The Greatness of the Greats

[Porphyrogenitos]

Originally posted by stormbind
Queen Elizabeth saw that religious wars were responsible for political instability and therefore took a totally neutral stance. She did not increase the popularity of either Catholisism or Protestantism, but instead promoted mutual respect.

Constantine and Elizabeth share this much at least in common. Constantine raised Christianity to an equal (almost) footing with the pagan faith(s). He essentially ended the persecutions (as did Elizabeth). Both monarchs though leaned towards their preferred faiths. Constantine to proto-Christianity, Elizabeth to Protestantism. This alone helped shaped the political landscape of both countries in religious matters. Elizabeth may have advocated equality but she was hardly objective herself as her choice of ministers, her abhorrance for Mary Queen of Scots' ambitions for the crown (which would have meant Catholic dominance), and her own personal choice of prayer books and chaplains suggests. It is hardly surprising therfore that these two religions dominated their respective kingdoms once again stressing the importance of official sanction).

As for Christianity being better than the rest, this is a very bold statement which I'm sure you may be lynched for by others. Suffice to say that in the context of the 4th century, Christianity was not better than the rest. Julian, for one, didn't think so and had he lived longer things may yet have been different. Thanks to the official sanction however Christianity was allowed to spread (thorugh the building of churches, monasteries etc) in the cities of the empire giving it grass roots status which could rival the other faiths. In time and with further support from the top it managed to get a strangle hold on Europe (thanks largely to the edicts banishing paganism issued by Constantine's successors).

Lastly, the word of Christ did not seem to have compelled Constantine to have agreed to baptism (without which you are not technically Christian) until he was on his deathbed. Many reasons have been put forth for this but the one which holds the most ground is the following given by Gibbon:

"The sacrament of baptism was supposed to contain a full and absolute expiation of sin; and the soul was instantly restored to its original purity and entitled to the promise of eternal salvation. Among the proselytes of Christianity there were many who judged it imprudent to precipitate a salutary rite, which could not be repeated; to throw away an inestimable privilege, which could never be recovered"

If this be so then Constantine (like Theodosius the Great after him) had a peculiar way of reading the teachings of Christ wouldn't you say? His thought process in this matter at least seems infused with the Graeco-Roman tradition from which he came (the philosophical/rational one as opposed to the mystical one of Christ's teachings).

Then there is the First Ecumenical Council (under his supervision) which shows us more than anything a Constantine who is keen on influencing Christianity rather than allowing Christianity to influence him (again showing his roots). Admittedly, the Council was intended to bring unity and stability to the Empire by hammering out a code of faith but it was a unity to be attained only through Constantine's vision of Christianity. This 'vision' has been the base for all the arguments raging within Christendom down to this day.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Porphyrogenitos
Christianity being better than the rest, this is a very bold statement which I'm sure you may be lynched for by others. Suffice to say that in the context of the 4th century, Christianity was not better than the rest. Julian, for one, didn't think so and had he lived longer things may yet have been different. Thanks to the official sanction however Christianity was allowed to spread (thorugh the building of churches, monasteries etc) in the cities of the empire giving it grass roots status which could rival the other faiths. In time and with further support from the top it managed to get a strangle hold on Europe (thanks largely to the edicts banishing paganism issued by Constantine's successors).

I don't think "better than the rest" were my choice of words. What I meant was that much of what is preached in Christianity is common sense. Few educated men would argue that Christ's actual words are flawed. He was clearly a wise man.

There is much in Paganism that just doesn't stand up the scrutiny of simple observation.

Btw, thanks for the post regarding Constantine

 

[Evie]

Well, there are two entirely different things here Stormbind. What was preached by JESUS, and what is preached by CHRISTIANTY.

Jesus, to a great extent, did NOT create a new religion, and that need understood. He did *NOT* create a new mythos, new religious figures, etc. His god was the jewish god, his prophets were all the jewish prophet, his understanding of the world et al were the jewish ones.

What Jesus *DID* do was bring a completely reformed philosophy to that set of religious teaching, a (much) grander-scale version so to speak of what a man by the name of Martin Luther would later do for Christianty.

So yes, Jesus words generaly (there are some exceptions...like the pretense that Jesus is the prince of peace, yet "I am come to turn brother against brother, son against father," etc in one of the four apostles - that's an approximate rendition, I don't remember the exact quote) made logical sense.

HOWEVER, the Christian basic set of mythos (IE, old testament et al, God, the Genesis, etc, which Jesus changed very little to, other than being recognized by his followers as the Messiah) stand up to scrutiny about as well as the vast majority of non-Christian set of believes. It's just another set of explanation for things people at the time could not understand, but which today is strongly put in doubt by knowledge we have developped since.

 

[Porphyrogenitos]

Originally posted by stormbind
There is much in Paganism that just doesn't stand up the scrutiny of simple observation.

You would perhaps be surprised to know then that Christianity (apart from its indebtness to Judaism) was also largely based on pagan theology. The figure of Christ (saviour, death, resurrection etc), for example, is a clear fusion of Dionysian and Mithraic elements. And this is only scratching the surface. You are too dismissive of pagan theology. The Ancients were not without common sense and they inquired into their faiths with great scrutiny. Their religious beliefs are a great testimony to their reverence for the creative energies around and although they may have scientific gaps, which religion doesn't? The Hindu, Shinto and numerous others 'pagan' faiths (in Christian terms) of today definitely stand up to scutiny.

I refer you strongly to the works of Frazer, Harrison or Campbell (the latter being the most easily digestible) in which you will find a plethora of examples for what I said above.