Hi
Here is a video of Stephen Fry talking about the Catholic Church. Is it a force for good in the world? Is old Steve justified or is he over the top? What's your opinion?
Best Wishes
RP
I'm glad BF has brought attention to the term "Dark Ages". Was it really that dark?
I read somewhere that it was dark in the same sense that the womb is dark. It was definitely a time of transition.
I don't know what the uniform of a Roman policeman was, but what I've heard is that when Constantine declared that the whole Roman world was to become Christian, pagan temples became churches and many pagan rituals and festivals were adopted, like for instance, the worship of a Mother-goddess turned into worship of Mary, plus the pagan priests' robes are basically what we have still today. I haven't time to do any research, but it makes sense.
Agreed Judy!
Whenever I become involved in this sort of discussion I go back to how Christianity was set up - I did a lot of reading when bed-bound and this is where my curiosity took me (though I am sure many will disagree ... :):
At the Council of Nicea, 325 AD, 'Christianity' was defined under Constantine, ruler of a polytheistic Roman Empire, whose main gods were Sol Invictus and Mithras. Constantine's primary objective was unity. Mithraism stressed immortality of the soul, resurrection and final judgement (Mithras was born of a 'virgin', Jesus was not - see Jesus The Man by Professor Barbara Thiering). Sol Invictus was a Syrian god whose birthday was celebrated on 25th December, (until then Jesus's birthday was celebrated on 31st March); the day of Sol (Sunday) was chosen as the rest day, distancing it from the Jewish Sabbath, etc. From Essene and Nazarite beginnings, Christianity had a growing and diverse following. This was amalgamated with the other religions and established as the unified Roman state religion.
By majority vote, at the Nicean Council they rejected Jesus as a purely mortal healer and teacher and deified him, in the Roman tradition, as the Christ, the earthly son of God (Sol Invictus), and as having been the physical part of the Trinity of God, Son and Holy Spirit. After which, any works challenging these ideas were ordered to be destroyed. In 331 AD a Bible was commissioned, when the then current material was edited as seen fit, much of it being misunderstood by Romans with no knowledge of Nazarite or Essene tradition, and little of Judaic, deleting all references to karma and reincarnation, and followed over the centuries by many more amendments.
This being said, I neither denigrate some good people whose work has been done in the name of Christ, nor some of the aspirations and ideals in Christianity. I just believe much of the basic premise is both false and confusing.
Not only that, much ancient knowledge has been suppressed and destroyed, e.g. the burning of the world library in Alexandria by the Christians. It wasn't until the Moors and Arabic tradition were well established in Spain towards the end of the 1st millennium that medical knowledge, astronomy, mathematics and philosophy from the ancient Greeks reached the rest of Europe. The Church of Rome had closed all educational establishments except their own and built up ultimate responsibility and control of the individual during the 'dark ages', allowing no questioning of their dogma.
Our modern Christian Church is built on these foundations and I find I cannot accept this now. If Christianity has a monopoly on the path to eternal life, as they claim, what happened to people who aren't Christians, or who died before it came into being? How come an estimated 25 million people have been killed in the last 2000 years in the name of Christianity? Somehow information has been distorted. Information is neutral; it is how it is used that indicates whether the influence is for good or evil.
Hence I very much agree with Stephen Fry's sentiments.
I for one don't disagree with your comments, Caroline. It's quite obvious that Christianity takes many of its references from other sources, and that the church underwent a great deal of change in its first centuries. That's one of my arguments against Bible-literalism.
Personally I see spirituality as a work-in-progress that is going on through all humanity. The Divine speaks to us all, but as we are all different, we interpret this in different ways. As new thoughts are added we can change and grow in spirit, as our minds can do through reading a new book. No two people would describe a sunset exactly the same way; we pick up on different colours and different shades, but the sunset is still there for everyone to see.
And I agree this is a major criticism of the Abrahamic religions, that they claim a monopoly on truth based on when their truth was revealed. They sought to wipe out all the other gods as much as ways of practicing faith. But I think 'truth' can be a nuanced thing. To me the story of Jesus is as true as anything, because it speaks to me in the deepest possible way. Inasmuch I also value many of the prayers, rites and teachings of the Catholic Church, even though I also seek inspiration in other forms of worship. The history of the church (and Christianity in general) often fills me with sadness and even anger, but I can still look beyond it and see a deep beauty therein.
You have a lovely perspective Tapestry. I too am a deeply spiritual person - I came to the conclusions above while I was exploring my spirituality and guided by my spirit guides I am now in a very comfortable place with my beliefs - but these are mine and very personal. I still adore the big choral masses which I have sung as a choir member for 30 years, but became uncomfortable with some words and have stopped going.
I do see religion as a means of power and control - I prefer to go my own way to the Source, but each to their own.
I'm glad BF has brought attention to the term "Dark Ages". Was it really that dark?
A bit off-topic I guess, but the term certainly gives the wrong impression. Sticking with the term, the "Dark Ages" was when Camelot (based at South Cadbury Hill [?] but a base for a large swathe of England, and Arthur quite possibly waging campaigns into the Continent) came to fruition, yet faded alas. This is much more widely considered to be dimly-recalled but actual factual history now rather than "myth".
Isn't it around the time of St. Patrick (too lazy to look up his dates, but they weren't far from then)? 6th century?
And Glastonbury itself existed as a seat of spirituality and of learning through the "Dark Ages". (It must in fact be said, not in defence of Catholicism in this case, that the seat of Christianity at Glastonbury, come to think of it, always proclaimed itself to pre-date the establishment of the Roman Church, and this pre-establishment was accepted. Roman "evangelists" travelled to Britain to "convert" the people, and were astonished to find Glastonbury as a Christian bastion, claiming to date from the times of the disciples, already there!
But main point being: Yes, it's only called the "Dark Ages" as we can't "see into it" as there's a lack of written record: this gives a mistaken impression that the term may mean spiritually dark. It doesn't. It's simply a period of very little historical, written record.
V
Well I have to say this has turned out to be very interesting thread, which I have been following with interest, although I feel very ill equipped to add anything (apart from the fact that I admire SF's debating skills!)
However I particularly liked Tapestry's perspective.
Personally I see spirituality as a work-in-progress that is going on through all humanity. The Divine speaks to us all, but as we are all different, we interpret this in different ways. As new thoughts are added we can change and grow in spirit, as our minds can do through reading a new book. No two people would describe a sunset exactly the same way; we pick up on different colours and different shades, but the sunset is still there for everyone to see.
Exactly!
But I think 'truth' can be a nuanced thing. To me the story of Jesus is as true as anything, because it speaks to me in the deepest possible way. Inasmuch I also value many of the prayers, rites and teachings of the Catholic Church, even though I also seek inspiration in other forms of worship. The history of the church (and Christianity in general) often fills me with sadness and even anger, but I can still look beyond it and see a deep beauty therein.
Very well said, Tapestry. I knew about the politics of the early Church, the council of Nicaea, Mithras, the deletion of references to reincarnation etc., but religions are man-made things and none of it for me diminishes the essence of what Jesus taught, or the great inspiration set by people who follow his example.
By majority vote, at the Nicean Council they rejected Jesus as a purely mortal healer and teacher and deified him, in the Roman tradition, as the Christ, the earthly son of God (Sol Invictus), and as having been the physical part of the Trinity of God, Son and Holy Spirit. After which, any works challenging these ideas were ordered to be destroyed.
Yes, to expound a little upon this ...
This was actually a new doctrine. That Jesus was not a creation of God such as ourselves, but God Himself. As Will Durant puts it, "If Christ was not God, the whole structure of Christian doctrine would begin to crack ... chaos of belief [V: free thinking] might destroy the unity and authority of the Church, and therefore its value as an aid to the state" [V: it was the state].
In other words, present Christology was pushed through because it was an invaluable mechanism through which to control the masses: Don't think for yourselves, you are just sinners. Ironically, it's Protestantism in its extreme forms which has taken this up more than ever today.
Only upon returning home (since at the Council of Nicea, Constantine literally may have put dissenters to death - it was not just an intellectual debate!) did Eusabbius of Nicodemia, Maris of Chalcedon and Theognis of Nicea gather the courage to write to Constantine of how deeply they regretted signing the Nicene formula of Christology (the who and what of the nature of Christ):
"We committed an impious act, O Prince," wrote Eusabius, "by subscribing to a blasphemy for fear of you."
Yet this same blasphemy persists to this day, throughout virtually all of Christendom.
-------------------------------
Edit to add: I feel that it's very important that all of Christianity is based upon a blasphemy: that Jesus was the One God Incarnate in a unique fashion, the "only" Son of God. That nobody else can aspire to such heights. Within Christianity - begininning with the Roman Church but persisting throughout all of Christianity, there's a "ceiling" placed upon how spiritualy high we can become. There's no point in aspiring "too" high.
This has had a simply overwhelming effect upon the West, limiting mysticism and true oneness with God from the beginning, but also, considering themselves mere underlings, the faithful placed themselves under control of the political churches (all of them). Mystics and saints arose anyway, as they always do, but have been looked at askance, never truly embraced by the institution.
It might be said that this persists to this day. It's why materialism expanded in the 19th century until today, because people did not know that they too could aspire to become truly and totally at-one with God. So in replacement of the churches, other mysticisms, the New Age, and various groups simply had to appear as an outlet.
Christianity is all based upon a blasphemy as to the nature of Christ; has been ever since Nicea, and the attendees there knew it to be a blasphemy, and spiritually untrue, imposed merely for political purposes.
V
Thanks for expanding that Venetian.
As for your previous post about Christianity being here before the Romans brought it - yes it was. There are many [DLMURL="http://www.durhamcathedral.co.uk/history/saints"]Northern Saints [/DLMURL](Aidan, Cuthbert, Hilda, Bede, Oswald) based on the Celtic Christian Church as in Iona and Lindisfarne, which as I understand was far nearer the teachings of Jesus.
When St Augustine came to convert the 'heathen' residents of our islands to the Roman Church he did so with the sword and if people didn't comply then the results could be fatal - and that included the many monastries and nunneries here in the north. It was no gentle conversion.
It is also said that Joseph of Aramathea (uncle of Jesus) helped found a group of followers of Jesus's teachings in Glastonbury. He was a trader and world traveller I understand. Certainly tin was exported all over the known world from Cornwall at the time.
It all makes for fascinating reading!
It's funny how reading up on other religions actually led me to learn more about my own! I eat up books on spirituality these days. 🙂 I've recently begun to be interested in Celtic Christianity, too.
Ironically, it's Protestantism in its extreme forms which has taken this up more than ever today.
I agree!
Only upon returning home (since at the Council of Nicea, Constantine literally may have put dissenters to death - it was not just an intellectual debate!) did Eusabbius of Nicodemia, Maris of Chalcedon and Theognis of Nicea gather the courage to write to Constantine of how deeply they regretted signing the Nicene formula of Christology (the who and what of the nature of Christ):
"We committed an impious act, O Prince," wrote Eusabius, "by subscribing to a blasphemy for fear of you."
Have you any links/references? it would be useful for me in my communications with orthodox Christians.
Edit to add: I feel that it's very important that all of Christianity is based upon a blasphemy: that Jesus was the One God Incarnate in a unique fashion, the "only" Son of God. That nobody else can aspire to such heights. Within Christianity - begininning with the Roman Church but persisting throughout all of Christianity, there's a "ceiling" placed upon how spiritualy high we can become. There's no point in aspiring "too" high.
Oi - watch it V! 😮 Please don't tar ALL Christians with the same broom!!
Here are a few statements from Mary Baker Eddy (my highlights):
[COLOR="Blue"]Human philosophy has made God manlike. Christian Science makes man Godlike.(Science and Health 269)
Jesus of Nazareth taught and demonstrated man's oneness with the Father, and for this we owe him endless homage. (Science and Health 18)
Pondering on the finite personality of Jesus, the son of man, is not the channel through which we reach the Christ, or Son of God, the true idea of man's divine Principle. (Miscellaneous Writings 309)
The Christian who believes in the First Commandment is a monotheist. Thus he virtually unites with the Jew's belief in one God, and recognizes that Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but is the Son of God. This declaration of Jesus, understood, conflicts not at all with another of his sayings: "I and my Father are one,"--that is, one in quality, not in quantity. As a drop of water is one with the ocean, a ray of light one with the sun, even so God and man, Father and son, are one in being. The Scripture reads: "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being." (Science and Health 361)
But all Christian Scientists deeply recognize the oneness of Jesus--that he stands alone in word and deed, the visible discoverer, founder, demonstrator, and great Teacher of Christianity, whose sandals none may unloose. (Miscellany 228)
More detail here:
Love and peace,
Judy
Have you any links/references? it would be useful for me in my communications with orthodox Christians.
Not for that particular quote after the Nicean council by Eusabius, Judy, sorry. LOL, I could give my reference, but it's to a magazine article written by - myself - fully 24 years ago! 😮 (Makes me feel old! :D). My article from the 1980s is referenced, but not fully, and not that quote of Eusabius. I was in effect quoting myself! 🙂
But I certainly won't have made it up! It'll be out there somewhere to find from another source, and in 2010 we have the excellent resource of the internet.
(Gawd, to think I've been hammering away at the ill-logic of Christian doctrine for a quarter century at least, and that's just in this lifetime. 😮 )
[COLOR="Blue"]"We committed an impious act, O Prince," wrote Eusabius, "by subscribing to a blasphemy for fear of you."
Strong stuff, isn't it.
V
Have you any links/references? it would be useful for me in my communications with orthodox Christians.
I don't know how useful you'll find this link, Judy. It's to 'The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus'. The subject is referred to very near the bottom of the page from the heading '40 THE COUNCIL OF NICE' onwards. When I read I didn't have the time or patience to give it due consideration.
It's all a bit dense and not really a barrel of laughs...
Thanks chaps! 24 years doesn't sound that long V!
I will get round to having a look at that link Barafundle - though you didn't do much of a selling job! 😀
I went to a talk years ago about the Council of Niceae (sp?) and was told that only those bishops who agreed with the proposition were invited, so it was like an early example of vote rigging! Again, I've tried to find evidence but have failed. There certainly was a movement called Arianism which was opposed to the doctrine that Jesus was God (how did we get here from Stephen Fry??)
I have quoted from this site before, dealing with how different early Christianity was to that after Constantine, but the author died and it disappeared. However, I've found it on the web archive, so will post it here in case it's useful to anyone else.
Two books I will get around to reading someday are: [url]Will the real heritics please stand up[/url] by David Bercot and [url]Misquoting Jesus[/url] the story behind who changed the Bible and why byBart D. Ehrman
One thing I know is that after Jesus was declared to be God and part of the Trinity, (which is not a Biblical concept), healing the sick and even raising the dead, which had been a natural outcome of early Christian worship, died out.
Love and peace,
Judy
Again, I've tried to find evidence but have failed. There certainly was a movement called Arianism which was opposed to the doctrine that Jesus was God (how did we get here from Stephen Fry??)
Yes, this young chap who was me in the 1980s went into the Arian controversy. It's all there in the printed article a number of pages long, but this was all before the internet and I certainly don't have it on disk. It may have been a manual typewriter! So I can't just cut and paste into here, Judy.
Maybe sometime I'll go through the process of actually typing the article (that young chap could string words together quite well) anew, as a longish post here or somewhere.
But in brief, I read (from myself) that before Nicea, Christianity was torn over the Arian controversy. Quote:
"Arius taught that Christ was not equal to God, but a creation of God. In this, Arius had plentiful biblical support: for example, "My Father is greater than I", spoken by Jesus himself. But, as The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge relates, "in the Arian controversy lay a great obstacle to the realization of Constantine's idea of a universal empire which was to be attained by aid of uniformity of divine worship."
So I suspect I got that Eusabius quote from that Encyclopedia, and there is a reference in my ancient article to the Encyclopedia, saying "See under Nicea, Council of."
Googling the name Eusabius wasn't at first helpful, as the highest hit was ... this thread! But there was clearly an enormous amount of politicking going on, as to who to follow and what to believe, at that time. More than I even knew. It has to make you wonder very deeply whether to trust and follow the outcome, present Christology. For example, high hits were:
---------------------
Oh, the answer was quite simple, I find. I put into Google the whole quote:
[COLOR="DarkRed"]"We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy for fear of you"
You get several hits, such as:
And that kind of references the quote to yet another book. I think we can take it that it's a known and accepted letter of Eusabius.
-------------------
But even by the time of Nicea and that first Council, I think it's important to note that real Christiantiy had been documented by the early Chruch Fathers. For example, Origen of Alexandria knew the oral but unwritten teachings of Jesus from individuals who themselves received these teachings from the disciples, and he says that clearly. So look, I'd say, to the writings of people such as Origen, long before Nicea. Origen accepted the pre-existence of souls before birth and apparently reincarnation. To him, we are not "saved" by "believing in Jesus" but have to advance spiritually ourselves by self-effort. Etc, etc.
V
Also helpful to look at the [url]Nag Hammadi Tractates[/url] - they tell a different story to the Bible as we know it.
New thread on Christology?
As is natural in life, HP has shifted over time, and I'm not sure there are many people here interested these days? But we are going into a different topic - certainly not Stephen Fry. 🙂 There's always the possibilty of starting a new thread on Christology.
It's an unfamiliar word to many people, but it simpy means what people believe about the nature, and purpose, of Christ (or Jesus). Foremost among any controversies there is certainly the subject of whether we can all become Sons and Daughters of God, as we all contain the divine spark as our real inner nature, or else whether, as Christianity has it, Jesus was unique, a one-off, and God "Himself", something none of us can aspire to since we are all, according to Christianity, "born in original sin".
Yeah, right.. 🙂
If someone started that thread I'd add to it. Though it still appears that HP has shifted over time, and it might not be the best place to write on this anymore?
V
Please do start that thread.
I would have absolutely nothing to add to it, but I am finding your discussion really interesting.
Well I'm up for starting it off (from the existing Bible, let alone any of the omitted gospels) why we are already the sons and daughters of God, made in the image and likeness of Spirit and NOT born in original sin! Time isn't something I have huge amounts of at the moment, but am sure that a new thread on Christology will be an interesting discussion for everyone.
Love and peace,
Judy
Hi V
You go ahead and start a new thread.
Hi
My idea of starting this thread wasn't catholic bashing, but to make people think about ideaologies and how morality leads immorality. Stifling "life force" doesn't lead to a happy and balanced society, and unfortunately the Roman Catholic Church has its part to play in this. Glad to see that out of this thread that the spark of spirituality is still there however it is clothed and is developing all the time.
Best Wishes
RP
Hi all,
It seems there's an interest in a Christology thread, then. To save my own time, I was hoping someone else would begin it. OK, I will, tonight or soon. I like to be comprehensive and normally I'd begin with a comprehensive post. That's why I was trying to pass the buck! - as it is, I'll begin the thread soon, but it may not be with such a comprehensive post as I'd like. I'll make a couple of key points anyway ...
I'll link to it here when it exists.
V
My idea of starting this thread wasn't catholic bashing, but to make people think about ideaologies and how morality leads immorality.
Personally I didn't take it as being (by you) Catholic bashing. Fry's speech was extraordinary, but in a way to polarise people in agreement or contra I feel. I actually wondered if this thread would get heated: it was quite a subject (once you've heard what Stephen Fry says). But the thread is perfectly civil. (Maybe we just don't have many Jesuit HP members? 🙂 )
Like most people who've posted, I heard Fry, and then thought, "Yes, I agree with 'a' and 'b' BUT..." The "buts" here have been interesting too.
V
Hi all,
It seems there's an interest in a Christology thread, then. To save my own time, I was hoping someone else would begin it. OK, I will, tonight or soon. I like to be comprehensive and normally I'd begin with a comprehensive post. That's why I was trying to pass the buck! - as it is, I'll begin the thread soon, but it may not be with such a comprehensive post as I'd like. I'll make a couple of key points anyway ...
I'll link to it here when it exists.
V
Just for the record, the new thread is here:
<a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="Christology">Christology
Holistic
Hi
Here is a video of Stephen Fry talking about the Catholic Church. Is it a force for good in the world? Is old Steve justified or is he over the top? What's your opinion?
[url]The Intelligence² Debate - Stephen Fry (Unedited) - Video Dailymotion[/url]
Best Wishes
RP
As a former catholic, I found this talk by Stephen Fry to both enlightening and a confirmation of some of my long held beliefs. The catholic church is truly a tribute to the almighty dollar and their tolerance of pedophiles is deplorable. They amass these riches for the greater honor and glory of whom ??? Stephen Fry is correct with respect to 'the poor carpenter' not being accepted in this church.