<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
The thing that most struck me about that article was when they had a quote of a Christian saying something like:

"I've not seen a single study showing Witches can rehabilitate prisoners.".

Anyone else notice that this might have more to do with the fact that she is the FIRST wiccan chaplain. What would these reports he is after be based on? I almost laughed out loud when I read it, until I realised just to what extent people will go to to discredit a religion. I am a Christian but I can't see the point of stamping so hard on other religions.<hr></blockquote>

Barry, that's pretty civilized of you. Unfortunately, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is exclusionist, rather than (like Hinduism, for example) inclusionist. We're still dealing with religions that identify themselves in terms of what they don't believe, as much as by what they do.

Christianity initially evolved into a heterodox religion, after it became popular. Many non-Judaic religionists saw it as a framework in which their own religious views could be represented, and there were dozens of schisms in the early Church. There was fear in some Christian circles that the message they perceived as theirs was going to be lost. Eventually, the bishops representing the Orthodox sect won the day, securing the Byzantine Emperor's favor and virulently attacking the other Christian sects (Donatists, Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, Origenists, Strict Dyophysites, Gnostics, Apollinarians, Sabellians, etc). Physically attacked by Orthodox and militia, these other groups fled, either settling in far off locations or simply disappearing forever. (One of the more amusing episodes of Christianity was the horror felt by Jesuits upon their arrival in India, in the 17th century. Among the various religious groups they encountered were the Nestorian Christians, an "heretical" sect last seen in the 6th century, and presumed extinct.)

It was the need to define Christianity as different, to prevent its preceived message from vanishing in the static, that caused the Orthodox Christians to become so crusade-like in their mentality. And as the ancestors of most subsequent Christian faiths, it's carried over. That's one reason, at least, why Christianity still must assert its accuracy of religious views, and maintain the inaccuracy (at best) of others.

[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: fable ]</p>

Don't get me wrong. I defend the right of Christians to beleive that other religions are flawed, they wouldn't beleive in Christianity if they didn't. But I think everyone is their own person and it is not my business to tell them what to beleive. So whilst I can understand the mentality of the Christian faith in this area I also find it dated, if not barbaric at times. But I am sure there are other Christians willing to defend the church, I know there are plenty where I live.

Epona, having just read this thread, I would like to commend your practice of going to the source in historical conroversy.. I think Gibbon, though he wrote like an angel, must be understood for what he was, a child of the Enlightenment, and a principaled deist. He was what would now be termed a populariser. He wrote for an audience that was generally quite familiar with the Church Fathers as well as the Greeks and Romans. What made him so popular was that he took this body of shared knowlege and put what we would call a 'new take' on it, and his take was that Christianity, by which he mainly meant the Roman Catholic Church, had destroyed Classical Civilisation. The RCC was very unpopular in England at that time, and everyone admired the Greeks and Romans. Hence, his contemporary popularity. So, Fable, I think she was just saying that Gibbon is not the final word on that era.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Blade:
Surfing my usual sights i came across this and it drove me nuts i can't believe people in this age still believe the stuff spiewed out about pegans in the dark ages. Any way here is the link to the page what does everyone here think about this? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0201160344jan16.st ory?coll=chi%2Dnewsnationworld%2Dhed

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Blade ]<hr></blockquote>

Well, as an Atheist, all I would ask is "is she a good chaplain?" If she is, then get off her back; if she's not, just fire her!

As for the topic "people that are clueless". Simple. IMO, clueless individuals are so closed minded that they shut themself from the world and can't learn from it!

[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Galadria1:
What made him so popular was that he took this body of shared knowlege and put what we would call a 'new take' on it, and his take was that Christianity, by which he mainly meant the Roman Catholic Church, had destroyed Classical Civilisation. The RCC was very unpopular in England at that time, and everyone admired the Greeks and Romans. Hence, his contemporary popularity. So, Fable, I think she was just saying that Gibbon is not the final word on that era.<hr></blockquote>

Galandria1, I never claimed otherwise, and I understood Epona to be saying what you just did. [img]smile.gif[/img] But recommending that average people seek out texts in Latin or fairly erudite, scholarly essays in English in order to discover the actions of early Christians is a mistake, IMO. They're not going to do it. We may be able to convince 'em to read Gibbon, because he's fun to read, well-researched (for his period), possesses an excellent, readable style, and is still considered accurate for most of his general observations.

However, if you have a another "general public" book that will illustrate in detail the way early Christians acted in Rome, I'll gladly recommend that, instead, and I'm sure others would be equally appreciative. [img]smile.gif[/img]