About religion...

[Virilis]

If you are a devoted christian, it might be be better not to read this.

In Finland our church is struggling with questions like woman bishops, marriage rights of the gay people etc (I have no opinion on these issues because I am not a christian). The church tries desperately to hang on to the "tithes" by making compromises with the contemporary society. I think it tells that the inner dynamism of the religion is gone. All this reminds me in some way of the situation of the traditional roman religion (say, in the 4th century CA) when people like Julian the Apostate tried desperately revive the traditional religion / gods of the roman empire. I think christianity is struggling now in vain too. It is kind of sad to look at this ongoing process, I also share many great traditions of chritianity because it is our cultural heritage in general. I think only thing that can revive christianity is some great catastrophy which makes the cohesion of religion again useful for the function of societies in large (remember, I am a social scientist by schooling :wink: ). It seems that there is no way stopping Islam and in this way it reminds me of the role of christianity in the roman empire. Any thoughts? Sorry if I offended someone...

[caiusbeerquitius]

Your questions are consummately answered in this great book:
D.C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Viking Books, 2006.
=D

[Virilis]

Your questions are consummately answered in this great book:
D.C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Viking Books, 2006.
=D

Thanks Christian, another book to read :wink: !

[Jona Lendering]

I think it tells that the inner dynamism of the religion is gone.

I think this is indeed the point that helps to explain (a) the collapse of ancient paganism, (b) the failure of Julian (and why we should be happy with that), © several problems in modern Christianity, (d) the rise of fundamentalism in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism - although in the latter case, it has a very specific shape, Zionism, that I feel unable to judge.

The central point is that the religious experience is a highly personal one; the relation to God is intimate and delicate. This makes it very hard to establish an ethical system on it - in a sense, an atheist and someone who really experiences the divine, are in agreement. (For this reason, mystics have always been regarded with suspicion by the religious establishment.)

Once the intimacy is gone, once the inner dynamism has vanished, religions become sterile, and can collapse. I disagree with R. Lane Fox that paganism in the third century was still vital; the rise of "holy men" is sufficient evidence that it was in crisis. It also explains why Julian failed: he wanted paganism as an institute to enforce laws and order, but the intimate sense of the divine is unsuited for that.

[Virilis]

Great insights as usual, Jona, I totally agree !

[Epictetus]

I think this is an interesting topic. In the first couple centuries after Christ, there seemed to be an explosion of new cults and holy men. Sun cults, that fellow with the stork in the Campus Martius, Christianity itself, Alexander of Abonoteichus and his “new” snake god / Asclepius …

In fact last night I was looking through the Acts of the Apostles and various letters to Christian communities, trying to get a grasp on how it spread.

Why was this such a fertile period for new beliefs? Even Marcus Aurelius muses about if he should find anything better than his version of Stoicism. The Empire was at its height, upper classes were sophisticated and had wider knowledge of the world around them, and they probably had most of their basic needs filled so had leisure to think about deeper issues. It sounds familiar to today.

[Virilis]

Yes David, you`re correct there are indeed some parallels to modern times. I am interested in this context mainly in the spread of christianity as a social phenomena, the spirituality is a "whole different ballgame" :wink: ...

[Epictetus]

Vaguely, I would say that the Roman civilisation had a history of a "federal" (for lack of a better term) society. The Secession of the Plebs has been termed the creation of a state-within-a-state. Various allies were part of the res publica but had their own government. Even under Trajan, Pliny was told to follow local laws. The early Church seemed to be similar - there was a social movement for an internal structure, with their governing Elders or Bishops, their own rules and so on. This could cause problems at times, like with riots by trade guilds and circus factions or Christians refusing to sacrifice.

I guess an "Imperial" superstructure allowed semi-self-governing societies to develop. In time, some of these new organisations assumed regular "constitutional" powers. The tribunes were accepted as regular magistrates, and later the bishops became very powerful locally in all elements of society.

[Virilis]

Good points, David!

[Jona Lendering]

Why was this such a fertile period for new beliefs?

I think it was not more fertile than other periods. But the great wars had come to an end. Ideas could spread more easily.

[Virilis]

Why was this such a fertile period for new beliefs?

I think it was not more fertile than other periods. But the great wars had come to an end. Ideas could spread more easily.

Oh yes, it is all "circumstances". The biggest thing helping the spread of the christianity was the readily available infrastructure of the roman empire, divine intervention or not :wink: ...

Btw, just noticed guys, this is on the wrong thread...

[D B Campbell]

The biggest thing helping the spread of the christianity was the readily available infrastructure of the roman empire, divine intervention or not :wink: ...

You think that was coincidence? :wink:

[Jona Lendering]

You think that was coincidence? :wink:

Ha! There's even an expression for it, plenitudo temporum. The times were ready, so Christ could appear. :wink:

[recondicom]

If you are a devoted christian, it might be be better not to read this.

In Finland our church is struggling with questions like woman bishops, marriage rights of the gay people etc (I have no opinion on these issues because I am not a christian). The church tries desperately to hang on to the "tithes" by making compromises with the contemporary society. I think it tells that the inner dynamism of the religion is gone. All this reminds me in some way of the situation of the traditional roman religion (say, in the 4th century CA) when people like Julian the Apostate tried desperately revive the traditional religion / gods of the roman empire. I think christianity is struggling now in vain too. It is kind of sad to look at this ongoing process, I also share many great traditions of chritianity because it is our cultural heritage in general. I think only thing that can revive christianity is some great catastrophy which makes the cohesion of religion again useful for the function of societies in large (remember, I am a social scientist by schooling :wink: ). It seems that there is no way stopping Islam and in this way it reminds me of the role of christianity in the roman empire. Any thoughts? Sorry if I offended someone...

Hi. Desire. IMO there is a Universal force in all matter that is : “to be or not to be”. It is genetically imprinted in the desire to be first (as in first to the egg) or the will to power. I will go further to say that it is for the most part responsible for emotions… And it is not difficult to create religions around the basic BE.
Historically, the Sumo Pontifice was more of a obduracy ; Moreover, Cesar was both and several others in Christian Times were also both. Perhaps, the real Christians were exterminated long time ago… a little limbo. Try the burr- oak.
Salud.

[Robert Vermaat]

All this reminds me in some way of the situation of the traditional roman religion (say, in the 4th century CA) when people like Julian the Apostate tried desperately revive the traditional religion / gods of the roman empire. I think Christianity is struggling now in vain too. It is kind of sad to look at this ongoing process, I also share many great traditions of Christianity because it is our cultural heritage in general.

Well, in a sense that is a correct observation. The rise of Christianity in the 4th c. was mainly due to it becoming a state religion, with all the trappings of a state-funded institution. In the west it was just in time to serve as (in some sense) a successor to the Roman state. In the east, where the state did not fall, development was different - eastern Orthodoxy is a much more centralist form of Christianity. In the eastern Empire, this development plus cultural differences made Christian religion much more restrictive.

What we see today is the end of a process in which the Western Christian church is losing that status of being a state (or state-funded) religion. Personally I wonder how it will develop.

It seems that there is no way stopping Islam

I think you're wrong there. This may seem so, but in fact what we see as the 'rise of Islam' is a very long and chequered process, with ups and downs. What we see today as the 'rise' is mainly the spread of Muslim people in a modern world. Yet it is that very sort of people, the immigrant, who is likely to stress his culture and religion. It can be compared to almost any person moving from one country to the other. Aspects seen with 1st to 3rd generation Moroccans in The Netherlands can almost in detail be compared to Dutch folks in Australia or the United States.

If groups like these start integrating, it can be shown that this stress on culture and religion ebbs away, and already we can see that with every new generation, interest for religion is waning. If nothing upsets this process (like pogroms etc or such a nationalistic reaction) people from Muslim countries will be no different that people from any other country.