Good heavens...I think way back when, I'd heard of this analysis of
Christianity. Sorry, I don't subscribe to it as it doesn't explain the
concepts within the religion nor its rapid expansion in the era
..particularly before its takeover by the Church as a political power. I
mean in the late Roman times...
My own view for the emergence and devt of Christianity is
societal/anthropological. That is, I view it within the socioeconomic
infrastructure of the time. Judaism, as a religion, is 'tribal' in that its
membership is more or less closed to inherited membership. It is
matrilineal, which suggests a stable and small population horticultural
economy. Christianity, I suggest, emerged within the imperial constructs of
the Roman Empire - with its development of roads, irrigation, a common
language, communication systems - and its governing expansion over a wide
geographic territory. All of this led to, enabled, required, a market
economy, one which rested within trade with others. The ideological basis of
Christianity is: Be a good neighbour; Get along with others: treat others as
you would want to be treated: Love they neighbour"...all of which strengthen
a market economy.
This mindset is in direct opposition to a tribal economy which is closed,
self-sufficient, hostile to others (we can only now compare the Shi'ite and
Sunni in the Middle East). Therefore, my view is that Christianity arose as
a functional and necessary mindset in a changed economic infrastructure. The
other ideological bases of its - the trinity etc, birth and death, are all
ancient pagan beliefs and not new to the era.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Faunce" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] De Waal seminar chapter 9, section on God, science
and religion: text 1
Let's look at the ethics of religious terminology in light of efficient
cause and final cause. The authors of the New Testament were members of a
fertility cult and the term "Jesus" was a thinly veiled code word for a
psychedelic mushroom. (Source: the Dead Sea Scroll scholar, John Allegro).
This is the humble beginnings of Christianity. But thanks to the final
cause Christianity has been slowly transforming into a religion that is
moral.
In arithmetic the term 'division' once meant that your result could only
amount to something less than the original amount. Today the term has been
expanded to where it can be used to represent ratios like 2/6. (Source: de
Morgan)
I'm afraid people's resistance to the expansion of the term 'God',
especially with the capital G, is creating the undesired effect of making
common religious people feel an aversion to expanding their ideas of 'god'.
I once read that the evolution of dogs from wolves happened a lot quicker
than what was once believed. Maybe the expansion of some terms should follow
suit.
OK, I think Allegro's idea is rough, but I do believe that the concept of
'god' when the term was first coined was closer to Allegro's portrayal of
the belief of the original Christians than the common contemporary
church-goer's concept.
Matt
On Jun 17, 2014, at 10:33 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote:
Quite. The term 'god' has been used traditionally to refer to something
that wills from no place in existence. There is no such being. It is
impossible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
[email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
