[Stealth3si]

So I've been doing a little bit of historical research on the fall of the Roman empire in relation to 'religion' in general. I came across a source: Edward Gibbon. "General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West", from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook.

Non-ecclesiastically speaking, this is of course generally considered a negative connotation, since "all religions exist for the purpose of social control." But even as a Christian who would not apply blanket statements towards Christendom as a whole I would rather take a healthy does of skepticism of "organized religious religions" such as the churches of the former Roman Catholic Church, the rise of "cults" like Scientology and LDS into mainstream religions, or pseudo-religions like Christian Science, etc. Here is a funny and poignant video on how religion and its dogma works. Please check it out.

From a Christian world view, I am not sure how to position myself: is it a series of fortunate events that Christianity "disarmed" Rome for the longanimity of the part of God's plan for humanity or is it, neutrally "just is," simply because of the historically ineludible culture clash between two societies? What are your thoughts?

That was Chapter 38 but I am not sure if the entire book frames the entire issue culturally to begin with. Does anyone know if it does?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

Non-ecclesiastically speaking, this is of course generally considered a negative connotation, since "all religions exist for the purpose of social control."

Interestingly enough, it's mostly just the over-Enlightened anti-Christians who take this view. There are a lot of folks out there who are more than willing to accept the existence of Xianity, without calling it a plague or whatever, and make judgments from there. They just don't get the press time that the loudmouths do. Because, well, the press is incompetent and my permanent boycott remains.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

What are your thoughts?

There's good and bad in any opportunity. I mean, it was nice that they stopped feeding us to lions when all we were doing was seeking out the children and the sick that everyone else left for dead and taking care of them as our own. And it ended up producing what was in some respects a fascinatingly beautiful, complex society. But of course somewhere along the way we stopped being the kind of people that somebody would want to throw to the lions for taking in the children and the sick that everybody else left for dead; power and legitimacy can do that kind of thing to you. There are two poles of Christian work in the world -- transformation and martyrdom -- and so-called Constantinianism let us express one. Now we've got to prepare for the other.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

That was Chapter 38 but I am not sure if the entire book frames the entire issue culturally to begin with. Does anyone know if it does?

Gibbon's work is basically an attempt to write a history that is not based in official Church doctrine, and is well-known as critical of Christianity. He views Christianity as sadly overturning a great culture that preceded it. I'm not sure what you're asking beyond that.

[danlong]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

Non-ecclesiastically speaking, this is of course generally considered a negative connotation, since "all religions exist for the purpose of social control."

I appreciate the above for the matter it approaches one of my pet peeves on the subject of religion in general. From Webster's religion-> "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" , religious-> "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity" and "scrupulously and conscientiously faithful" .

By design, the atheists and FFRF (freedom from religion foundation) intentionally keep focus on equating religion as being Judeo/Christian as opposed to religions based on Judeo/Christian faith. I can guarantee you my religion is very different than the ardent Catholic outside of some common tenets of faith. And we agree to disagree without shooting each other (at least in this country). As such, when a guy is with his buds and starts acting a little moral he's accused of "gettin religious" when actually all he's doing is changing his religion.

By keeping this focus, the atheists and such claim some sort of "separation" and secularist focus while all the while they are actually only pushing the courts to institutionalize in the state, their particular religion. And as you point out, gain social control.

[AlphaSigma]

wooshed.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

There's good and bad in any opportunity. I mean, it was nice that they stopped feeding us to lions when all we were doing was seeking out the children and the sick that everyone else left for dead and taking care of them as our own. And it ended up producing what was in some respects a fascinatingly beautiful, complex society. But of course somewhere along the way we stopped being the kind of people that somebody would want to throw to the lions for taking in the children and the sick that everybody else left for dead; power and legitimacy can do that kind of thing to you. There are two poles of Christian work in the world -- transformation and martyrdom -- and so-called Constantinianism let us express one. Now we've got to prepare for the other.

This is a commentary taken from my Nelson NKJV: "What would life be like if Christ had not come and Christianity had not spread throughout the world? It would most likely be much different, of which we can agree. Although Greece gave western civilization much art, philosophy and literature, and Rome provided law and government, it was the Christian worldview that provided the basis for modern science, efforts to alleviate poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty enshrined in the documents of the many governments. The God of order and beauty provided for the view that nature was predictable and orderly. The Christian belief that all humanity is a creation of God gave a foundation to the self-evident truth of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Since people are made in the image of God they are valuable apart from their station of life, amount of wealth, or utility to society. People are helped, educated, and protected simply because they are made in God’s image. Loss of these Christian ideals would undoubtedly be a tragic loss to the well-being of humanity."

On the other hand, the "take-over of Xianity" has also given us over a thousand years of total obscurantism, where philosophers' writings were forbidden/banished/censored by the pope while Galileo Galilei (heliocentrism) was a heretic for over 300 years until the late 20th century and John-paul 2, persecutions, forced conversions, witch-hunts, Inquisition, massacres, religious wars, and crusades that were revolutions against the nobles and the clergy, partners in crime for oppressing the poor, that enshrined equality and liberty in the documents of many governments (cf. France)

I can see your answer as a solution to this kind of problem.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I'm not sure what you're asking beyond that.

Does it address the issue of the conflict between the two cultures? Is it in the context of the Xtian culture aggressively overwhelming or violently coercing the Roman culture or is it in the context of a peaceful assimilation where the Christian culture appealed to the Romans who decided to accept it despite the threat to it's own pagan practices? Based on your answer, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a negative connotation as well.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

Non-ecclesiastically speaking, this is of course generally considered a negative connotation, since "all religions exist for the purpose of social control."

An exaggeration to the point of error. Most religions, like any other hot-topic issue with an organization, have been adapted for the purpose of control: Whether it's justifying the lack of rights of women (most all of them) or more specific organizational heiarchies (the RCC), it's still where they end up.

Like governments. Most are formed for the good of the governed, but end up serving those who run them.

But even as a Christian who would not apply blanket statements towards Christendom as a whole I would rather take a healthy does of skepticism of "organized religious religions" such as the churches of the former Roman Catholic Church, the rise of "cults" like Scientology and LDS into mainstream religions, or pseudo-religions like Christian Science, etc.

Or the organized reformist conservative movement and evangelical movement which has made presidents and billionares alike.

From a Christian world view, I am not sure how to position myself: is it a series of fortunate events that Christianity "disarmed" Rome for the longanimity of the part of God's plan for humanity or is it, neutrally "just is," simply because of the historically ineludible culture clash between two societies? What are your thoughts?

Rome coopted Christianity (particularly Constantine) as a way to grant religious mandate to the dictator.

[danlong]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Rome coopted Christianity (particularly Constantine) as a way to grant religious mandate to the dictator.

so true, like a typical big business model. If you can't beat them buy them out. Though, as I understand it, Constantine understood and believed Sovereign grace and individual faith, he buckled under the pressure of his advisers and the result being the emperors seat eventually moved to the Vatican, down the road.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

This is a commentary taken from my Nelson NKJV: "What would life be like if Christ had not come and Christianity had not spread throughout the world? It would most likely be much different, of which we can agree. Although Greece gave western civilization much art, philosophy and literature, and Rome provided law and government, it was the Christian worldview that provided the basis for modern science, efforts to alleviate poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty enshrined in the documents of the many governments. The God of order and beauty provided for the view that nature was predictable and orderly. The Christian belief that all humanity is a creation of God gave a foundation to the self-evident truth of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Since people are made in the image of God they are valuable apart from their station of life, amount of wealth, or utility to society. People are helped, educated, and protected simply because they are made in God’s image. Loss of these Christian ideals would undoubtedly be a tragic loss to the well-being of humanity."

Sounds a bit too right-wing for me. There's more Greek influence in there than they want to admit. True, none of these things would have made sense if they hadn't happened in the particular Christian society that they did, but the reintroduction of Greek thought and life had a determinative role in all these developments. (The exception being the care for the poor.) So, "equality" and "liberty" are Enlightened counterparts to Christian values, but they are not Christian values. Similarly, most of the Greeks hated scientific study, so you needed a Christian context in order to have the bravery to think that the world might be valuable in the way that a few Greeks (Aristotle, Archimedes) had imagined, but the New Science went beyond Christianity's high humanism and tended to view the scientific endeavor as divine in its reach and knowledge.

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

Does it address the issue of the conflict between the two cultures? Is it in the context of the Xtian culture aggressively overwhelming or violently coercing the Roman culture or is it in the context of a peaceful assimilation where the Christian culture appealed to the Romans who decided to accept it despite the threat to it's own pagan practices? Based on your answer, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a negative connotation as well.

It was largely non-violent, actually. The Edict of Milan ended the persecution of Christians, which really let it spread, and when Christianity became the State religion it became very financially, socially, and politically convenient to be baptized for those who wanted to rise to power and status. However, Constantine saw it as his job to help enforce the decisions of councils, and at least in the Donatist controversy this turned out somewhat violently.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Sounds a bit too right-wing for me.

I don't know if its official Church doctrine. It's written in the context of how Christianity has affected secular history.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

It was largely non-violent, actually. The Edict of Milan ended the persecution of Christians, which really let it spread, and when Christianity became the State religion it became very financially, socially, and politically convenient to be baptized for those who wanted to rise to power and status. However, Constantine saw it as his job to help enforce the decisions of councils, and at least in the Donatist controversy this turned out somewhat violently.

Could be an inneresting insight on the flaws of humans.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

There's good and bad in any opportunity. I mean, it was nice that they stopped feeding us to lions when all we were doing was seeking out the children and the sick that everyone else left for dead and taking care of them as our own. And it ended up producing what was in some respects a fascinatingly beautiful, complex society. But of course somewhere along the way we stopped being the kind of people that somebody would want to throw to the lions for taking in the children and the sick that everybody else left for dead; power and legitimacy can do that kind of thing to you. There are two poles of Christian work in the world -- transformation and martyrdom -- and so-called Constantinianism let us express one. Now we've got to prepare for the other.

We? You weren't there. Neither was I.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

We? You weren't there. Neither was I.

I don't see how that would mean I couldn't be part of the "we"? I am a Christian. The Church's successes and joys, faults and failures, are all part of me. Or, part of we.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I don't see how that would mean I couldn't be part of the "we"? I am a Christian. The Church's successes and joys, faults and failures, are all part of me. Or, part of we.

I see a danger in this collectivism. I can claim only the merit of Christ and celebrate my place in His Church. Referring to the actions of ancient Christians as "we" is almost linguistically silly (since I am not part of that pronoun directly) and runs the risk of associating me as a moral agent culpable for the failures of the Church.

Maybe we're just getting into esoteric edges of your faith. I can learn a lesson from the Sacred Calf and see how I myself am an idolater, but I'd be loathe to say "When we built that idol in the desert" 'cos I wasn't there.

I also see a Biblical precedent for God holding generations and groups within Israel and Israel as she is now (the Church), but not for holding later Christians culpable for the sins of the past Church or somehow earning the merit of those martyrs simply for being their descendants.

They're part of my history, and part of my identity, but not part of my culpability.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I see a danger in this collectivism.

Yes, I am a "collectivist," through and through.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

runs the risk of associating me as a moral agent culpable for the failures of the Church.

I am accepting those failures on my own head, yes.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

but not for holding later Christians culpable for the sins of the past Church or somehow earning the merit of those martyrs simply for being their descendants.

I think you have a sharper sense of the word 'culpable' than I'm necessarily using. Obviously you recognize that the situation of each individual now is to a significant extent irreducibly determined by forced that preceded his/her birth, but I'm assuming that you would want to make a very strong contrast between these kinds of effects and Moral Culpability. I'm not as big on that sharp distinction.

[danlong]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I see a danger in this collectivism. I can claim only the merit of Christ and celebrate my place in His Church. Referring to the actions of ancient Christians as "we" is almost linguistically silly (since I am not part of that pronoun directly) and runs the risk of associating me as a moral agent culpable for the failures of the Church.

Maybe we're just getting into esoteric edges of your faith. I can learn a lesson from the Sacred Calf and see how I myself am an idolater, but I'd be loathe to say "When we built that idol in the desert" 'cos I wasn't there.

I also see a Biblical precedent for God holding generations and groups within Israel and Israel as she is now (the Church), but not for holding later Christians culpable for the sins of the past Church or somehow earning the merit of those martyrs simply for being their descendants.

They're part of my history, and part of my identity, but not part of my culpability.

Agreed, through and through. I take no responsibility for diluting the power and Glory of Christ to form a collective state religion, I don't take any part of the inquisitions, nor do I take association with Henry creating his own religion of convenience, even less of the Salem witch trials, or even recently the anti-Pentecostal sentiments . They are historical, yes, but is it a part of my heritage and soul? Not the very least. For in that regard then you'd have to take on every church split and doctrine, every preacher that ran off with the offering or the church secretary. In Christ, I am a new creation.

[H.M. Murdock]

Ahh, Gibbons...

I am curious to know how Rome's previous record of agnosticism impacted the changes brought about by Christianity. I mean, that's a pretty radical shift in ideologies.