Grim,

Whilst you might attempt to trivialize any mention of Nazism as mere hyperbole (Godwin’s ‘Law’), I think we need dig beneath such a superficial, and perhaps clichéd, reaction.

The precursor of systematic National Socialism was not some anti-Semite but a young, left-leaning social reformist by the name of Friedrich Naumann. Born in 1860, Naumann began his public life in the 1880s - as a pastor and a Christian socialist. German sociologist, Max Weber, had a strong intellectual impact on Naumann. Weber argued, and quickly persuaded Naumann, that economic and social policy should be framed by the nation’s struggle for its existence rather than by ethical or moral considerations involving any actual ‘well-being’.

The church, Naumann was convinced, had to address the social afflictions of the modern age, if it wished to remain true to its principles. This adaptation to modernity, furthermore, was indispensable, not just for the sake of principled integrity, but also for sheer survival for avoiding a fatal loss of believers (i.e., just a ‘numbers game’). Interestingly, he also castigated materialism for its denial of the existence of God and its pretension to guarantee an ideal future of peace and happiness on earth. For “only in God is there happiness, peace, calm … all happiness that does not come from God is for us an illusion and a dream. … In short, Social Democracy has no idea about the real happiness”. Fine sounding words, maybe he was half-right. His radical, and rather falsely declared interpretation was, that “Jesus, on ethical grounds, is a radical adversary of capital accumulation…”

Naumann’s conception of social reform was geared, not toward social justice, but rather toward harnessing the productive energies of a German society in order to serve the nation’s struggle for existence – a false ‘spirituality” perhaps, helping to lay the ground for something far more sinister? If you wish a closer look at ‘truth’ in action, then move a little nearer to the carpenter who, in your banter, you jest about – certainly one who stood on his “own merit” and continues…

Speaking as a mature age philosopher rather than seeped in Bible Study, am suprised that with so much mention of Constantine in the fifty or so threads, there has been no mention of the Donation of Constantine.

It is said that after the Council of Nicea et al et al, with all his Romanesque capabilities he was still careful not to plunge Christianity into a major war.

Ans so it was that the fake Donation of Constantine secretly became part of Christian Law, with the work of the Monastries though true to the early Jesus, now enfeebled by an Age of Christian Warfare, the Christian Knights in particular still thrilling today's students with not only courage in battle, but the birth of a softer sweeter courage that so many writers call part of the Romantic Age rather than just the Romantic Urge of today.

bushbred,

Actually, I made mention of the Donation you speak of here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#150337

I’m a little surprised by your romantic view of Constantine who, by most accounts, was also known for being ruthless with his political enemies, deposing the Eastern Roman Emperor Licinius, his brother-in-law, by strangulation in 325 even though he had publicly promised not to execute him upon Licinius' surrender in 324. In 326, Constantine executed first his eldest son Crispus and a few months later his own second wife Fausta.

Some of his legal standards (an improvement from his predecessors) were:
• A punishment of death was mandated to anyone collecting taxes over the authorized amount.
• A condemned man was allowed to die in the arena, but he could not be branded on his "heavenly beautifed" face, just on the feet.
• Parents caught allowing their daughters to be seduced were to have molten lead poured down their throats.
• Gladiatorial games were ordered to be eliminated in 325, although this had little real effect.
• A slave master's rights were limited, but a slave could still be beaten to death.
• Crucifixion was abolished for reasons of Christian piety, but was replaced with hanging, to show there was Roman law and justice.

Basically, Christianity had little need of his “Romanesque capabilities” until it decided to politicize - fusing with the Romans to become mostly temporal or secular in appearance.

Constantine

Constant - continuing without stopping

Tine - One of the points of a fork

Constantine - the continuing expression of Roman jabbing with the pitchfork of tyranny

Relda, I tried to keep the tone light, but I wasn't joking.

bushbasher,
Sorry but I can react only by repeating: one cannot explain to a person who does not understand algebra that (a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2 makes good sense (or that ab does not have to equal ba) although he/she is right that you can add only numbers, not letters.

There are many people who
(i) have no problems with algebra, while others
(ii) can understand it only after they have substituted numbers for a and b.
As for “articles of faith” seemingly in conflict with “common sense” I would see myself as belonging to the category corresponding to (i), whereas the “pious old lady”, Dawkins (and you?) to that corresponding to (ii).

Oliver,
OK, I was wrong, some anthropologist do use the word “taxonomy” in their research. Nevertheless, I still maintain “it is not their task to make conclusions about the superiority of this or that religion or no religion at all”. The same as psychologists or neuroscientists cannot deduce from their professional investigations whether this or that mathematician is right, his/her mathematics important or useful.

Sells’ articles - comprehensible mostly only to the “initiated” - usually trigger justified criticism, but also outbursts of disagreements and outrages, which is futile. However, they also give rise to quite a few pages of discussions on religion, mostly only marginally related to what he wrote. And that - I think - is not completely without merit.

I do not understand why Sells should “lay on the table the relationship between say the Serapis Trinity to the Christian Trinity” when speaking about a Christian view. The doctor who gives his/her opinion about your or my health does not have to “lay on the table” the relationship between us and our evolutionary (biological) ancestors“, although there are scholars interested in such comparative study in biology.

Our bodies are the product of biological evolution, and so is Christianity a product of cultural - or could it be even cross-cultural, as your examples seem to suggest - evolution (plus something else for a Christian). In both cases that does not diminish the value of the product.