Quote:The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behavior; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another….We are the state, and we shall continue to be the state until we have created the institutions that form a real community and society of men. – Gustav Landauer, Schwache Stattsmanner, Schwacheres Volk!, June, 1910



Wed 29 Aug 2007: Irrationality in argument



The truth is not found on the page, but is a wayward sprite that bursts forth from the readers mind for reasons of its own. I once thought that the Truth was a set comprised of all the things that were true, and the big truth could be obtained by taking all its component propositions and evaluating them until nothing remained. I would approach my rhetorical battles as a logical reductionist, tearing down, atomizing, proving, disproving, discarding falsehoods and reassembling truths until the Truth was pure, golden and unarguable. But then, when truth matters most, when truth is the agent of freedom, I stood before Justice and with truth, lost freedom. Here was something fantastical, unbelievable and impossible, you could prove that (A => <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> and (B => C) and (C => D) and (D => F) Justice would nod its head and agree, but then, when you turned to claim your coup de grace, A => F irrevocably, Justice would demur and revoke the axiom of transitivity, for Justice will not be told when F stands for freedom. Transitivity is evoked when Justice imagines F and finding the dream a pleasurable one sets about gathering cushions to prop up their slumber. Here then is the truth about the Truth; the Truth is not bridge, sturdy to every step, a marvel of bound planks and supports from the known into the unknown, but a surging sea of smashed wood, flotsam and drowning sailors. So first, always pick your poetic metaphor, to make the reader want to believe, then the facts, and — miracle! — transitivity will descend from heaven, invoked as justification for prejudice.



Often we suffer to read, “But if we believe X then we’ll have to…”, or “If we believe X it will lead to…”. This has no reflection on the veracity of X and so we see that outcomes are treated with more reverence than the Truth. It stings us, but natural selection has spun its ancestral yarns from physically realized outcomes, robustly eschewing the vapor thread of platonism as an abomination against the natural order, fit only for the gossip of monks and the page.



Yet just as we feel all hope is lost and we sink back into the miasma, back to the shadow world of ghosts and gods, a miracle arises; everywhere before the direction of self interest is known, people yearn to see where its compass points and then they hunger for truth with passion and beauty and insight. He loves me. He loves me not. Here then is the truth to set them free. Free from the manipulations and constraints of the mendacious. Free to choose their path, free to remove the ring from their noses, free to look up into the infinite voids and choose wonder over whatever gets them though. And before this feeling to cast blessings on the profits and prophets of truth, on the liberators and martyrs of truth, on the Voltaires, Galileos, and Principias of truth, on the Gutenburgs, Marconis and Internets of truth, on those serial killers of delusion, those brutal, driven and obsessed miners of reality, smashing, smashing, smashing every rotten edifice until all is ruins and the seeds of the new.

Quote:Thomas is a problem:



(1) First - is that Thomas is known within inner Church lore as the "doubting Thomas", he was not an easy and gullible disciple. The Gospel of Thomas fell into the so-called discarded "Gospels" after the Romanization of Chritianity under Constantine and his favourite Bishops. Thomas could have represented the early "Gnostic" sects within Chritianity (and perhaps as speculated by some, closer to historical Jesus if any)



(2) Significantly he is the only one named to be in association with India in the New Testament. Jews of teh first century are not unlikely to have travelled to south India. But his "doubting Thomas" background and "Gnostic" shades - makes India a more poignant connection. He could have had earlier exposure to Indic thought and hence took refuge back there. Or he joined the early Christian movement from that original attraction for "Gnostic" or "Indic" tenets. He might have found it impossible to continue with the intensely political/fanatical and increasingly Judaic form of the Gnostic movement as Roman repression intensified in the lead up to the final Roman action on the Jews.



The Roman Catholics or EJ's in general may have severe theological and teleological problems with Thomas in India - for strategic reasons obviously.

Quote:Anyway its diversion from my intent in briging up Thomas: namely to put the others in their place.



Also can you expand on his uniqueness in your blog or India Forum? If later the Historicity of Jesus thread

Quote:ramana ji,

very very seriously we should explore the possibility of early Christianity being an Indian export. Buddhism->Mani->Gnostic->Roman X-tian. At least two trade routes - one along the fertile crescent -Gulf/Iran-AFG sector, the other Arabian Sea->Red Sea-Egypt->Alexandria would have carried the "gospel" from India. I will not divert - I understand your reason.

Quote:Hollwel was born in Dublin, Ireland in 1711 and joined as a surgeon in East India Company inB engal. For a very short period he was a Governor ofB engal and then soon he left India.He died in 1798 in England. He didnt know Sanskrit.

In 1767, and 1771 he added second and third part to this book. In1779 he re-issued second and third part with altered title-A Review of the Original Principles, Religious and Moral, of the Ancient Bram ins.L astly in 1786 he brought out a tract titled- Dissertation on the Origin ,N ature, and Pursuits ofI ntelligent beings and on Devine Providence, Religion and religious worship. He followed orthodox Deism and was an enthusiastic advocate of vegetarianism.



He was hostile to the Christian doctrine ofT rinity and to the existing structure of Church of England. Hollwel didnt agree with contemporary missionaries who wanted to make Hinduism a derivative of Christianity. He also believed that Hindus believed in one god and Deities of the pantheon were to be taken only in the figurative sense. Hollwel was translated in German in 1767 and in French in 1768





Alexander Dow born in Scotland in 1735. He was a Colonel in East India CompaniesB engal army and died in India in 1779. In 1768 he translated 17th century historian Firishtas History on India into English titled-History of Hindostan. In 1772 he added third volume to this book. Dow didnt know Sanskrit. Dows dissertation on Hindus appeared in French in 1769.



Both Hollwel and Dow were widely reviewed and discussed inB ritain. Their description of Hinduism had very little new dimensions. What had been described in the early two centuries writings of Missionaries and travelers on Hinduism had reflected in their writings. [size="6"]However, to a greater extent they accepted originality of Hindu philosophy, independent of Christianity.[/size]





Voltaires criticism of Christian doctrine is well known. He was attracted to Hinduism in 1760 when he was presented a copy of Ezour Vedam, a forgery perpetrated by the Society of Jesus. Voltair had read both Hollwel and Dow and also was influenced by their description of Hinduism.



Voltairs Philosophie de lhistoire was first published in 1765, which had most abrasive anti-christian statements.T here is no doubt that writings of Hollwel and Dow had influenced Voltair in formulating his views on antiquities of Religions. He challenged the antiquity of Jews and was convinced the Hindus were most ancient people on the earth.

[size="6"]

This recognition to the Hinduism as an oldest religion on earth obviously put Judaism and Christianity as relatively recent religions in the history of mankind. Halheds writings also tacitly supported Hindu antiquity and originality.T his position of Hinduism was obviously not acceptable not only to the mainstream Christianity but even the scientists of the period couldnt digest this view (Pristley).[/size] All future Indology starting with William Jones till the beginning of 20th century should be assessed on this 18th century image of Hinduism portrayed by early European Indologists

Quote:NathanielB rassey Halhed was a son of a Director ofB ank of England and had received training at Harrow and Christchurch. He arrived in India in 1771 as a writer in East India CompanysB engal Service. He left India with Warren Hestings in 1785.Halhed was a linguist with interest in development of languages. He had learned enough Persian. He was the first European to see a connection betweenB engali and Sanskrit. His knowledge of Sanskrit was probably limited. He wrote a Gentoo codein 1776.



Gentoo code was commissioned by Warren Hestings by appointing eleven Pandits for the job.T hey were instructed to draw on the best authorities in Sanskrit.T his group of Pandits produced a code in Sanskrit language , which was translated into Persian and from Persian it was rendered into English by Halhed.T he work of translation was complete by Halhed in 1775. The Code was published in England in 1776. The Code was a failureand could never gain the confidence of the people and thus was never accepted as final authority.



Halheds preface to the Codein English is source ofinformation about Hindus and their religion.T he code was translated in French and German languages in 1778. Halhed also wrote a Gramm ar of Bengal Languagein 1778. In the preface of this book Halhed for the time pointed astonishing similarities of Sanskrit words with those of Persian, Arabic and evenL atin and Greek. He developed these ideas further and in a manusript written in 1779 he says



every part of speech, and every distinction , which is to be found in either Greek orL atin, and that in some particulars it is more copious than either.. I do not attempt to ascertain as a fact, either Greek orL atin are derived from this language; but I give a few reasons wherein such a conjecture might be founded: and I am sure that it is a better claim to the honour of a parent than, Phoenician or Hebrew

Quote:CHRISTIANITY THE YOUNGEST RELIGION



It is a sobering thought for many Christians today who presume their religion has been in existence since the start of the world, to realize that Christianity only in fact became widely known in southern Europe some 1,700 years ago, and was only accepted in northern Europe many hundreds of years after that, with the last northern European country to formally adopt Christianity being Iceland, around the year 1,000 AD.



Put another way - compared to the time frame of the existence of records of the White race - a little over 35,000 years - Christianity represents less than the last six percent this time.



THE EVOLUTION OF THE POPE



Each major town throughout the Roman world was assigned a Christian leader, called a bishop. Gradually the Bishop at Rome came to be recognized as the most important and assumed the title of "Pope" (from the Greek word meaning father).



By the seventh century AD, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, had become the spiritual leader of all Christendom and was in possession of great political power - aided by the forged Donation of Constantine. The Pope even adopted the Roman Emperors' color - purple - which to this day remains the most used color in the Catholic church.



DISPUTES ALMOST IMMEDIATE



Although there was initially only one Christian church - the Catholic church - disputes over the interpretations attached to the new cult broke out almost immediately amongst its supporters. As Christianity spread after its legalization in 313 AD, it became more and more disorganized, with serious disputes erupting amongst the various missionaries as to the true version of the creation and purpose of the new God.



One of the biggest clashes was over the concept of what was called "Arianism," (named after Arius, a Christian leader in Alexandria) or the relative position of the three components of the Christian Trinity: God, Christ and the Holy Ghost. The belief that all three of these beings were one and the same thing was challenged by Arius who argued that the Christ figure could not be God as well.



So serious was this dispute taken that the Emperor Constantine called a special meeting of all the major leaders of the religion in 325 AD, to the now famous Council of Nicaea, to discuss the problem.



At the council of Nicaea it was decided that the Arian doctrine was ungodly, and declared a heresy, with its proponents being persecuted in the name of the new God - the first of many such repressive tactics to be used by the Christian church.



THE BIBLE CREATED



However, several other disputes over doctrine made the religious leaders at Nicaea realize that if some weighty final word on the outline of their belief was not forthcoming, the religion could splinter into factions. The problem was that there was no such manual or holy book in existence - the leaders then took it upon themselves to create such a book. For this purpose they turned to whatever texts they could find.



The books now contained in the Old Testament were largely oral before 300 BC, although some had been written down by Jewish rabbis. Through contact with Jews in Ptolemaic Egypt, King Ptolemy II of Philadelphus (285-246 BC) is credited with ordering the translation of the Jewish religious books into Greek.



The Christian version of the Old Testament was only established as a comprehensive work by the scribe Origen around 250 AD, and up until that time only loose translations of the Ptolemaic Greek work formed the basis of Christian teachings.



The origins of the New Testament are very vague. By the end of the first century AD, the writings of Saul/Paul (called the Pauline Epistles) consisting of letters to the various Christian communities in Asia Minor and Rome had been established as a collection of inspired works. The gospels which make up the first part of the New Testament only emerged after the writings of Saul/Paul had become well known, and long after his death.



This is evidenced by the fact that in Paul's writings there is no mention of any other new testament book or gospel, as well as the account of what Jesus did on the night he was "betrayed" (1: Cor. 11:23) which differs substantially from the Gospel version as recounted in the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John versions.



It is clear that if the four gospels were in existence at the time when Saul/Paul wrote his epistles (around the year 55 AD), he would have at least mentioned them, or very likely have even quoted from them. The earliest existent gospel consists of fragments of the Gospel of John, dating from about 100 AD, and which is in Greek.



By 200 AD, the Church had developed the New Testament in its present form, although still written in various languages, including Greek and Hebrew, apart from the Book of Revelations. Where this last chapter came from no-one knows for sure, but by the 4th Century it had been included in the New Testament anyway.



The compilation of the New Testament omitted several early Christian manuscripts which did not fit in with the other books. The most famous of these "left out" books is the Gospel of St. Thomas, probably because the events described therein are at quite some variance with the events described in the four more well known gospels.



The Council of Nicaea went a long way to formalizing the Bible as Christians know it today - all in an attempt to prevent the church from splitting again as it nearly did over the Arian controversy. In this attempt they were to fail, and some of the most grievous conflicts to come in Europe would be precisely over different interpretations of the Bible.



THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY - RESISTED BY BALTS, SLAVS AND GERMANS



When the Roman Empire in the West collapsed (see chapter 18) Christianity had been spread throughout its former dominions, with the exception of the Germans, the Balts, and a significant section of the Slavs.



The Germanic tribes, who participated in the sacking of Rome at the formal end of that empire, did not destroy the Roman Catholic Church alongside with the Roman state, partly as a result of them viewing the religion of Rome as being part of the great original cultural tradition of that Empire - which it was not.



The leader of the church in Rome, the Pope, therefore survived the Germanic invasions, and went on to become an important political player in his own right.



The Church itself lost no time in sending Christian missionaries to the pagan tribes, the most famous of them being Wufilas (311 - 383 AD) who worked amongst the Visigoths.



Another famous missionary was Patrick, who although born in Britain, went to Ireland and became the Christianizer of that island, later being made a saint by the church for his efforts.

Quote:COERCIVE CHRISTIANITY TAKES ROOT



With the use of violent and bloody coercion, Saxon and German paganism was quite literally killed off, and most of the survivors became Christians more out of fear than out of genuine conviction. Christianity finally spread to the Goths themselves, through a Christian slave named Wulfila, who translated the Bible into Gothic.



Before the end of the fourth century, Christianity had spread to the Vandals, the Burgundians, the Lombards and other German tribes within the direct sphere of influence of the Western Roman Empire.



By the year 550 AD, the only non-Christian tribes were to be found in Bavaria and those parts of Germany north from there - including virtually all of the Danes, Scandinavians, Balts and Slavs to the east.



WHITE PAGAN ORIGINS OF CHRISTMAS AND EASTER



Through sheer terror rather than logical persuasion, Christianity then became the dominant religion of the previously pagan Europe - yet because they never quite succeeded in rooting out some pagan customs, they quietly adopted them.



Easter, for example, comes from the old pagan goddess of fertility, Eoster (or Ostara), who used as her symbols the egg and the rabbit - potent signs of fertility. Most Christians today have no idea where their Easter rabbit comes from, or why they have Easter Eggs.



The ancient north European feast of Eoster marked the start of Spring in Europe - and as this celebration was too deeply ingrained in these Gothic tribes to remove, the Christianizing church elders simply took this feast and in arbitrary fashion made it into the date of Jesus Christ's crucifixion.



The same happened with the Winter solstice - originally a pagan celebration to mark the turning point of winter - the longest night of winter - with a fire and a pine tree. Solstice was then combined with the date of Jesus Christ's birth, again in an arbitrary fashion.



However, the church was for a long time uneasy with the pagan undertones of the celebration - such as the pine tree, which is native to Scandinavia, which is nowhere to be found in the Bible - and this led to the church officially banning the celebration of Christmas no less than three times - all of course unsuccessfully.

Quote:In Europe, the cross went north and east as the centuries unrolled: from the Dingle Peninsula to Estonia, and from the Alps to Lapland, ranging in time from Roman Britain and Gaul in the third and fourth centuries to the conversion of peoples in the Baltic area a thousand years later. These episodes of conversion form the basic narrative here. History encourages the belief that the adoption of Christianity was somehow irresistible, but specialists show the underside of the process by turning the spotlight from the missionaries, who recorded their triumphs, to the converted, exploring their local situations and motives.

Quote:*Starred Review*



The fifth-century Christian church faced a doctrinal issue, now largely forgotten, that precipitated intramural Christian savagery unparalleled until the 11-centuries-later Thirty Years’ War. The bone of contention was the nature of Jesus Christ. That he wasn’t a mere man was indisputable. But was he a human-divine cross-breed, so to speak, or was he purely divine and his human body an illusion? Neither was accepted, but the conclusion of the council of Chalcedon in 451 that he was fully divine and fully human—that is, said dissidents, of two natures—incensed those who held he was of one nature, entirely divine. The fight broke out well before Chalcedon, entailing the death-from-assault of the patriarch of Constantinople during the 449 council of Ephesus, thereafter disowned as the “Gangster Synod.” Chalcedon eventually triumphed, but not until well after 250 years of intermittent violence in which monks behaved like the Waffen SS. Jenkins condenses centuries of church and imperial strife with admirable clarity despite the continuous blizzard of historical names and ecclesiastical terms the narrative entails. He suggests that this era, not the later Dark and Middle Ages, is the most violent (un-Christian?) in Christian history and that it may have lessons for the present and future conflict between Christians and Muslims over the nature of God.

Quote:• Clearly written and easily understandable by the lay reader.

• Thoroughly researched: author's points are backed by references in the writings of acknowledged scholars.

• Special features of the book: lavishly illustrated with multiple images in each illustration that show at a glance the mythic themes paralleling the bible.



This book demonstrates that the stories and themes of the Bible were part of the great mythic systems of the ancient world by u ing comparative mythology, tell tale verses in the Bible and archaeology. The abstract God of modern monotheistic Judaism, Christianity and Islam is a comparatively recent creation. In later times the myth of a messianic deliverer was combined with that of the pagan god-man who suffered a horrible, excruciating death but was physically resurrected to produce the Christ myth.