Note: you’ve still not given me the name of a single professor? I I’d also still like to know what is specifically different about ‘religious authority’ compared to ‘authority’ in general? — I like sushi

Before getting into whether I should put my friends with PhD's repurations at stake for discussions we had as friends, you should first be less rude in considering my own authority, which should be obvious from what Ive written, but as you cant see it, here it is in black and white. I started studying Latin and Greek myself when I was very young, I think 10. I have read Homer, Hesiod, Thucydides, Plato, Euripedes Sophocles, Aeschylus, Plato, Aristotle, and the new testament in 'original' ancient greek. The list of Latin texts I have read is too long even to think. I was at Oxford University where I was so fluent in Latin and held debates in it, and was asked to participate in ancient Greek plays, in Greek, because even though it was not my primary subject, many admired my knowledge on it. Ive been reading translations of classical literature all my life.

Now. I repeated continuously what I meant by the emotional guilt, and you still did not understand it. I asked you to consider a correction, and you challenged my own authority and authenticity, and tried to change the subject. That's offensive to me. Considering your refusal to accept your own error when I pointed it out repeatedly, I now have to reciprocrate the question. Who the FUCK are you?

I’m overly concerned about how offended you are. I asked some question (because I’m genuinely interested).

Clearly I didn’t understand my error, or you thought I made an error where I didn’t. Either way, as you claim, this is common mistake so it might pay you not berate me.

We don’t have to continue if you don’t want to. I would still like you to explain what is different about religious authority and I would still like to know your academic sources about your claims - if they are not forthcoming for whatever reason fair enough. If you’d care to explain my error better go ahead.

I have not been ‘rude’ (to my honest knowledge) nor tried, at any point, to switch topics. Far from it. I’ve asked the same questions repeatedly and if you think it is ‘rude’ to keep pressing for a response to questions/inquiries that haven’t been addressed that isn’t really my concern either.

I am called Matthew Roffey, I am 42 years old, and my interest here is precisely what I said it was before - I’m interested in how religious ideas develop, change, jump and manifest in different cultures. I also have a large interest (non-professional) in cognitive neurosciences tied to many phenomenon including emotions and altered states of consciousness.

Note: I don’t care who you are all that much tbh. Obviously you’ve meet often with some aggression from others and reciprocate it. It happens a lot when people mention Jesus or Christianity. Personally I wish there was more consideration for people on the basis of them having a genuine interest rather than looking to ensnare each other and ‘win’ some debate - that REALLY doesn’t interest me.

So, all that aside should I hang around or move on? I don’t wish to waste my time or yours (especially mine).

Well thank you for a kind answer. It's clear we both would rather have a conversation, and I'm sorry I lost my temper. But I should also say, I guess, although Id rather not, but I will, is that one of the people I talked about this with was my father Karl, who passed away very recently after a very long and productive life.

Karl grew up in Wisconsin, his Mother was a Russian Jew, and his Father a German humanist. At Wisconsin University he almost became a Rhodes Scholar, but he was interested in the international dealing of archaeological artifacts but wanted to work in politics, so he won a place at Princeton, where he earned an MPA and doctorate in politics, studying there with Henry Kissinger. He became a journalist, manager of Bernstein and Woodward before the Watergate scandal at the Washington Post, ran the Post's Washington bureau in London, and on the editorial board in charge of human rights issues for the New York Times for many long years.

Karl was a VERY erudite man, who loved books, read them continuously, his private library was at least 10,000 books. With his interest in archaeology, he read all the Greek and Roman texts he could find, now I cannot say in how much detail, often he read very quickly, but he was very familiar with the era. KRAL could not think of an example of any Roman or Greek being upset because they had taken any personal responsibility for what they had done in all he read. Karl did think about it a very long time, and he did say, of everything I ever said to him, it was maybe the only thing I ever said that really impressed him, lol.

But he also hated Saul, or St Paul as most call him, with a fervor you cannot imagine. Karl called him Satan incarnate way before the phrase was common after Bush called Hussein that. Karl said no man had ever been responsible for more deaths in history. Now on the RESULTS of Paul's letters we can perhaps all agree to some greater or lesser extent. But on the other hand, it really was not what Paul was trying to do, and personally, I would regretfully say, it was really the Church Fathers who over-emphatically selected his letters for the canonical bible, and St Augustine's City of God which places personal salvation above secular justice and bringing about the entire Dark Ages, that were the real sources of the problems with religious authority that led to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and other such abominations. So I wrote kindly of Saul, or Paul, saying he had such a sudden episode of guilt that, not knowing what to tell his followers eager to pillage and rape some more Christian households in his hometown in Syria, Damascus, while returning there after killing many Christians on his own mission, tolerated with amusement but not generally regarded as necessary at the time, for killing Christians who denied the Emperor as God. In other cases, the Roman Empire did not disturb local religions, but in this case, Saul took it on himself, it seems from what we know, to conduct a kind of genocide, reaping the rewards in much the same way the Nazis seized belongings during the Holocaust.

The thing that strikes me, whether he was actually blinded or just described it that way, or something else, is that the Christians then said much like 'ok youve done some bad things, well, worse than most, but anyway, come in and have some wine.' And Saul, baptised Paul, was totally overwhelmed by the forgiveness. Totally, For the rest of this life.

But Karl really could not tolerate me saying that. I waited until he died before speaking at all of almost all my thoughts to anyone.

While in private contemplation, I sat in silence with the Quakers for many years in silicon valley. There a man was working on the translation of the Gospel of Thomas. At first I objected in a very asinine Christian way, but then I realized how much he loved Jesus, so I thought about it quite a bit. In the canonical bible there is what 2 verses? 3 verses? Thomas says he cannot know if Jesus is really him without sticking his fingers in the wounds. What does Christ say? Does he say 'you stupid boy'? Does he say 'get thee hence for doubting me'? No! He says 'go ahead, if that's what you need to do.' And so I thought about all my doubts from studying philosophy and psychology at Oxford, and it seems to me in the modern era, many other people have the same problem with miracles and such, and that Thomas is a model for the modern scientific way commonly described in a simplistic way as 'obtaining proof.'

So I did not want Karl to die. I would rather have waited longer. But now Karl has passed away, I have this huge idea, a new concept that could make so many people happy who have been struggling with doubts, that St. Thomas' skepticism is a channel through which us scorned intellectual elitists, us scientists, us rational beings, that we also may also discover the love of God, however skeptical we are, and may know the kingdom of heaven, if not in the afterlife, but right here on earth, just as Thomas writes in his gospel. I asked the Quakers about it, but they could not do anything for other reasons....I keep hoping they change their mind....In fact only one person has ever really supported me on my beliefs, a monk on patmos, where St John the Divine had his revelation. He said I should start a new church. At first I did not want to be so disruptive. There are so many churches already. But the churches have rejected me and some have even excommunicated me for even mentioning part of my beliefs.

So now I am trying to write all my long-hidden ideas down. Next I am working on my next homily, 4th attempt to get it right, 'the alpha, the omega, and the bee orchid.'

So now Matthew, as for our debate on the what Romans or Greeks actually felt, I did ask you to review my elaboration on it. I would be grateful if we could step back to that a few posts ago, and meanwhile I should start working on my next homily, because I have spoken with a neighbor here, at long last, about publishing it, and I should get it written for him.

Oh. As you see from what I told you, regarding giving his name: I cannot believe Karl would give his permission to use his name in my published work as substantiation of what I say due to his own beliefs; and my Jewish stepmother is doing everything possible to silence me. I reached the point of threatening to put a restraining order on her.

But I would tell you in confidence, you can see Karl's biography here, Im just looking at it for the first time in a while. My stepmother essentially tried, for many years, to take his place, and after my father became too terrified even to talk to her any more, in my opinion, she declared him senile, made my share of Karl's estate her own and disowned me from the family; made a separate page for herself for her own career; removed any mention of archaeology that would help my own meagre ambitions from the page, and it even tells a lie to do so. Karl actually spent 6 years 1969-1975 working on various published books on archaeology, one published by Atheneum, one of the most prestigious publishers in the world. She rewrote it saying he was still working at the Post 1970-1975 instead. That's just not true, as you can see from the bibliography on this page, he actually published 3 books on archaeology during that time.

Also she removed the names of me, Jon, and Heather from his page. After making Jon and Heather subservient to her own fiscal dominance, having taken as much money she could for herself, and my siblings have to do what she says. So I lost them as family too. Thats why I am a little emotional at the moment. I keep finding things like this she did already. Again, apologies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_E._Meyer

Above post edited, Sunday 9:08 am PST.

IAbove post, highlights added and clarified, Sunday 9:26 AM

I don't want a conversation. I don’t care who you are. I merely want to know what you think is different between ‘authority’ in general and ‘religious authority,’ in plain and simple terms.

If you cannot provide me with scholarly works about ‘guilt’ in the ancient world that’s okay.

The only thing I’ve found is this: https://www.armand-dangour.com/2017/03/shame-and-guilt-in-ancient-greece/

I merely want to know what you think is different between ‘authority’ in general and ‘religious authority,’ in plain and simple terms. — I like sushi

Well it has evolved over time

The 'early church' until about 150 AD operated rather like a commune. New members contributed their money upon joining, which supported the fiscal necessities of all members very well, because the early church grew in size slowly, yet exponentially. So it didnt have any authority. it was an early form of communism that you can idealize, or scorn, as much as you like.

After about 150 AD until Constantine, there were just too many Christians for a purely socialist system, and church leaders were chosen mostly according to literary skills and experience. Each church started to operate as an independent entity with its own rules and social organization that generally grouped into orders, much like the different monasteries of the catholic church in the later middle ages (Benedictines, Cluniacs, Cistercians, Carthusians, Premonstratensians, and Trinitarians, I find on quick search. There were also Franciscans, so I know the list is incomplete or evolved. Hm. Dominican too. Anyway, if you are really interested in religious authority, the maxims of the different monastic systems over the monks in them may be of particular interest to you, because they are different practices of religious authority over the religious alone :)

Between Constantine and the reformation, the Roman empire increasingly tried to cling to more power by claiming religious authority over feudal states. during this time it infamously recruited soldiers for wars and raised money for wars by selling papal pardons. Also during this time, the church most famously in England excommunicated the supreme authority of a feudal nation, King John, in such a horrible scenario there has never been a second King John. The battle between the Church and King John is of especial interest to the Presbyterian church, which takes scholarly study of its own history and power very seriously, tracing its Protestantism back to this period. In the USA it is the best place to learn about church history I think.

During the reformation, most notably King Henry VIII in England who started much of it, church authority was totally redefined. Mostly its known for destroying statues because they idols, ripping representation of Christ off crosses, and so on. That was actually a continuation of a very long debate about iconery in the Eastern church empire, as to how much spiritual power is invested in a pictorial representation of a Godly nature. However more significantly in terms of authority, Henry VIII basically revolutionized history by rejecting the doctrines of Augustine, that individual salvation is more important than secular justice, as stated in City of God (for which I do have specific references to his rebuttal of the main form of secular law). At the time the main target was a system of natural law proposed by Cicero. Cicero's work well survived the purge of heretical texts because it was necessary to understand the doctrines of Augustine. Rather charmingly, Henry VIII wrote 'this boke is myne' on his own copy when he was a child.



Largely as a consequence of his interest in this book, the adult King Henry VIII started the process of resurrecting secular law as separate from church authority that has evolved into what we know today. After the reformation feuds, there was a real effort to draw a precise division between ecclesiastical and secular domains, where the church only had power over its own creed and wealth, just as if it is exactly the same as any other modern institution or business. There are some anomalies, such as the remaining separate city state of the Vatican in Rome, but overall this kind of division has taken over entirely.

When the USA was formed, for example, Jefferson based the natural rights, and the justification for rebelling against the British. as a violation of theistic natural law defined in Locke's Essay on Human Understanding, mostly in the chapter 'On Power.' However from this, authority is seen to PROMULGATE from a natural divine law down to common law, such that religious authority is irrelevant to its secular action. Now it is an extremely hated fact, at least in the USA, that the nation's justification to rebel against the British, and the justification of its own secular power is entirely founded on a Christian hypothesis of a benign loving God who rewards those who act for the greater good in the afterlife. They can't even teach it in public schools or universities, so now almost no one knows it. Curious huh. The USA: best example of a successful religious authority in the world ever???? No!!!!!!! But yes, lol

The concept of PROMULGATION of power from divine law to common law is from the massive work of Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologicae, an absolutely huge set of volumes spanning all aspects of religious ideas that are astonishingly still close to what is practiced today. Aquinas is noted to be the first theologian to exercise rationalism to the fullest extent possible, at least for the scope of rational knowledge at the time. While some of what it says here in the wikipedia may appear too trite to be worth stating, it was never really stated like this before, and its become a rather widely accepted intuitive view, which is why it seems so trite to us now, haha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Political_order

Thanks so much for the reference! Ill enjoy reading it, but in appreciation of your finding it, I did want to write something however inadequate it may be on the topic of interest to you.

edited for readability, 9.29pm sunday. Good night )

Okay, but the original post I was asking about asked why it was people surrendered their will to authority, specifically to religious authority. My question is still what is unique about how people surrender their will to religious authority? Obviously the belief in a deity is the major one but I assumed you were alluding to something else?

I completely agree that people surrender their freedom in order to avoid responsibility. To avoid responsibility is also to stave off any possible sense of guilt. From that it would follow that people who surrender their will are effectively avoiding responsibility so as not to make any mistakes, and to point the finger at someone else - their authority being the ruling authority not themselves (of course, it is dangerously ironic, but that’s how I see it and that explains why some people who shirk responsibility like to attach themselves to a ‘higher authority’ and claim to be ‘good’ as opposed to those with free will who are willing to suffer the direct responsibility of their actions/thoughts.

Ah. Well I was thinking about that while summarizing my prior research on convergence and divergence of divine and natural law, posted above. So I have a germ of an idea.

It seems to me, there's a new method here. I started by discussing why people obey a doctrinal authority when it is against their personal interest, such that they will even let themselves be eaten alive by lions. To determine the nature and limits of such doctrinal authority, perhaps it's worth reversing the question, as according to the scientific method, and examining cases of when people rebel against religious authority that has already achieved political domination.

Two notable cases occur to me.

The FIRST is the historical emergence of scientific explanations that rivaled traditional religious doctrine. The most obvious example, seems to me, is Galileo, was it, being put in prison for insisting the earth went round the sun? Ok, well that is really a geometric reordering of the solar system that is SIMPLER, because they had mathematical models and even astrolabe-style machines to represent the jiggles of planets seen in the sky:



However the geometric simplification eventually resulted in Newton explaining how a force called gravity could explain the movement of planetary bodies around the sun. So it was a very useful simplification. But at first it met with immense resistance as heresy and was severely punished. Maybe you have a particular example you'd like to explore of scientific ideas causing people to rebel against religious authority? But this is an example to me that sufficient objective truth will supersede religious authority.

The SECOND major case to me is exemplified by the split from the Catholic church by Luther. If you search for it on Google you get something like "On Oct 31st 1517, the small-town monk Martin Luther marched up to the castle church in Wittenberg and nailed his 95 Theses to the door, thus lighting the flame of the Reformation." If you look in the wikipedia this event is almost invisible under a large volume of letter exchanges with various church authorities. Again one could look deeper into this, but it seems to me the main point was that the printing press, starting 1440, had made it possible for many more people to get their own copies of the bible. According to the Greek orthodox Church, this ended the 'Era of the Father' (characterized by ecclesiastical dominance over the ignorant) and started 'the Era of the Son (truly emphasizing personal salvation via direct knowledge of the scriptures). Maybe I don't say it quite right. Somewhere I've seen estimates of the number of bibles printed by the time of Luther, it was humungous. This enabled people en masse to question religious authority that had been dictated to them as unquestionable truth, but had no apparent usefulness to the individual in terms of spiritual growth, or even spiritual existence at all. So I would characterize this as being the main historical case demonstrating that sufficient subjective truth will supersede religious authority.

Does that help advance the discussion do you think? I will sleep on it and maybe something else will occur to me tomorrow more directly related to your question, but I think it is a good first step.

If I was to ask myself the same question and give a definitive answer - even though I don’t really see that there is a significant difference between ‘authority’ in general and ‘religious authority’ (other than the later being more firmly attached to the underlying premise of a ‘deity’ or similar ‘force/agent’), then I guess I’d say ‘religious authority’ is more easily prone to being dogmatic than other species of ‘authority’ - that is not to say others cannot, or aren’t, prone to dogma too! Historically the more ‘scientific minded’ have on occasion put certain figures on a pedestal (Aristotle being the prime example regarding Galileo’s time).

I’m pretty sure that many pagans were put to death too for refusing to give offerings to some other deity. Christians are likely singled out today because Christianity took on many other traditions and rituals of the time as its own.

As a comparable ‘authority’ I do see ‘patriotism’ as being almost identical to ’religious piety’ - in some modern cases they are very much entwined. To die for your country to me is only slightly less different than dying for some deity. I think in both situations it is a combination of protecting your sense of identity - place in the world (holding to your ‘axis mundi’) - and holding to certain sets of principles and ethics that seem commonly enough represented in the ‘authority’ figure (institutional or otherwise).

The feeling of ‘mob’ to both disturbs me and that is why I tend to question any claim to ‘authority’ - even within myself. I believe, foolishly or not, that I would die before giving up my freedom, so can relate to an unerring sense of duty to a set of principles that you live by (the ‘axis mundi’). Once the central pillar of your existence is torn away you’re done for anyway. The thing is the central pillar (‘axis mundi’) is hardly different from any dogmatism which just shows us that life necessitate a guiding map of some form (meaning ‘authority’ isn’t a dirty word anymore than ‘freedom’ is a delightful idea - both in the extreme drain life away).

I’m pretty sure that many pagans were put to death too for refusing to give offerings to some other deity. — I like sushi

That would have been highly unusual until the Christians took over the Roman state. Then pagans (and other, erring, Christians) were killed relentlessly and with great savagery. The persecutions of the Christians which took place were occasional and minor in comparison to the persecution of pagans by Christians.

Before then, the Romans were generally quite tolerant, provided the cult of the emperor or spirit of Rome was honored and there was peace and order and taxes paid. There were certain pagan cults the Romans felt outlandish and dangerous and were banned (e.g. Druidism), but for the most part you could worship whatever god you wanted, and it wasn't unusual for a person to worship several gods, and be initiates of more than one of the "mystery religions" such as those of Isis, Magna Mater and Mithras. Some even worshipped Jesus along with other figures such as Appollonius of Tyana and traditional pagan gods such as Asclepius.

Before then, the Romans were generally quite tolerant, provided the cult of the emperor or spirit of Rome was honored and there was peace and order and taxes paid. There were certain pagan cults the Romans felt outlandish and dangerous and were banned (e.g. Druidism), but for the most part you could worship whatever god you wanted, and it wasn't unusual for a person to worship several gods, and be initiates of more than one of the "mystery religions" such as those of Isis, Magna Mater and Mithras. Some even worshipped Jesus along with other figures such as Appollonius of Tyana and traditional pagan gods such as Asclepius. — Ciceronianus the White

Good points..

This is why for a while Judeans gave Rome such a headache. Many groups did not accept images of emperors (the Caligula affair in c.40 CE). They also didn't help Pax Romana by constant riots and calls to revolt against the pagan overlords, corrupt leadership, and oppressive tax collectors. This, along with internal strife between sects, helped precipitate the Jewish Revolt against Rome in 66 CE-73 CE. After the failed revolt, Jews around the empire had to pay a poll tax until the Emperor Julian ended it in 363 CE (Fiscus Judaeicus). By-and-large though, the Jews were left alone by Pagan Rome as it was an ancient religion that was respected as such, like any other of the religions around the Empire. So you are right. As long as your religion paid tribute to Rome in some sort of way, and paid taxes, they seemed to be ok with whatever you prayed to or whatever ritual you wanted. Jews were allowed the exception to Roman images as it was well-known they didn't do so as an ancient practice of this particular group. It wasn't allowed I would imagine amongst regular pagan religions which were synchronous because that was an actual signal they didn't care about Rome.

Edit: Ironically, as long as the early Jewish-Christians were identified as Jews, they were probably more protected. As Christianity became more gentilized around the Empire, it was not seen as part of the more ancient religion and its exceptions, so was seen as subject to any other pagan sect around the Empire and would be deemed as suspicious that they weren't paying tribute to the Emperor or the State properly.

Very true.

The status of the Jewish people in the Empire is remarkable, I think--up to the first great revolt. Despite the antics of a madman like Gaius Caligula, they had a special, and favored, status under Augustus and the late Republic. I think this was the result of a combination of policy and respect. The Romans were aware that Judaism was exclusive, but tolerated its intolerance of others because it was ancient and true to its traditions, in its own way worthy of a certain admiration.

The revolt showed the other side of the Roman state, of course; utterly ruthless and devastating in enforcing and perpetuating its imperium. I was in Rome and saw the arch of Titus and its relief of the legions carrying the spoils of the Jewish Temple during his triumph (seeing history is impressive). The second revolt brought even greater devastation and Hadrian renamed Jerusalem. The Jews suffered much more than the Christians did for flouting the authority of Rome.

I don’t see why it would be highly unusual? If they did it to Christians who refused what makes you think they were the only religious group to refuse? The only * I assume is that the Christian religion gained momentum and the others died out.

[*deleted sentence whilst typing there! Wasn’t massively important :)]

I don’t see how Christians would be more willing to die on religious principles than any other religious person.

Of course I could be quite wrong, but I’d need some pretty damning evidence to dismiss it out of hand. Is there any?

The only thing I’ve found is this: https://www.armand-dangour.com/2017/03/shame-and-guilt-in-ancient-greece/ — I like sushi

Thank you so much! It appears to be a longer response from a scholar at Oxford resulting from my positing the original question there in 2015. It totally concurs with your statement that the ancient Greeks did feel shame, and regularly shamed each other. On the topic of whether the ancient Greeks ever took personal responsibility for the criticisms they received shame, it expresses ambivalence concerning there being no direct evidence for it, but the author doesn't want to go as far as making the single sentence commitment that I make. Well that's understandable, as I said in my initial reaction. Making a statement like that as a paid scholar of the classics is just very dangerous. Too easy to be mocked oneself if someone finds disproof of the statement. How interesting. I had no idea someone had actually been inspired to look for specific instances in such detail :)

Well, a couple of things. I think it would have been noted, somewhere, by someone, if a pagan was executed by Roman authorities for not honoring a pagan god, or for refusing to honor the cult of the emperor. As far as I know, there is no record of that. Also, I think we'd know if a pagan religion or religious belief prohibited the following of any other pagan belief. As far as I know, there's no record of such a pagan belief.

In the case of Christians, we have records regarding their failure to honor Rome and the emperor, their hatred of pagans and pagan beliefs, and the fact that they were executed for it. The record that comes immediately to mind is the famous correspondence between Trajan and Pliny the Younger. Pliny was governor of Bithiya at that time and was asking the emperor what to do with Christians. That was around 112 A.D. or C.E., still long before the "triumph" of Christianity. I think it's likely that if pagans were causing concerns of that kind, some governor or legate or functionary would have noted it.

That, alas, is the best I can do, as far as the Roman world is concerned. I understand that isn't absolute certainty, nor does it address the possibility that somewhere outside of that world some non-Christian was killed for not honoring some non-Christian god, if that's what you meant.

Christian Roman authorities (and individual Christians) certainly killed pagans for refusing to convert to Christianity, but I assume you weren't referring to that. We have quite a bit of evidence that took place, including writings of various Christian leaders urging that pagans be killed, their temples destroyed, etc.

Real scholars tend not to speculate in their works - if they do they’re not writing a scholarly works, writing poor scholarly work or actually explicit about expressing an opinion.

Before then, the Romans were generally quite tolerant, provided the cult of the emperor or spirit of Rome was honored and there was peace and order and taxes paid. There were certain pagan cults the Romans felt outlandish and dangerous and were banned (e.g. Druidism), but for the most part you could worship whatever god you wanted, and it wasn't unusual for a person to worship several gods, and be initiates of more than one of the "mystery religions" such as those of Isis, Magna Mater and Mithras. Some even worshipped Jesus along with other figures such as Appollonius of Tyana and traditional pagan gods such as Asclepius. — Ciceronianus the White

Thank you both for joining in the discussion here. Maybe collaboration on an anthology is taking it too far, and we can just enjoy talking here. Currently I am still engaged with 'I like Sushi' and I hope to offer some helpful thoughts to you two later )

I think the case for those references as propaganda hold up well enough:

https://theconversation.com/mythbusting-ancient-rome-throwing-christians-to-the-lions-67365

Again, call me cynical, but if some other religion had risen to prominence I’m sure its followers would’ve found plenty of instances of religious persecution and martyrs.

My original point was that I don’t see how other religious creeds wouldn’t have been as willing to die as Christians were for their beliefs. Such beliefs are not usually something people can just throw aside and in many cases death can seem more inviting than turning their back on their whole world view.

guess I’d say ‘religious authority’ is more easily prone to being dogmatic than other species of ‘authority’ - that is not to say others cannot, or aren’t, prone to dogma too! — I like sushi

Hm. That;s a an interesting overvation, I will think about it while I mow my lawn, lol.

My first reaction is, other authorities may not be prone to 'dogma' per se, but they are often equivalent 'rules of conduct' appropriate to their field.

For example, lawyers can argue that precedence is a legitimate method of resolution to debate, and lawyers must at least respect constitutional edicts--Although the edicts themselves are subject to revision, it is intentionally a complex procedure. That is to say, lawyers don't have dogma, lol, but they base their actions on prior rules.

Similarly scientists have to respect the philosophy of science underlying the scientific method. If a hypothesis is not conformant to the dictates of the scientific method, publications will reject publication of a research study. Similarly, conclusions from the hypothesis, and any proposed truth to a new theory, is subject to the rules of scientific inquiry. I guess if you were a skeptic abut the scientific method itself, you could be considered to questioning a dogma.

So my frist reaction is, religious dogma is a set of rules about belief, because religion is at least meant to be about beliefs, at least from a philosophical stance, not exclusively so, but still about beliefs. Other authorities have rules too, but they aren't so much focused on whether belief in the rules is necessary for the authority itself.

Exactly. I'll enjoy reading the rest of your prior longer post this evening )

My original point was that I don’t see how other religious creeds wouldn’t have been as willing to die as Christians were for their beliefs. Such beliefs are not usually something people can just throw aside and in many cases death can seem more inviting than turning their back on their whole world view. — I like sushi

Christianity was peculiar in that it encouraged its believers to die. Martyrdom was actively sought by Christians. To die for the faith was to be guaranteed a place in heaven. Christians were angry, or at least disappointed, if they were denied death. The more gruesome the death was, the better as far as the saintliness of the martyr was concerned.

Tertullian, one of the Church Fathers, proudly wrote of the large group of Christians who flocked to the house of the Roman proconsul for Asia Minor, Arrius Antoninus, in 185 C.E. and demanded that he execute them. It seems he obliged some few of them but told the rest to disperse, telling them that if they were so eager to die there were plenty of cliffs they could throw themselves off of and plenty of rope they could hang themselves with; and that they didn't need his assistance.

Bear in mind that Tertullian was boasting of this in a letter to another Roman official. According to Tertullian, "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church."

Revisions to original post:

• Pictures added yay!
• Title changed
• TOC added at top (subsections now questions)
• Preface - removed unnecessary personal comments
• Section 1: Josephus and Nag Hammadi subsections revised, expanded
• Section 2: Expanded Egyptian knowledge. Deleted long thing about covenant.
• Section 3: Clarified lion feeding was voluntary
• Conclusion: Added section about St. Thomas

If you are interested in collaborating, or receiving acknowledgment in the planned published work, please send me a LinkedIn invitation at https://www.linkedin.com/in/ernest-meyer/

Please let me know if you don't want to receive update notifications.
Thanks for reading )

ou do realise that no human could walk on that leg? The ‘joint’ certainly wasn’t fixed, unless the meaning of ‘fixed’ was ‘fastened and immobile’. There are records of surgeons in ancient Rome dealing with brain clots quite effectively though - they were capable due to the gladiatorial traditions and centuries of bloody warfare. — I like sushi

Hi, I'm still working through your past comments, and I adjusted the text under the pictures now in the leading article to state more fully my speculation here, between the two pictures. Good point, I have to agree with you, but as the guy who did it indicates, the quality is astounding, so I speculate the Egyptians had done it before to attach prosthetics, and it was here used to reattach a leg to someone already dead. I think. It's a very important point to my main hypothesis, so I do want to get this right.

Also I added the link you provided about guilt and shame in greece and adjusted the text. And if you'd like an acknowledgment, I'm glad to include it. I do plan to get it published eventually )

And I added a picture of lion feeding, which I think rather important because it shows one who changed his mind at the last minute and was allowed to leave.

I’m pretty sure that many pagans were put to death too for refusing to give offerings to some other deity. Christians are likely singled out today because Christianity took on many other traditions and rituals of the time as its own. — I like sushi

Ah. Well as you might have seen from the picture and above text I added, at least in some cases it was entirely voluntary, lol.

As a comparable ‘authority’ I do see ‘patriotism’ as being almost identical to ’religious piety’ - in some modern cases they are very much entwined. To die for your country to me is only slightly less different than dying for some deity. I think in both situations it is a combination of protecting your sense of identity - place in the world (holding to your ‘axis mundi’) - and holding to certain sets of principles and ethics that seem commonly enough represented in the ‘authority’ figure (institutional or otherwise). — I like sushi

Now that's an interesting thought. Protecting one's identity. In fact I think we converge there. Patriots die for their country because they are born there, and Christians are saints because that's where they chose to put their hearts. One could say, one has no choice what country one's born in, but patriots are patriots in all countries, so I guess they'd probably be patriots somewhere else if they were born somewhere else. So one has two parallel cases there, one where people identify with the place of their physical birth, and the other, with their spiritual rebirth. How interesting!

I like your axis mundi too.

Before then, the Romans were generally quite tolerant, provided the cult of the emperor or spirit of Rome was honored and there was peace and order and taxes paid. There were certain pagan cults the Romans felt outlandish and dangerous and were banned (e.g. Druidism), but for the most part you could worship whatever god you wanted, and it wasn't unusual for a person to worship several gods, and be initiates of more than one of the "mystery religions" such as those of Isis, Magna Mater and Mithras. Some even worshipped Jesus along with other figures such as Appollonius of Tyana and traditional pagan gods such as Asclepius. — Ciceronianus the White

As long as your religion paid tribute to Rome in some sort of way, and paid taxes, they seemed to be ok with whatever you prayed to or whatever ritual you wanted. — schopenhauer1

Do either of you know something about why Saul decided to go on his rampage before he became Paul? I do remember being told it was kind of his own deal, but I cant remember more about it.

It’s not a new idea. Many people have commented about how ‘religion’ is something like an extension of a ‘nationalistic identity’.

Do other peole say the dogma of religion is like the laws of science or the books of lawyers?