Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!bch From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Idolatry and Christianity Message-ID: <2399@mcnc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 02:23:29 EST Article-I.D.: mcnc.2399 Posted: Mon Dec 3 02:23:29 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Dec-84 00:16:05 EST References:Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service Lines: 60 Summary: In article yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) writes: > The 'saints', Mary and angels are worshipped by Christians. It is not > possible to speak of Christianity which excepts the Roman Catholics - > as much as you would like and as much as you (I use 'you' collectively > a lot) vehemently insist that you can. The historical facts are that > all of Christianity sprang from the Roman Catholics... you can get that > information from almost any good encyclopedia and no reputable scholar > of note (Christian or otherwise) even attempts to refute this. > Protestantism, etc. are no more than adaptations/reforms of/on Roman > Catholicism. Yiri seems to have overstepped the bound of his knowledge on this one. Many Christian sects, most notably the Mormons, specifically claim a different lineage than that of the Roman Catholic church. The Christian sect I was raised in and the set of beliefs I claim today (reread my article in net.religion.christian) both claim an independent legitimacy from the Apostolic regime. Paul is correct. Most protestant sects do not worship the saints and it's largely irrelevant as to whether our forbears did. If it *isn't* irrelevant, as Yiri claims, than we must certainly all be accountable for the image of the Serpent, consort to the Goddess, that keeps otherwise unaccountably being mentioned in Genesis and Exodus. If we accept Yiri's historical point (which I am inclined to do) I still don't know that it has any theological significance. The reworking of history, historical figures and Deities to suit one's own purposes is in the grand tradition of religious revolution. So is killing off the adherents to the religion you are endeavoring to supplant. Judaism is, in some sense, guilty of precisely the same actions toward the Serpent, a venerable Deity and the symbol of wisdom in cultures which predate Judaism. (Ever notice how legends of snakes in trees are a common thread in religious thought? It gives one pause, but I digress...) The Serpent got a bad rap in Genesis for doing his wisdom number on Adam and Eve, later his adherents got axed by the Jews, no doubt for observing their faith. I'm not trying to make a religious point here, merely an historical one. Historically at some point the counterfit ceases to become that and becomes a reality of its own. Christianity remains a viable system of thought, whether or not Jesus was an historical figure. Judaism remains a viable system of thought, whether or not Abraham and Moses were historical figures. Islam remains a viable system of though, whether or not Mohommed was as portrayed. Buddism, Shinto, Taoism, Hindu, are all very real and formidable irrespective of the veracity of their origins. So, I'll go along with Yiri's premise. Jesus was a Roman counterfit and the Christian Roman's killed of the Torah-observant N'tsarim. What next? It doesn't change what I believe, for that exists irrespective of history. I feel no strong compulsion to become a Torah-observant Jew (though I hold great respect for such) because it is not my cultural heritage. What do you do after you've done banging your head against a wall that will not, can not, give way? -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch