Dear George,

Correct me if wrong. Christianity is a religion that centres around Jesus, his life, lessons, passion and resurrection. Most Christians seem to lack knowledge of their history. They are centred in the Bible or what the clergy tells them and ignore most of what has happened since or even the context of what happened in the beginning. Crucifixion was a common Roman form of execution, and many died on the cross. The others disappear from what history most Christians know. The Orthodox are aware of the schism that separated them from Catholicism. Protestants are aware of the Reformation but may think that Christianity was a seamless whole before then.

I feel that many Christians are ignorant of history in general and their own history in particular. Some of the clergy are very aware and knowledgeable. However, this knowledge usually does not permeate to their flock. Several years ago I was talking to a Lutheran pastor, and I was taken aback to find him so knowledgeable about the questionable elements in Christianity. He told me of the long discussions they had on these matters at St. Olaf’s seminary. I asked him if he had discussed these matters with his flock. He told me he would not want to disturb their simple faith. I feel that is true of much of Christianity. God not wanting Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge is a metaphor for the general Christian attitude toward questioning and knowledge among the laity.

Richard Fletcher’s “The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386” tells how Europe became Christian. In 371 Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Empire and started persecuting and executing those who clung to their faiths. With the exception of Ireland all the other countries were Christianised by violence. Lithuania was an island of tolerance where people of all beliefs including Christians could believe what they wished and live in peace. A series of crusades against Lithuania resulted in the official adoption of Christianity in 1386.

Charlemagne typifies a common Christian proselytizing strategy.

Continue

Continued

It is the teacher’s testimony that in some Queensland schools creationism is taught as valid in science classes. I cannot say how prevalent this is. It has been going on for a while. In 1983 Queensland Education Minister Lin Powell stated that creationism and evolution should be given equal time.

The teacher explained that all secondary schools are required to submit a Biology Work Program to the Queensland Studies Austhority (QSA) setting out how the school plans to teach the required biology syllabus. A one-word reference to creationism in the school’s either escaped QSA’s notice or was considered inconsequential. The program was approved.

The present Queensland government is heavily infiltrated with the fundamentalist Scripture Union which provides the chaplains. Tim Mander former head of Scripture Union Queensland is now Minister for Housing and Public Works. Mander softpedals his connection with SU and mentions his work as a football referee if asked about himself
.
Proselytising by chaplains is not supposed to be done, but the composition of the present state precludes an investigation of their activities. One of the chief causes of teen suicide is uncertain sexual identity and the accompanying teasing, harassment and bullying. A SU chaplain would probably be condemnatory and would add to the stress.

I am tremendously interested in Christian history rather than its doctrines. How did it mange to take over so much of the world? The Jesus figure just seems a more recent version of pagan legends of a redeemer born of a virgin and put to death. Jesus is an analogue of Adonis, Mithra and Apollo. Although it has been forced on many people their descendents might be quite attached to Christianity. The Marranos were Jews who were forced to adopt Christianity. Two of their descendents were Spinoza and Montaigne. Spinoza came to reject all historical religions and provided a rationale for the separation of church and state. Montaigne was a Catholic humanist and sceptic. Both were quite influential.

Dear david f,

Thanks for the interesting post; for instance I never heard before about the Marranos.

>>Most Christians seem to lack knowledge of their history.<< and again
>>I feel that many Christians are ignorant of history in general and their own history in particular. <<

I think these assertions could be applied to any larger group of people. For instance, my week point as a mathematician was that I was not much knowledgeable of, and interested in, the history of mathematics. Today certainly a majority of “educated” Christians will be aware that many bad things were perpetrated in the name of Christianity, and/or by those who called themselves Christians. As for historians, some see the positive aspects of Christianity prevailing over the negative ones, some see it the other way around. We have been through this already.

A priest is not so much an expert on what an educated Christian should believe as on how to present the basic tenets of the faith to his congregation. Something like a math teacher is more a (mathematical) pedagogue than a professional mathematician.

>>I asked him if he had discussed these matters with his flock. He told me he would not want to disturb their simple faith.<<
I like to compare this to discussing the working of a TV set with the “old lady” (who just wants to know how to make it work for her), a TV technician, who has to know much more but doesn’t have to know what are Maxwell’s equations, and a professor of electronics.

Christianity is one of a number of religions humanity has passed, and is still passing, through. Usually, authors who consider them - anthropologists, sociologists, etc - either a priori dismiss any religion as superstition (or some other derogatory term), or write from an a priori position that assumes the existence of the (Abrahamic) God. So I was pleasantly surprised to come across Rodney Stark’s “Discovering God” (HarperOne, 2008), which states explicitly: (ctd)

(ctd)
“This book can be read either as a study of the evolution of human IMAGES of God, or as the evolution of the human CAPACITY TO COMPREHEND God. The same theoretical model suits either interpretation.” (I had to capitalize parts that are italicized in the book.)

I read (the Kindle edition) cover to cover. In particular, Stark is critical of Durkheim’s contention that “rites and rituals are the fundamental stuff of religion”, and instead stresses that “variations on how God or Gods are conceived is the crucial difference among faiths and cultures”. Also the following I found attractive:

“(B)oth biological and cultural evolution seem to be greatly shaped by the principle of natural selection or survival of the fittest, which refers to the tendency for better-adapted organisms or cultural elements to prevail over the less well-adapted. Keep in mind that I am not referring to the evolution of new species, but to natural selection WITHIN the “species” known as human cultures or, to even more greatly restrict the term, I am concerned with natural selection among variations within the “species” called religion.”

>>The Jesus figure just seems a more recent version of pagan legends of a redeemer born of a virgin and put to death. Jesus is an analogue of Adonis, Mithra and Apollo.<<

In view of the above about cultural evolution, this is as world-shattering for me as the discovery that I share 95% of my DNA with a chimpanzee. Christians - except for literalists - have learned to accept that man was not created in one go as described in Genesis, so (Jews and) Christians should not be surprised that what they see as God’s self-revelation was also subject to an evolutionary process

George,

I’m sorry if you feel that I get too personal. I don’t see anything wrong with what you consider to be ‘getting personal’. So long as it remains relevant, is not abusive and is not used as a diversionary tactic, I can only see how it could be a good thing. Take it as constructive criticism, if you will.

<<You certainly will not get me to accuse you of faulty reasoning…>>

“Accuse” is the wrong word. It has very negative connotations. A more accurate term would be “pointing out”.

But as someone who cares about having as many true beliefs as possible (and is, therefore, always out to challenge their way of thinking by searching for arguments to the contrary), I find this a disappointment. If my reasoning has flaws in any way, then I want to know about it; I want that pointed out to me. 

<<You certainly will not get me to accuse you of … unfair intentions or express other personal insinuations.>>

There is nothing wrong with doing this, so long as the criticism is constructive and you can back your claims. This is another reason why “accuse” is the wrong word to use here. It makes it sound as though I never progressed past the initial point of doing the accusing by providing reasoning to support my "accusations".

“Insinuations” is the wrong word, too, as I have been very upfront with everything that I have pointed out and have not implied anything - let alone anything in a nasty way.

Now THESE have been insinuations as they imply that my intentions have not been pure.

<<The choice of a personal world-view depends on many things, and it cannot be arrived at purely through reasoning, faulty or not, although it obviously should not go against reason.>>

Well, we’re more just talking religious beliefs here (or the lack thereof), not entire worldviews, but that's true. If our beliefs stand the test of reason, then thats the main thing; how we arrived at them is secondary - albeit a close second.

Continued...

...Continued

What you've said above goes against this somewhat, though...

<<…as Pascal put it, "the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing".>>

...Which implies that the heart has access to something that reason simply cannot touch. 

The problem with what Pascal said, however, is the heart doesn’t know either - making it effectively blind - and this is why it tends to fail us more often than not.

Reason helps us more accurately determine what is true and what is not, just as it helps us more reliably determine what we should and should not do.

It all comes back to whether or not one actually cares about the truth of their beliefs.

 <<In view of the above about cultural evolution, this is as world-shattering for me as the discovery that I share 95% of my DNA with a chimpanzee. Christians - except for literalists - have learned to accept that man was not created in one go as described in Genesis, so (Jews and) Christians should not be surprised that what they see as God’s self-revelation was also subject to an evolutionary process>>

Can we take it, then, that you don't necessarily think the story of Jesus actually happened? Or do you think that they all probably happened?