In a world much like the old Roman world full of sexual debauchery and violent entertainments, those who aspire to a cleaner way of life are attacked and vilified. This is because the Christian way is counter-cultural, it directly challenges those who want nothing less than to wallow in their animalistic pleasures.
Chaste conduct is one of the necessary and most recognizable signs of the substantial passage that takes place with baptism between the degraded and unworthy way of life typical of paganism and a new state of purity: it is a clear break between old habits and Paschal newness:Related Link: Shocking News: A Cardinal Sings the Praises of Orthodoxy ~ Chisea
"Just as you presented the parts of your bodies as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness for lawless ness, so now present them as slaves to righteousness for sanctification" (Romans 6:19).
"For the time that has passed is sufficient for doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in debauchery (en aselghèiais) (1 Peter 4:3).
It is not an obsessive sexual phobia or an excessive moralism that inspires this behavior. It is, rather, an unprecedented awareness of the demands of sanctification, which comes from having adhered to the thrice-holy God:
"This is the will of God, your holiness: that you refrain from immorality (apò tes pornèias), that each of you know how to acquire a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in lustful passion as do the Gentiles who do not know God" (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5).
"God did not call us to impurity but to holiness. Therefore, whoever disregards this, disregards not a human being but God, who gives his holy Spirit to you" (1 Thessalonians 4:7-8).
Early Christianity felt that it was above all the sexual immorality of the Hellenistic world that deserved the name of impurity (akatharsìa) contrary to God.
Check out this link, and disgust yourself over what we have become and the role we now demand of "government".
ReplyDeletehttp://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWQzNTM4MTVlNzFkZDY0MjI0YTZmZTc2YWM4MGNkOGE=
Not just free shoes for drunk women in stilletoes, Redbaiter, but in a linked article:
ReplyDeleteThe £30,000 will cover the cost of free condoms, rape alarms and personal safety information which will also be available on the Safe Bus.
Redbaiter, wow. You know, I bet it's cheaper to hand out flip-flops than to upgrade A&E to be able to cope with influxes of broken ankles. Apparently ankles can shatter in a high-heeled shoe, potentially causing the need for an amputation. Not sure how common that is, though.
ReplyDeleteTo remind yourself, for the lazy person there is the TV series "Rome", which is quite graphic on the matters of entertainment, violence, and social mores.
ReplyDeleteFor the slightly less lazy person there is Penguin's $12 "History of the Classical World" by Robin Lane Cox.
On the other hand, the Romans were really into pantomime.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read this I immediately thought of the scene from Monty Pythons ‘The Life of Brian’ where The Popular Peoples Front of Judea’ sit around and ask “what have the Romans done for us?”. Sorry you must have read different history books to me Lucyna. Yes the Roman Empire had it’s excess’s. Slavery, persecution, brothels all ‘that sort of jazz’ but to paint Christian society at the time as ‘better’ or less debauched is a complete distortion of history. Selective at best.
ReplyDeleteOne of the pinnacle moments in the rise of Christianity was the coming to power of Emperor Constantine, who set about making the Empire ‘Christian’(up to that point most Romans like Constantine worshipped The Sun God)
Constantine executed his own son and wife in a very un-Christian manner.He also set about persecuting Pagans and all other heretic groups.
The advancement of Christianity in Rome under a brutal fashion was carried on by his sons.
Christian Rome was no better than Pagan Rome, when it came to persecution.
I’m off.
Paul.
Paul, I suspect the problem is that you interpret all history as proving that Christianity was evil, without much critical thought.
ReplyDeleteConstantine did not become a Christian until he was on his death-bed, so while he ended Christian persecution in Rome and supported the Church, he could hardly be accused of being a model Christian himself.
Rather than constantly ‘playing the man rather than the ball’ all the time there L.M why not take some time to research the subject matter before you post such revisionist history?
ReplyDeleteTaking-off your rose-tinted glasses would help, one thinks.
This IS a subject I have a fair knowledge of myself, but rather than believing what I have to say - here’s what Wiki has on Constantine 1st’s conversion:
"The Emperor Constantine I was exposed to Christianity by his mother, Helena. There is scholarly controversy, however, as to whether Constantine adopted his mother's Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the course of his life.[3] Constantine was over 40 when he finally declared himself a Christian.[4] Writing to Christians, Constantine made clear that he owed his successes to the protection of that High God alone”
So obviously Wikipedia is wrong as well, so I suggest you should contact them and correct this huge error.
This isn’t issue of intrepreting history L.M – you basically want to re-write it.
So here we go.
Today’s history lesson for Lucyna ‘David Irving’ Maria:
314 Immediately after its full legalisation, the Christian Church attacks non-Christians. The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of Goddess Artemis.
324 The emperor Constantine declares Christianity as the only official religion of the Roman Empire. In Dydima, Minor Asia, he sacks the Oracle of the god Apollo and tortures the pagan priests to death. He also evicts all non-Christian peoples from Mount Athos and destroys all the local Hellenic temples.
326 Constantine, following the instructions of his mother Helen, destroys the temple of the god Asclepius in Aigeai Cilicia and many temples of the goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, Mambre, Phoenicia, Baalbek, etc.
330 Constantine steals the treasures and statues of the pagan temples of Greece to decorate Constantinople, the new capital of his Empire.
335 Constantine sacks many pagan temples in Asia Minor and Palestine and orders the execution by crucifixion of "all magicians and soothsayers." Martyrdom of the neoplatonist philosopher Sopatrus.
341 Constantius II (Flavius Julius Constantius) persecutes "all the
soothsayers and the Hellenists." Many gentile Hellenes are either imprisoned
or executed.
346 New large scale persecutions against non-Christian peoples in
Constantinople. Banishment of the famous orator Libanius accused as a "magician".
353 An edict of Constantius orders the death penalty for all kind of worship through sacrifice and "idols".
354 A new edict orders the closing of all the pagan temples. Some of them are profaned and turned into brothels or gambling rooms.
Execution of pagan priests begins.
A new edict of Constantius orders the destruction of the pagan temples and the execution of all "idolaters".
First burning of libraries in various cities of the empire.
The first lime factories are organised next to the closed pagan temples. A
major part of the holy architecture of the pagans is turned into lime.
357 Constantius outlaws all methods of divination (astrology not excluded).
359 In Skythopolis, Syria, the Christians organise the first death camps for the torture and executions of the arrested non-Christians from all around the empire.
361 to 363 Religious tolerance and restoration of the pagan cults is declared in Constantinople (11th December 361) by the pagan emperor Julian Flavius Claudius Julianus).
Would you like me to continue or extrapolate on any of the above?
E.mail me your address to canterburyatheist (at) gmail.com and I will send you a copy of ‘The Rise & Fall of The Roman Empire’.
I’ll make it my Winter Solstice Present to you.
Off to lunch.
Paul.
PS: Oh by the way when you refer to Constantine, as a good Catholic you may prefer to use the term Saint Constantine.
Paul, you say So obviously Wikipedia is wrong as well, so I suggest you should contact them and correct this huge error.
ReplyDeleteHow embarrassing then that you quote directly from Wikipedia:
There is scholarly controversy, however, as to whether Constantine adopted his mother's Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the course of his life
It is fact that Constantine was baptised a Christian close to his death. Thus, Lucyna is not rewriting history as you claim, you just like to infer that Constantine was a model Christian, one that did not adhere to Christian values.
There is nothing in what Lucyna said that denies Constantine championed the Christian religion. Like emperors before him, he saw it as his duty to suppress impiety. He put himself at the head of the Church's effort against heresy, and the bishops accepted Constantine as an authority on godly matters.
This arguably all started after 311 when he was impressed over the "victory" of the Christian God over the emperor of the east, Galerius. As Galerius lay dying, he issued an edict ending his persecution of the Christians (and your list is nothing compared to the previous 300 years). He died anyway.
But even as Constantine supported Christians in those years, he maintained his ties with paganism.
The point is that Christian ideals slowly took hold even if her champions were not good Christians.
This was typical of the times.
Constantine was ruthless, but at the same time passed laws like forbidding the separation of slave families, ended branding on the face for slaves, and created penalties against adultery and holding concubines.
The Churches flourished and became rich and that brought new forms of corruption. Equally, the riches gained by the Church funded even greater works of charity.
People converted because the Church was rich, or they thought this God was more powerful than pagan Gods.
This was a time when Christianity was seen through the prism of paganism. Much of the message was wrong, because of the cultural context of previous religions. Constantine's ruthlessness was more to do with the preceding 50 years of Christian persecution and how Emperors ruled than the new Christian ideals that were introduced.
Constantine new he had many sins to atone for, and that he did not live as a Christian. Indeed, this is one of the theories behind his late baptism - he wanted to maximize the list of sins he needed to be forgiven for. Pagan thinking, but also a sign of the times that the Christian beliefs did call people to face up to their sins and change their ways.
And that was Lucyna's point I believe.
Zen I rather doubt it was her point at all
ReplyDeleteThe point of her article was to indicate Christian Rome was in some way superior to Pagan Rome.
Which is an utter load of rubbish.
My book offer still stands.
Paul.
Paul, Zen is correct about my point - you are incorrect. You need to read the post, not interpret with anti-Christian bias and make wild extrapolations. Maybe Monty Python skewed your thinking a bit there.
ReplyDeleteLook at the first paragraph that I quoted:
Chaste conduct is one of the necessary and most recognizable signs of the substantial passage that takes place with baptism between the degraded and unworthy way of life typical of paganism and a new state of purity: it is a clear break between old habits and Paschal newness:
I'd recommend reading the whole article I link to.
Constantine was not baptised until he was close to death, therefore the necessary and recognisable sign of the old way of life being replaced with the new was not present. You prove that point beautifully.
Christianity is not just a label or like a political party that you support, it is a radical life change that requires a substantial amount from the person in preparing for Baptism and then the life they lead after Baptism. It would be impossible to achieve without education and divine help and personal courage, as many of those who died during the persecutions prior to the Christianisation of Rome demonstrated.
Thanks for your offer of the book. I'll think about it.
Zen I rather doubt it was her point at all
ReplyDeleteI was not referring to her post, but the point she made prior to you continuing with your theme that Christianity is evil.
You then went on to accuse LM of playing the man not the ball, whilst you did the same. Mote and eye and all that.
You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the ideals Christianity calls us to follow - and the fallen nature of some of her champions.
We are not dealing with purely Christian cultures here, and that is the point. These cultures are a complex synthesis of many competing social and cultural pressures. The values Christianity brought to pagan cultures were, in the long run, positive.
If Romans thought it cruel to throw Christians to the lions, to have them torn apart by dogs, to crucify them and then burn them alive to serve as street lights, or to round them up for torture and abuse periodically, they didn't seem to worry about it too much.
Remember the Pope who chastised a certain emperor for killing an entire town, some 5,000 people? Rather than the Pope being put to death, as previous periods of criticism, the Emperor entered the Church for a period of penance after such a cruel deed. These new ideas were powerful, and they did have a positive impact.
If you don't think these ideas superior to a total disrespect for the rights of others, I'd be interested to hear why.
Remember though - I'm not arguing to defend the hypocrisy of imperfect leaders, but rather that the ideas grew in widespread acceptance in spite of such hypocrisy.
Also, Constantine is not a Roman Catholic saint, but he is an Eastern Orthodox saint.
ReplyDeleteI'm off on a business trip, and will possibly miss the ongoing debate, for a few days at least.
ReplyDeleteSo a couple of parting comments. The disadvantage of comments is they can miss out as much information as go in - responding to a point means the background often has to be left off.
So, I simply say the Roman Catholic Church does not have the word Roman in by accident. As the Roman empire fell, and partly for some of the reasons raised in this post (the post referred to the first 300 years more than the short, but hugely important period under Constantine and beyond) I am not denying also some of the strengths that the Roman Empire possessed.
Whilst Gibbon is the first port of call for history of this period (although not always correct, as further research yielded new fruit) I really enjoyed Crocker's walk through this period. He does a great job of gathering together the kinds of issues and thinking that pervaded the times and provides a refreshing perspective. Worth a look.