. But that for christianity belief mattered simply because anyone could be a Christian regardless of race or tribe or whatever.
― ryan, Friday, 23 March 2012 19:52 (twelve years ago) link
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
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:55 (twelve years ago) link
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."
― Pauper Management Improved (Sanpaku), Friday, 23 March 2012 19:57 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― o. nate, Friday, 23 March 2012 20:31 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― L'ennui, cette maladie de tous les (Michael White), Friday, 23 March 2012 21:51 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― Pauper Management Improved (Sanpaku), Friday, 23 March 2012 22:12 (twelve years ago) link
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.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 24 March 2012 04:55 (twelve years ago) link
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'.
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Saturday, 24 March 2012 09:05 (twelve years ago) link
I think "friend" is a misleading term for people's relationship with God.
― Hungry4Games (crüt), Saturday, 24 March 2012 10:05 (twelve years ago) link
i think 'imaginary' is a misleading term to use for a concept that was imposed upon you from an early age by the people tasked with educating you about the world.
― less of the same (darraghmac), Saturday, 24 March 2012 11:12 (twelve years ago) link
sorta concur but hmmmm longish list of terrible concepts imposed upon you from an early age etc
― red is hungry green is jawless (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 24 March 2012 11:43 (twelve years ago) link
not quibbling there, but i just think imaginary isn't the word.
― less of the same (darraghmac), Saturday, 24 March 2012 11:48 (twelve years ago) link
no that's fair
― red is hungry green is jawless (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 24 March 2012 11:51 (twelve years ago) link
Ok I admit that's a representation I find amusing rather than one that supports an informed debate, but there is an aspect / presentation of religion that fits the imaginary friend analogy quite neatly and is desperately irritating.
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Saturday, 24 March 2012 11:55 (twelve years ago) link
And before I get kicked for this, as I frequently do, yes, I am also using the term 'religion' very lazily.
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Saturday, 24 March 2012 12:01 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.eborg2.com/Spiritual/Destination/DSS%20Lessons%20by%20Date/DSS-2000/god-Road.jpghttp://dearingbuspix.co.uk/others/var/albums/Brandings-%26-Logos/Have%20a%20Chit%20Chat%20with%20God.jpg?m=1288541055
― Also unknown as Zora (Surfing At Work), Saturday, 24 March 2012 12:05 (twelve years ago) link
i guess the reason i'll defend religion is something to do with the big historical picture and nothing to do with that kind of horrible evangie bullshit
― red is hungry green is jawless (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 24 March 2012 12:11 (twelve years ago) link