That's a really good set of questions, and I hope they get good responses. I've often wondered the same questions myself, mostly because I have been around a lot of people in my life who's faith, to me, seemed almost wholly inherited. They were given it at birth and never did any exploration into what other religions believe in. I'm not necessarily saying this is good or bad. However, I think an analogous view that I can steal from Socrates would be "The unexamined religious faith is not worth following."

I don't think this means you have to examine your faith (whether that be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, other or none [as not being religious is a faith]) in order to change it, but to realize what you believe in context to other view points.

I foresee the potential for a lot of back and forth on this topic, but you never know.

Check out Maslovs (SP?) heirarchy of needs. Security being one one the major needs. To remove one of your core beliefs, religion, you really need to be a secure person. It's a heck of a lot easier to just go with the flow then to swim upstream.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

What I've always wondered is how people who have faith in their religion (as opposed to other religions for instance) reconcile the fact they were born into that religion?

It's a good question, but I think people often tend to make too much of it. Or rather, they apply it only to the question of religious faith, and don't acknowledge that it could just as well apply to any belief that they hold. Do you believe that all men are created equal under the law? Think you'd believe that if you lived in a different country in a different time? Does that make it any less true?

If you happen to follow a particular religion, do you have complete confidence that if you were raised in a family with very different beliefs that you would still follow the religion you currently follow?

No, of course not. If I was raised by wolves, I might have turned out to be an atheist. ;)

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have been wrong, right?

If your religion of choice is right, then that implies something on the order of 6 billion people are wrong.

Objectively speaking, yes. But again, let's not make to much of this. We hold lots of beliefs that the majority of humanity has disagreed with. We don't have much problem saying they're wrong just because they have numbers on their side. (Though I suppose it might be reasonable to hold a belief system that takes into account the fact that so many people are mistaken, and provides an explanation why.)

How do you reconcile your good fortune of being born into the religion that you now place your faith in

The short and truest answer- by the grace of God.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I've always tended to view this early indoctrination as a bit of a brain washing process. Most people stay with the religion that they were born with and indoctrinated into because it's often the only one they know and is re-inforced by family/social conditions around them.

People who leave a particular religion, either for another or to become an agnostic or athiest have usually had negative influences in their lives from their birth religion or have been adventureous enough to learn about others and found something they found more appealing.

Although staying with your birth religion is likely to remain the norm for most people, in this more cosmpolitian world it will become increasing more common for people to change.

"It's a good question, but I think people often tend to make too much of it. Or rather, they apply it only to the question of religious faith, and don't acknowledge that it could just as well apply to any belief that they hold. Do you believe that all men are created equal under the law? Think you'd believe that if you lived in a different country in a different time? Does that make it any less true?"

I'd agree or disagree depending on what your saying. I personally don't think people make enough of it and agree that they don't apply it to much of anything. We as a species, society or community rarely question our actions or beliefs at any level. I think this action of questioning and studing our beliefs and values is becoming more and more prevelant as we are more often faced with people that have very different values.

In essence we are talking about boiling things down to an inate "truth" something that applies to all men, which is something that is very rare. As you state even statements like "All men are created equal" would be a questionable value in other countries and certainly in different times.

I think at best all we can do is continually reevalute our value system and beliefs. As situations come along that "test" those beliefs we must either pass or fail those beliefs. A much more difficult way of living life, but IMO better than being entrenched in an improper belief.

~Matt

For the most part I think those that a raised in a fairly decent situation with a consistant religious overtone have a tendency to follow that religion or at last come back to it. Some leave and don't come back and fewer still leave and go to a different religion.

I also think that those that are exposed to multiple religions have a tendency of not choosing any religion.

I also think those that are raised in poor family situations with religious overtones or extremely oppressive religious overtones have a tendency to leave and not come back.

All of the above is merely observations made by me and my experiance with religions and life.

~Matt

I think this action of questioning and studing our beliefs and values is becoming more and more prevelant as we are more often faced with people that have very different values.

I don't know that I'd agree with that analysis. I mean, I sort of agree with it, in a way, but . . . What I think is happening, on a large scale, is that those of us in the West have generally not made a serious study of our beliefs- whether those beliefs are religious, social, political, ethical, etc. We have no idea, really, why we believe them, other than the fact that we were taught that they're "self-evident." As a result, when faced with conflicting beliefs and values from other cultures, we find ourselves unable to articulate why our beliefs are correct. Pretty soon we're believing that all beliefs are inherently subjective.

This is a very serious problem, says me.

I think at best all we can do is continually reevalute our value system and beliefs.

As situations come along that "test" those beliefs we must either pass or fail those beliefs.

Can you explain what you mean by this, please?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"I think at best all we can do is continually reevalute our value system and beliefs.

As situations come along that "test" those beliefs we must either pass or fail those beliefs.

Can you explain what you mean by this, please?"

I believe that all to often we simply sit on our beliefs and say "this is what we believe". When something comes along that challenges that belief we simply reject it out of hand because "It conflicts with what we believe". Instead we should re-examine our belief against this new challenge and see how and or if it stands up to the new scruntiny. If it does not then we should decide if there is a better more valid belief to embrace.

On this matter "We have no idea, really, why we believe them, other than the fact that we were taught that they're "self-evident."" I would agree and IMO is a direct result of simply not examining ones beliefs. My hope is that as we are faced with various beliefs of other cultures, religions, politics etc etc instead of rejecting them out of hand or accepting them out of hand we'd examine and scrutinize them.

Simply changing beliefs because "it's a new belief" is, IMO, no better than hanging onto one "because it is what I believe" without examination.

~Matt

In Germany most German kids are more or less raised with the Christian belief, whether it's protestant or catholic, dependant on which church their parents belong to. Religious upbringing starts at Kindergarten and continues at school. Schools also offer Musleme classes, as long as a certain rate amongst pupil is reached. Otherwise and in case parents kids do not follow any religion, kids can also chose "Ethic Courses".

At school I learnt a lot about the other religions in this world at religious lessons. I also learnt about different sects and how they work, what their tricks are etc. Now as I am older, I can decide myself, which belief I may want to follow. I am glad I had those religious lessons at school. If I wish to become Buddhist as a grownup today, I have the freedom to do so!

What I am saying is: let kids follow the same belief as their parents do for the beginning. That is what education is all about (educare: latin = to raise) Once they get older they can still chose their religion according to their personal belief.

I think also religious education is like any other education. It's a firm basis, from which kids can live their life the way they wish to, once they are grown up. Whatever they adopt from it later is up to themselves!

---

---------------
If you ever want to know what an "eggman" is, then simply click here....http://www.emu5.de

Instead of "I think people often tend to make too much of it" don't you really mean to say that people don't make enough out of it with other belief systems? I agree with MJuric that people are too complacent in what they believe, whether that be in religion, politics or anything else.

But above and beyond any other belief system, religion is the one that we should be most honest, open and critical of in our examinations as it is the most important.

"No, of course not. If I was raised by wolves, I might have turned out to be an atheist. ;)

But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have been wrong, right? "

But doesn't Christianity teach that those that aren't Christian are "wrong" and that they will not go to heaven? If so (and I believe it does), that means if you had been an atheist (or Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist) that you would be "wrong".

"Objectively speaking, yes. But again, let's not make to much of this. We hold lots of beliefs that the majority of humanity has disagreed with. We don't have much problem saying they're wrong just because they have numbers on their side. (Though I suppose it might be reasonable to hold a belief system that takes into account the fact that so many people are mistaken, and provides an explanation why.)"

Again, why are we not making much of this? For any non-Christian that seems to be the crux of Christianity, we do not believe what you believe, therefor we are wrong.

To me one of the _______ (not sure of the right term, not irony, nor inconsistency, but let's go with "unique aspects") of Christianity is that ever since Christ (assuming Christianity is correct) those that have not believed in him have been wrong, which would be an overwhelming majority of all humans since that point in time. How then, if so many have been "wrong" can we say that we shouldn't make much of what Justin in OK is bringing up?

And as to Justin in OK's last question, and your very apt response, all I can say is that is why so many Christians in America are fervent Evangelicals.

Instead of "I think people often tend to make too much of it" don't you really mean to say that people don't make enough out of it with other belief systems?

I guess I wouldn't object to phrasing it that way. What I meant is that people often point to someone of faith and say, "Hey! You only hold X religious belief because you were raised that way!" Which might often be true, but it doesn't necessarily mean their beliefs are wrong, either. Or, for that matter, that they hold those beliefs uncritically.

But doesn't Christianity teach that those that aren't Christian are "wrong" and that they will not go to heaven?

With regards to the first point, that Christianity teaches that non-Christians are wrong: Yes, of course. I really don't see how it could be otherwise. Holding any belief of any kind necessarily means that those holding opposing beliefs are held to be wrong.

With regards to the second point, that non-Christians won't go to Heaven: Yes, broadly speaking, I'll agree with that, but the reality of that particular doctrine is a lot more nuanced and complex than people generally give it credit for. (Like most Christian beliefs, probably.)

Again, why are we not making much of this? For any non-Christian that seems to be the crux of Christianity, we do not believe what you believe, therefor we are wrong.

Uh . . . what? Isn't that like saying, to a Christian, the crux of any non-Christian belief is that it says Christianity is wrong? Look, it isn't possible to hold a belief without also believing that those who don't believe it are wrong.

To me one of the _______ (not sure of the right term, not irony, nor inconsistency, but let's go with "unique aspects") of Christianity is that ever since Christ (assuming Christianity is correct) those that have not believed in him have been wrong, which would be an overwhelming majority of all humans since that point in time. How then, if so many have been "wrong" can we say that we shouldn't make much of what Justin in OK is bringing up?

I don't mean to minimize the fact that the majority of people aren't Christians. I only say that simply because the majority doesn't believe, it doesn't mean Christianity is wrong. Does that make sense? (And like I said, I suppose it's reasonable to subscribe to a belief system that provides some type of coherent explanation for why so many people can be wrong.)

all I can say is that is why so many Christians in America are fervent Evangelicals.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. . . ?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Dang, not sure how to handle another response in our thread, not sure I'll even be able to follow and I'm trying to respond to you.

I guess I wouldn't object to phrasing it that way. What I meant is that people often point to someone of faith and say, "Hey! You only hold X religious belief because you were raised that way!" Which might often be true, but it doesn't necessarily mean their beliefs are wrong, either. Or, for that matter, that they hold those beliefs uncritically.

And I agree with you here for sure, I think we should all examine our beliefs. If we do so, we'll realize the true reasons why Democracy is so great and powerful, and not rely on so much rhetoric.

With regards to the first point, that Christianity teaches that non-Christians are wrong: Yes, of course. I really don't see how it could be otherwise. Holding any belief of any kind necessarily means that those holding opposing beliefs are held to be wrong.

I thought I had an example or two that would show how this isn't necessarily true, I either can't remember them or they were wrong. Though I guess what I was grasping at was that if I think the world is flat and you think it is round neither of think the other is going to hell for it, so the implications of religion are so immense and important that it is in a different realm to me.


With regards to the second point, that non-Christians won't go to Heaven: Yes, broadly speaking, I'll agree with that, but the reality of that particular doctrine is a lot more nuanced and complex than people generally give it credit for. (Like most Christian beliefs, probably.)

Like most any beliefs I'd say, Christian beliefs definitely included. But since it was a generality it is intentionally broad and therefore a true statement.


Uh . . . what? Isn't that like saying, to a Christian, the crux of any non-Christian belief is that it says Christianity is wrong? Look, it isn't possible to hold a belief without also believing that those who don't believe it are wrong.

This came across poorly, but relates to the above where I mentioned the purgatory implications. I should have been clear with a reference to an example like the flat/round one above. Since I'm very lacking in my knowledge of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc I can't state what they believe about non-believers of their faith. Though I am fairly certain Buddhists don't hold a similarly fatalistic eternal-life view (though that's not really a religion per se).


I don't mean to minimize the fact that the majority of people aren't Christians. I only say that simply because the majority doesn't believe, it doesn't mean Christianity is wrong. Does that make sense? (And like I said, I suppose it's reasonable to subscribe to a belief system that provides some type of coherent explanation for why so many people can be wrong.)

Definitely makes sense. I only reiterate to me that it is at least interesting to note that Christians believe the overwhelming of humans for the past ~1960 years have gone to hell for their beliefs. Though, if other religions are of the same viewpoint they have a similar view for their own time period.

Also, and I think my lack of knowledge about the other religions I mention above is representative of a general lack of knowledge, and a general lack of those religions making those kinds of views very upfront. Christianity, either intentionally, through evangelical efforts, or a result of what sticks in people's minds, is fairly well known to hold the view regarding non-believers. That makes it unique in its public perception in the US, not sure if it is as well known world-wide.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. . . ?

By this I mean that since Christians believe that non-Christians are going to hell, that they view it as their calling to spread the word and to try and save people's souls, which is why many are so dilligent to their calling.

These are some random thoughts after spending 15 min. skimming this thread. Good thread, by the way:

I've thought about a lot of this myself and have no strong opinions, but here are some observations:

As to the conviction that Christians who truly "believe" go to heaven and most others (most anyone who has sinned anyway) not going, I have had serious Christian friends who simply say "We cannot understand or predict what God will decide." Sorta gets them off the hook, but the point is to look out for yourself first.

My more conservative Christian friends confide that they believe most non-believers are destined to fry ... But I have some Christain friends who believe the whole afterlife is more "metaphorical;" yeah, it's there wiating for us but its not as concrete as believe=heaven; don't=hell.

As to being born into a religion, well its intersting that Judeo-Christianity invites converts: People convert to Islam, Christianity and Judaism all the time. Not so in Asia: Do Hindus (a billion of them) try to get people to convert? Not that I know of ... My understanding of Hinduism is that you are born into the system and you must follow that path: If your caste says "shopkeeper" you had better not stray to far. There are consequences for stepping out of line ... And if you are not born Hindu, well, you won't really ever become one ... but you are welcome to practice somewhat in some communities ... to some degree. That's what I gather anyway. Don't know about Sikhs or Buddists. -TB

As far as I learnt this image of heaven and hell was made up by church during the Middle Ages in order to scare the shit out of people and to make them obey to anything the local priest had said.

I can hardly believe that people still believe in heaven and hell!


What is a church worth which still uses those methods?

If my kids ever came home from school believing in heaven and hell, I would immediately have a serious word with whoever made them believe in such a nonsense!

---

---------------
If you ever want to know what an "eggman" is, then simply click here....http://www.emu5.de

As far as I learnt this image of heaven and hell was made up by church during the Middle Ages

Well, you learnt wrong.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

A better explanation is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Christianity

You're right, it was even before that!

---

---------------
If you ever want to know what an "eggman" is, then simply click here....http://www.emu5.de

Well, we can have the theological debate about whether Hell was ever "made up" or not if you want, but I don't see that going anywhere as a productive discussion. I'd just point out that before you get all itchy for a fight with some imaginary school teaching your kids such "nonsense," you might first have a serious word with whoever it was who learnt you such a factually wrong tidbit that Hell was made up in the Middle Ages.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Ok, you're right in that point, what I rather meant was this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory

Ever since humans can think, they believe in good and bad powers, call it god and evil, or heaven and hell. I more referred to purgatory as such! Sorry about the misunderstanding! School has been too long ago!

---

---------------
If you ever want to know what an "eggman" is, then simply click here....http://www.emu5.de

Quote:

Protestant churches largely reject explicit belief in Purgatory. As 2 Maccabees is a deuterocanonical book, most Protestants consider it to be apocryphal, and do not consider that the other Scripture verses mentioned admit of a belief in Purgatory. Many Protestants claim that belief in Purgatory has been used, by unscrupulous priests if not by the Catholic Church itself, to terrify parishioners into donating money to fund Church projects, on the pretext that they might effectively buy their loved ones out of the torment of Purgatory

---

---------------
If you ever want to know what an "eggman" is, then simply click here....http://www.emu5.de

Interesting. When I was taking classes at college, I wrote a paper on Purgatory, relating it to the story of the prodigal son. (It was a class on the Gospels at a Jesuit school. Taught by a Presbyterian minister. If that professor was representative of his denomination, the Presbyterians must not believe in much of anything anymore.)

Purgatory seems to me an entirely reasonable belief, given what else Christians believe about God.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You must have not seen the South Park episode where everyone is standing around in hell wondering how they got there since they led a good life when Satan comes out and says, "Sorry folks, the correct answer was Mormon".

I believe a persons faith changes as they grow older. We keep learning about ourself and our faith. I light of this, consider religions of the world have there own agenda. At times various religions have had to individualize themselves from other competing religions to survive. This is a generalizations but religions do evolve for may reasons.

The Romans adopted Christianity as a common denominator to unite the Roman Empire under one religion. If they had not done that many of us today would be speaking Hebrew.

---

Saddlesore

The Romans adopted Christianity as a common denominator to unite the Roman Empire under one religion. If they had not done that many of us today would be speaking Hebrew.

Not.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The key moment in the establishment if Christianity as the predominant religion of the Roman empire, happened in AD 312 when emperor Constantine on the eve before battle against the rival emperor Maxentius had a vision of the sign of Christ (the so called chi-rho symbol) in a dream.
And Constantine was to have the symbol inscribed on his helmet and ordered all his soldiers (or at least those of his bodyguard) to point it on their shields.
It was after the crushing victory he inflicted on his opponent against overwhelming odds that Constantine declared he owed his victory to the god of the Christians.
However, Constantine's claim to conversion is not without controversy. There are many who see in his conversion rather the political realization of the potential power of Christianity instead of any celestial vision.
Constantine had inherited a very tolerant attitude towards Christians from his father, but for the years of his rule previous to that fateful night in AD 312 there was no definite indication of any gradual conversion towards the Christian faith. Although he did already have Christian bishops in his royal entourage before AD 312.
But however truthful his conversion might have been, it should change the fate of Christianity for good. In meetings with his rival emperor Licinius, Constantine secured religious tolerance towards Christians all over the empire.
Until AD 324 Constantine appeared to on purposely blur the distinction of which god it was he followed, the Christian god or pagan sun god Sol. Perhaps at this time he truly hadn't made up his mind yet.
Perhaps it was just that he felt his power was not yet established enough to confront the pagan majority of the empire with a Christian ruler.

---

Saddlesore

That's all largely true, but it doesn't support your assertion, really. The Romans didn't use Christianity- or any other religion- to unite the empire. And I don't even know where you got the idea that otherwise we'd all be speaking Hebrew. Outta left field, I think.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Features of Successful Ideologies

Political power: The dominant ideology in a society tends to support the people in power or supports the revolutionaries that obtain power. Consider Christainity helping to support the roman state. Originally the emperor Constantine enforced Christainity partly to help bring unity to the Empire. In most societies the king is either the head of the major religion or has substantial control over the state religion. The king has divine sanction from God. So to go against him is to go against God.

~Kent Stevens~

The western part of the empire was in turmoil and wars waged while several men tried to install themselves as Augustus or Emperor of western Rome. In some parts of the empire Christians were accepted, in others they were persecuted. At some point Constantine arguably decided that in order too win these wars he needed the backing of the Christians. In 306 he ordered the end of any Christian persecution in Britain and Gaul (Gaul is now parts of Spain, Germany and France etc.), in hopes that it would grow his army and add something to fight for. This was a risky move because Christianity at the time was widely thought of as a lesser religion compared to the traditional Roman Gods. Constantine and Maxentius were openly hostile toward one another. In the year 312 their armies clashed at Milvian Bridge just outside of Rome. Days before the battle, Constantine told his followers that he had a vision as he looked toward the setting sun. The Greek letter's XP ("Chi-Rho," the first two letters of "Christ") intertwined along with a cross appeared emblazoned on the sun, along with the inscription "In Hoc Signo Vinces," Latin for "Under this sign, you will conquer." Constantine, who worshiped the Apollo, put the Christ symbol on his solders shields. Within days the two armies clashed, and Constantine emerged victorious. Maxentius was among the dead. Constantine entered Rome not long afterwards and was acclaimed as sole western Augustus (Emperor). He credited his victory at Milvian Bridge to the god of the Christians, and ordered the end to any religious persecution within his realm, a step he had already taken in Britain and Gaul. With the emperor as a patron, Christianity exploded in popularity.


~Haxx~



In 313, Emperor Constantine and his co-emperor Lucinius sent a series of rather flowery letters to their governors, in which they said it was "salutory and most proper" that "complete toleration" be given to anyone who has "given up his mind to the cult of the Christians" or any other cult which "he personally feels best for himself." The Edict of Milan, as this series of letters were called, had the effect of legalizing Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. The question history has never adequately answered is why the Edict of Milan was issued in the first place, but it was probably due to the growing political power of the Christians of various stripes.

Emperor Constantine was a deeply superstitious man, but also a consumate politician. He was a practitioner of several religions, trying to keep his bases covered, even after his 'conversion.' He was arbitrary and capricious. He sent prisoners of war to the lions, committed wholesale acts of genocide in his campaigns in North Africa, and was known for his overbearing, egotistical, ruthless and self-righteous behavior. His nephew Julian said that his appearance was strange, with stiff garments of Eastern fashion, jewelry on his arms and it was all set off by a tiara perched on a dyed wig. Constantine apparently viewed Christianity as just one of the many cults of his realm, and he seemed to practice them all, apparently with roughly the same depth of commitment. He wasn't actually baptized until he was on his death bed.

Emperor Constantine, for all his strangeness, was nothing if not a good politician. He understood well the fact that the Christians were becoming so numerous as to represent a considerable political threat should they get their act together and become organized. Seeing the handwriting on the political wall, he conveniently had a 'miracle' which led to his 'conversion' so he could become their ally. In 312, a year before the Edict of Milan, he fought the battle of Milvan Bridge, against a rival claimant to the emperor's throne. Among his soldiers were many Christians and they were already carrying on their swords and shields the Christian Chi-Rho sign. Well, to hear the stories, the heavens opened up, and the Emperor had a vision. And he was granted victory in his battle. At least this is the story the Christian apologists tell.

Unfortunately, we don't know what exactly happened at Milvan Bridge, because the dear Emperor kept changing his story and telling different versions of the events to different people. At least six different, contradictory versions have survived from different people who claimed to have heard it from the emperor himself. As he kept telling these conflicting stories, he still apparently remained personally converted to the Mithraic sun-cult common in the Empire at the time. As a monument to his victory at Milvan, some years later, he raised a triumphal arch, which survives to this day. It bears on it a testimony to the "Unconquered Sun" (a reference to Mithra) and referred to Jesus Christ "driving his [the sun's] chariot across the sky." He commanded the Christians to hold their services on Sun-day.

Constantine became the sole Roman emperor in 324 and convened the First Council of Nicea the following year. His commandment to the bishops: Get your act together and quit squabbling. Come up with a consistent doctrine that would be universal, i.e.catholic - note the small "c", and could be understood and practiced by all.

Of course, the bishops complied. Rather than risk Imperial disfavor, they all met at Nicea, squabbled, squabbled some more, hammered out a few common doctrines (mostly with regard to the creation and the nature of the universe, and the first version of the Apostolic Creed), declared themselves in agreement on it, and departed totally unconverted to each other's views.

The emperor who himself was totally ignorant of the issues, hearing that his bishops had finally agreed on a common doctrine, was pleased. The bishops were certainly pleased to hear that the emperor was pleased. And then they went about preaching the same old contentious doctrines as before.

Argument and dissension continued for the next six decades with various factions finding themselves in and then out of Imperial favor at various times. Athanasius, the actual author of the original version of the Apostolic Creed, found himself exiled and 'rehabilitated' on no fewer than six occasions. It was eventually Imperial politics and the wealth of the Roman church, which it shared with the smaller congregations along with instructions for its use, more than theology, that finally governed the form that Christian doctrine would take, as various bishops found themselves in and out of imperial favor at various times. By 430, the council of Nicea had become an ongoing affair, designed to stamp out "heresies" (read: dissent from the Imperial view), and create a formal, universal, i.e. catholic church organization, organized in a manner similar to the political structure of the Roman Empire itself.

The Council of Nicea became, in essence, the enforcer of the Imperial view of how things ought to be. This is why the Catholic Church today resembles in its government the government of the Roman Empire of the period. The headquarters of the church was eventually established at Rome, and the head of the church became known as the Pope. New basilicas dotted the landscape, all built with the blessing of the Emperor, and all aligned to the new, imperially blessed, church headquarters in Rome. Constantine sent expeditions off to Palestine to "find" and build basilicas over the sacred sites of the church's early history, and return with faith-promoting "relics" which of course they were happy to "acquire," or more accurately, produce. The newly established headquarters in Rome set about persecuting the Gnostics (crucifying many of them and sending many others to the lions), and suppressing the Marionite heresy.

In order to popularize the church with the masses, the doctrinal emphasis was changed significantly. These changes were reflected in the art of the Christian church. When early, pre-Constantine Roman Christians met secretly in Rome, the art they produced reflected the pastoral nature of Jesus' teachings. Scenes of Jesus feeding the multitudes, blessing the children, and healing the sick were the themes in the art of that period. After the conversion of Constantine, the character of the art suddenly and dramatically changed to reflect the change in doctrinal emphasis. Gone are the sweet, pastoral scenes of a meek Jesus patiently ministering to his followers. Instead, images of the crucifixion and the scourging of Jesus in the court of Pilate become common. This was to help the suffering masses identify with Jesus who was said to have suffered on their behalf. The church had became a political instrument -- be patient with your suffering under Roman rule, the masses were told, and a better life for you is prepared for you if you believe in Jesus the Savior. The emporer may not provide good living in this life, but Jesus would in the next.

It is at this time that the Chi Rho and the symbol of the fish, representing the miraculous nature of Jesus' message (at least as formulated by the gospel writers), is replaced by the cross, at the time a symbol of death and suffering, as the principal emblem of Christianity. The political message of the new symbol couldn't have been clearer at the time. Join up and Jesus will relieve your suffering in the next world even if the Emperor doesn't in this. Fail to join, and you're on your own, politically as well as spiritually.

~Scott Bidstrup~

---

Saddlesore