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