Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
"Because we don't know what the mind is."
Sure we do, the brain. Its an organ like the liver. Nothing magical about it
What do you think: Christianity as a teaching is about?
- Thread starter ольга
- Start date
"Because we don't know what the mind is."
Sure we do, the brain. Its an organ like the liver. Nothing magical about it
Что вообще происходит? Тексты опять не переводятся.
Пусть будет мозг. Мы всё равно не знаем как это работает. Вы можете объяснить, что такое мысль с точки зрения физики?
Я не думаю, что специалисты в области религии разбираются в этом хуже нас. Целые институты работают над этим. Мне было интересно, и я прослушала курс апологетики который преподают слушателям Московской духовной академии. Профессор объяснял, что душу делают родители по законам данным нам Богом.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
You posted in Russian I very kindly translated and posted back what's the problem?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
If you want me to reply in Russian too forget it. If you actually knew any science or Biblical scholarship I might consider it but you appear not to.
If you did know any science you would also know how to translate stuff too probably.
Last edited:
Почему не переводятся только комментарии под этим вопросом, и только сегодня?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
How should I know. The site is fine, YOU, need to fix the problem Olga. It all your end mate.
The Greco-Roman belief system was something of a muddle, consisting of differing views that varied and changed over time and by geographic region.
In theory, the Romans elevated the Elysium of the Greeks to where anyone who was just (good) or "a favorite of the gods" could supposedly enter. In practice, however, Elysium was still primarily the reward of the elite and privileged heroes of Roman society. For the lower classes, death remained at best a shadowy, potentially mindless release from the struggles of this life, or an existence in the underworld with the same social ranking they had while alive in the Roman world.
Tonya Cook: "The link between elite status and access to Elysium was evident in Roman society. The wealthier classes often believed they had a more direct path to Elysium due to their resources, which allowed them to perform more elaborate funerary rites and to give generously to temples and the poor."
Christianity assigned the individual more control of and responsibility for their own destiny. It's post-resurrection afterlife offered egalitarian upgrades in status, especially for the poor and for women. And again, Church membership meant welfare benefits via being part of a brotherly and sisterly community.[1]
Christianity was more simplistic from the standpoint of integrating many personified concepts (gods) into a single one -- or at least a sole triune deity. Never mind praying or sacrificing to the Moon, the seasons, fertility, day and night, love and war, etc anymore. Moral law itself was anthropomorphized into a divine humanoid entity or family.
And most compelling was how -- via a single ritual act of salvation and acceptance of Christ -- a newcomer could be speedily placed on the fast track to immortal life in a paradise-like future or realm.
Christianity was just a better propaganda package for the average person, than what the traditional heathen pantheon offered. In terms of actual implementation, Christianity was certainly spotty, imperfect, contradictory, or fell short in various respects -- as does any ideology or doctrine. But the idealized version of it in speech and on parchment was attractive to the early inhabitants of the Empire who converted to it, and deemed worth the risk and consequences.
As centuries rolled by and Christians became a dominant or significant population group, the lingering pagans of whatever local ilk were -- of course -- coerced to transition via threat and violence, rather than voluntarily being convinced.
- - - footnote - - -
[1] That seductive altruism of Christianity was particularly exemplified as an instrument of recruiting centuries later when European missionaries incrementally won over denizens of the New World. (Intimidation, force, and intentional non-disease genocide wasn't as essential to the Catholic Church as it was to Protestant efforts.) Classical and Neo Marxism learned from that potent do-gooderism and refined it into a secular liberation from capitalist oppression and its social injustices.
_
Last edited:
Видимо, проблема всё же в вас. Потому что переводить перестаёт после того, как вы пишите свой комментарий. Признавайтесь, как вы это делаете?
It was a group effort, a hodgepodge of contributions. First was the older Hebrew drama -- the narrative or forecast of a Messiah from the line of David. By the time of subjugation of Judea by Rome, various clubs of Jewish rebellion were sporting their own version of the prophesied liberator, until one of those figures finally stuck in the public consciousness and stories about him proliferated.
Paul was arguably the primary architect of transforming a local movement or Jewish cult's message into a thought-virus adequate for gentile consumption across the whole Empire. Romans 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile."
While the work of a specific literary intellectual like Marx did suffice as a central locus for socialist revolutionism in the 19th and 20th centuries... And decades removed apostles like Antonio Gramsci served as the apostle Pauls who generalized the core idea of socioeconomic oppression to facilitate the critical theory offshoots and social justice campaigns of today... Marx still borrowed ideas from and built upon the shoulders of other collectivists and proto-anarchists; and Hegel; and a few 18th-century philosophers. So that was actually a ragged group effort, too, rather than a single author or source.
_
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
For all the trouble you're going through to have to translate our posts, EACH of us has to do that just to read your posts.
We're doing this for your benefit. Despite what Spock tells us
A combination of both. There were political motives for a Jewish liberator back then, but also belief in the indigenous religion and its predictions. And just as today's scholars suffer from "publish or perish" pressures, Marx had career motives for creating what "seemed" novel concepts and a new devil to rail against -- but also had genuine distrust of established institutions.
_
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
If I had to put money on it, I'd bet he was real.
However, on a scale - with the Holy Bible at one end and "The Life of Brian" at the other - I'd put reality closer to "The Life of Brian".
"He's just this guy, y'know?"
Как знать... иногда один может сделать больше, чем сделали многие.
Вы всегда были атеистом? Вас так воспитали с детства?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. I was was raised Roman Catholic. Went to church every Sunday and Catechism evey Wednesday until I was sixteen.
That was when I realized my thoughts and beliefs didn't have to be handed to me by others. I saw no truth in RC and the Bible, just a lot of made up tales designed to indoctrinate.