Whether one considers the christian faith, as an institution, cultural entity, set of spiritual values or a point in history where lines of exploitation meet, it presents a unique set of problems for the atheist, agnostic or self professed pagan.

 

Unlike neoplatonism, which might be considerd an intellectual as well as spiritual framwork of belief uniquely entwined with needs of the human sub-concious, christianity encases itself within the term faith like a knight templar in his armour.

 

Unlike an ancient belief system like neoplatonism, it will subject itself to philosphical dispute only rarely and then most in an augustinian fashion, within strictly defined doctrine,

 

One the positive end of the spectrum this quality might be translated as enduring loyalty, on the negative, blind obedience to corrupt and antiquated laws.

 

The word faith presents an obstacle to an intellectual
rebuttal. if a movement is not based on a gradual and pious philosophical view
of creation and humankinds part in it, but instead, imposibed on a rigid system
of cultural laws, in this case judaic, one cannot refute it intellectually.

 

At best you would be making an absurdly rationalist argument against the roots
of a genuine religious exerpience which exists in the largely unqunatifiable
human subconcious, at worst you would be slandering a primal belief system
now rudely shaped into an imperialist dogma.

 

the jews were forbiiden by edit to proletise after ???, but even before and after
this juncture were considerd by romans to be 'tolerant' of other belief
systems if not tolerent of roman rule.

 

my personal issue with christians is directed at the juncture of
history when political power came, unexpectedly, into the hands of the church.
my arguments, if i choose to make them, would be directed at the vehicle
the church became, to further the careers and ambitions of a few rich men
and their systematic attempt to cleanse history of the 'other'.

a renaissance can exist only where lines of exploitation meet.

 

It is my personal belief that an assault on the fundamental tenets of the christian church, and by church, i mean Roman Catholic church, would be repeating an ancient cycle of spiritual war instigated by the church in it's refusal to respect the sanctity of other religion, continued by the state sponsored pagan philospohers like porphyry in their battle against christian dominence and ended by the ruthless genocide sponsored by so called christian roman emperors.

 

By fundamental tenets, I mean the spiritual learning of jesus christ and his disciples as passed in its original form before it was seized on by zealots.

 

To accuse the god of the christians as being diabolical, as others have done, would be neither here nor there in terms of its

 

I would take the

 

Thus, just as Jesus failed to leave clear teachings about salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet, he also did not effect a competent revelation of who precisely he was. Depending on e.g. various 4th-century Roman emperors, there waxed and waned such christological heresies as Ebionism, Docetism, Adoptionism, Dynamic Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Marcionism, Apollonarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monothelitism. The doublethink of the "trinity" is not found in the Bible, but instead was invented to reconcile Jewish monotheism with Jesus' idiosyncratic Sonship claims.

 

Decisions. In the gospels Jesus damns entire towns [Mt 11:23], compares non-Israelites to dogs [Mt 15:26], and affirms even "the smallest letter" [Mt 5:18, Jn 10:35] of the Torah. The god of the Torah tests and torments his followers, commits mass murders of e.g. Noah's flood victims [Gen 6:7, 7:21] and the firstborn sons of Egypt [Ex 12:29], creates linguistic division for fear of an ancient construction project [Gen 11:6], and curses mankind because Adam dared to "become like one of us, knowing good and evil" [Gen 3:22]. It is implausible that the Creator of the universe would be so petty and wicked.

Policies. The god of the Torah promotes or demands extravagant worship, dietary taboos, animal sacrifice, repressive sexual codes, human mutilation, monarchy, subjugation of women, slavery, human sacrifice [Lev 27:29, Jud 11:30-39, cf. Heb 11:17, Jam 2:21], and mass murder of even infants [Gen 6:7, 7:21, Ex 11:5, 12:29, 1 Sam 15:3, cf. Heb 11:7,28]. In the gospels Jesus affirms the Torah [Mt 5:18, Jn 10:35], endorses the murderous flood of Noah [Mt 24:38, Lk 17:27], and promises sinners not a thousand years' unrelenting torture, nor a million or a billion, but an eternity of excruciating torture by fire [Mk 9:43, Mt 18:8, 25:41, 25:46]. It is implausible that a competent and benevolent deity would in his revelation allow the endorsement of such heinous crimes and evil policies.

 

 

Hoffman quotes, from a different work by Porphyry, this comment: 'These teachers in the contempt for this creation and this earth has been made for them into which they are to enter when they depart. Now this new earth is the Logos of our world. Why should they want to live in the archetype of a world which is abhorrent to them?'

 

Porphyry's critique is still fresh--and still unanswered. On the Christian idea of 'washing away' sins: 'It is indeed troubling and confusing to think that a man, once washed of so much pollution and rot, seems [all of a sudden] to be pure. [Is it not a little curious], this wiping away the stains foa lifetime of immorality--of sexual license, adultery, drukenness, thieving, perversions, self-abuse--and assorted disgusting things--siply by getting baptized, or gcalling on the name of Christ to get free of sin, as easily as a snake sloughs off its old skin? I ask, who wouldn't prefer a life of corruption...if he knew in advance that all would be forgiven him...

 

 

"It demanded belief in propositions for which they were
unable to furnish rational proof.
These included their elevation of faith over reason,
their refusal to accept the eternity of the world
and the pre-existence of the soul." - p 45 porphyr

 

"not that they imputed change, but arbitrary change.
thingd are either better off after the creation, or worse.
blasphemous to suppose that divine activity alers for the worse
or that it was initially imperfect.'

 

"all suffering for the sage,is a matter of indifference."

"to accept this metaphysical teaching involves arbitrary action
by god at a particular time, which raises the ethical difficuty of
divine nonconcern for pre-christian generations."

 

"an invaluable advantage to christians was their possession
of a sacred book and a sacramental system.'

One instance; pagans were ofte4n more concerned with the rituals of worship. If they felt a god was angry, they assumed that the act of sacrifice was sufficient to appease the divine wrath. Christians, however, would argue that conduct and even thoughts or feelings were the key to their relationship with their god. Thus, a devout Christian could not taste sacrificial meat or offer even the mildest prayer to any other god withouth stirring divine anger. But a pagan regarded this attitude as a stubborn contempt toward the Roman gods.

Also, as Fox shows, the bishops exercised an authority over the church radically different froma apagan priest's hold over his worshippers. And a pagan and Christian might use the same language about their ideals, but the philosophical bases behind their views were completely alien.

Even in seemingly minor matters, Christian concepts varied. For instance, the pagans had myths to explain the volcanic landscape of 'Burnt Lydia' in Anatolia; a prominent Christian explained it as the result of 'sin', and compared other natural disasters to god's punishment for sins.

Other incidentsdemonstrate how Roman law held an individual accountable for crimes, whereas Christians believed that divine punishment could fall on the innocent as well as the guilty.

Fox describes how Christian views on what wasx acceptable doctrine mutated and narrowed over the centuries, while the punishment of many minor 'sins', even adultery, became less harsh. Thus, 'if the history of forgiveness was one of the falling barriers, the history of heresy was one of closing paths.'