[quote name='acharya' date='05 May 2010 - 06:12 AM' timestamp='1273019682' post='106235']Ramana ji,
I do not think Christianity existed as a Socio-political ideology (akin to Islam OR modern Church) until few decades prior to conversion of Constantine. Hence, the loss of focus by early christians, seem to be a far-fetched assumption (IMHO). Western Christianity (Catholic Church and later ramifications which happened to the west of Danube River Basin) is political successor of Western Roman Empire. The Christianity was altered to suit the political objectives of Rome, and not vice-versa.[/quote]To declare the alleged 'brand of' christianism from Constantine's reign onward to be the "actual origin" of the woes that christianism has inflicted on the world is that same ongoing self-delusion/Indian apologetics for christianism as finding the Missionaries/the Church/the Evangelists/the Pope/Vatican/subcult X of christianism/Pauline christianism are "to blame" (versus christianism/non-existent jeebus itself which is always kept innocent). It is "but the socio-political ideology aspect that it has gained since then" that is now to be held responsible? Grand self-delusion.
To charge uniquely "christianism from Constantine on" is like, in the Indian case, charging just "christianism from Sonia onwards" for the same. As if christianism prior to Sonia had never terrorised and never attempted absolute power and christoterror.
Constantine was merely the consequence of christianism gaining power. *
1. Christianism had certainly been trying the same before. For example, it had attempted to gain imperial power (which meant it could use that power to stifle everything else) in Diocletian's time too. ADDED: via emperor Diocletian's converted wife and daughter, see 2 posts down.
Helena was a foot in the door as much as Sonia and her brood are in India. And Helena was very much a believer in christianism. Ignorant and dangerous and willing to do anything for it. Like all christians ambitious for christianism's sake are.
The church worked with Constantine like the church worked with his mother Helena. (And of course Helena worked with Constantine.) Same as the church had tried under Diocletian (but in that earlier situation christianism was too forward and ambitious and overshot itself.)
Christianism is the one purpose that drove them all. They did it for the jeebus lie. They were false, they murdered, they lied, they conspired, they did all that and more. But they did it for christianism. They *believed* the jeebus lie. Even while playing cryptochristist (as Constantine did for a time).
* "Constantine was merely the consequence of christianism gaining power."
Hmmm. Need an analogy. Like Julian is the human embodiment of Hellenismos (Hellenismos' natural anti-body - brilliant, indomitable, powers of regeneration - when an unsubverted Hellenismos is faced with prolonged christianism), Constantine is the embodiment of christianism: i.e. the absolute monarch when it is a christian is a bloody tyrant. Absolute power (= in a sense what the foremost seat of the Roman Empire meant) when in christian hands is universal tyranny and the end of life as heathens know and value it.
If Constantine had not been, or had not succeeded, christianism would have tried again. And again - until it produced another constantine for its cause - unless christianism were itself to be destroyed.
People should read how christians (=embodied christianism) of the empire thought about their religion and where it was meant to be. And read about how the conscious and alert GrecoRomans thought about the sort of fundamental threat christianism posed.
The christians (=christianism): aimed for christian jihad of the known world. To convert the Dar-ul-harb of Rome into a christian theocracy: "Rome for christ (or we'll burn it to the ground. If jeebus can't have it, then no one can!)"
In time, the GrecoRomans realised this.
Indians have had more time to think and ponder on it, more examples of christian total war staring them in the face, and then they - wait for it - come to the profound conclusion that it wasn't actually "true christianism", it was "(post) Constantine christianism" which "wasn't really (representative of) the 'true christianism'".
tanding ovation: <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />
2. Christian terrorism and intolerance was there from the first. Before Constantine and his gaining power, christianism was famous for terrorising the Hellenes of the empire. Christians regularly vandalised and burnt temples to the Olympic Gods (and temples of other Gods in the Mediterranean/Levant). Just as christians in India and Korea have done since even before gaining political power in S Korea/India.
Christians screeched putrid lies about the Gods of the empire to taunt the pluralistic and (overly) tolerant GrecoRomans before christians had the political power to do so with impunity. (IIRC Roman courts at times dismissed all the false MF Hussein/Doniger-like anti-Hellenistic foul-mouthedness of christians with the usual laissez-faire old Roman statement "The Gods may defend themselves".) Same as in India where the christians have since the start been speaking and publishing anti-Hindu lies - pamphlets, books and more fictions.
The Traditionalists of the empire slowly learnt to loathe and hate christianism and christians for their utter intolerance and consequent incorrigible destructiveness. This was WELL BEFORE christianism ever got political power.
The angelsk-speaking Indian (would-be) 'intellectuals' - BR was it? - will never learn from history. (And they would keep others ignorant too with their pontifications on "ignore history as it really had happened; let's pretend what I say holds true. We will 'explain' it all with a socio-political model/reasoning. We're not laughable communitwits to resort to inferior socio-economic explanations for everything.")
Where was I. Oh yes. In a huff.
Indians will never learn from history. Then live to learn it first-hand.
Christianism is about its ideology ("religion") - not to be disguised and excused under terms like "socio/politics" and (unmotivated/random) "imperialism". The history of christianism is explained by the ideology. People should stop ignoring its central and defining characteristic, as if the elephant in the living room will magically disappear if we go about it as if it wasn't there.
The politics is a consequence of the religion. Need to stop excusing it. Need to stop creating delusions about it and deluding others with it.
Fortunately, there exist historians (e.g. DE, EN, FR) - scholars, not armchair pontificators - who have written books on what *actually* happened. It's known history after all: there are *first-hand* ancient sources they can work with, as opposed to hypotheses and hand-waving on "what could have been, therefore it maybe was?" type conjecture. But to read those works with equanimity, one would need to let go of pet theories on christianism ("It was Paul!" "No no no, dude, I've figured it out: it was Constantine! See, my copy of Da Da Vinci code says - when you hold it against the moonlight in this angle, while standing on one leg and squinting until you're permanently immune to all useful history books...") - theories that are successful in one thing: not presenting history, but letting christianism off the hook for christianism's bloody, relentless history.
Bah. How long will the self-and-mass-delusion go on for.
I do not think Christianity existed as a Socio-political ideology (akin to Islam OR modern Church) until few decades prior to conversion of Constantine. Hence, the loss of focus by early christians, seem to be a far-fetched assumption (IMHO). Western Christianity (Catholic Church and later ramifications which happened to the west of Danube River Basin) is political successor of Western Roman Empire. The Christianity was altered to suit the political objectives of Rome, and not vice-versa.[/quote]To declare the alleged 'brand of' christianism from Constantine's reign onward to be the "actual origin" of the woes that christianism has inflicted on the world is that same ongoing self-delusion/Indian apologetics for christianism as finding the Missionaries/the Church/the Evangelists/the Pope/Vatican/subcult X of christianism/Pauline christianism are "to blame" (versus christianism/non-existent jeebus itself which is always kept innocent). It is "but the socio-political ideology aspect that it has gained since then" that is now to be held responsible? Grand self-delusion.
To charge uniquely "christianism from Constantine on" is like, in the Indian case, charging just "christianism from Sonia onwards" for the same. As if christianism prior to Sonia had never terrorised and never attempted absolute power and christoterror.
Constantine was merely the consequence of christianism gaining power. *
1. Christianism had certainly been trying the same before. For example, it had attempted to gain imperial power (which meant it could use that power to stifle everything else) in Diocletian's time too. ADDED: via emperor Diocletian's converted wife and daughter, see 2 posts down.
Helena was a foot in the door as much as Sonia and her brood are in India. And Helena was very much a believer in christianism. Ignorant and dangerous and willing to do anything for it. Like all christians ambitious for christianism's sake are.
The church worked with Constantine like the church worked with his mother Helena. (And of course Helena worked with Constantine.) Same as the church had tried under Diocletian (but in that earlier situation christianism was too forward and ambitious and overshot itself.)
Christianism is the one purpose that drove them all. They did it for the jeebus lie. They were false, they murdered, they lied, they conspired, they did all that and more. But they did it for christianism. They *believed* the jeebus lie. Even while playing cryptochristist (as Constantine did for a time).
* "Constantine was merely the consequence of christianism gaining power."
Hmmm. Need an analogy. Like Julian is the human embodiment of Hellenismos (Hellenismos' natural anti-body - brilliant, indomitable, powers of regeneration - when an unsubverted Hellenismos is faced with prolonged christianism), Constantine is the embodiment of christianism: i.e. the absolute monarch when it is a christian is a bloody tyrant. Absolute power (= in a sense what the foremost seat of the Roman Empire meant) when in christian hands is universal tyranny and the end of life as heathens know and value it.
If Constantine had not been, or had not succeeded, christianism would have tried again. And again - until it produced another constantine for its cause - unless christianism were itself to be destroyed.
People should read how christians (=embodied christianism) of the empire thought about their religion and where it was meant to be. And read about how the conscious and alert GrecoRomans thought about the sort of fundamental threat christianism posed.
The christians (=christianism): aimed for christian jihad of the known world. To convert the Dar-ul-harb of Rome into a christian theocracy: "Rome for christ (or we'll burn it to the ground. If jeebus can't have it, then no one can!)"
In time, the GrecoRomans realised this.
Indians have had more time to think and ponder on it, more examples of christian total war staring them in the face, and then they - wait for it - come to the profound conclusion that it wasn't actually "true christianism", it was "(post) Constantine christianism" which "wasn't really (representative of) the 'true christianism'".
tanding ovation: <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> 2. Christian terrorism and intolerance was there from the first. Before Constantine and his gaining power, christianism was famous for terrorising the Hellenes of the empire. Christians regularly vandalised and burnt temples to the Olympic Gods (and temples of other Gods in the Mediterranean/Levant). Just as christians in India and Korea have done since even before gaining political power in S Korea/India.
Christians screeched putrid lies about the Gods of the empire to taunt the pluralistic and (overly) tolerant GrecoRomans before christians had the political power to do so with impunity. (IIRC Roman courts at times dismissed all the false MF Hussein/Doniger-like anti-Hellenistic foul-mouthedness of christians with the usual laissez-faire old Roman statement "The Gods may defend themselves".) Same as in India where the christians have since the start been speaking and publishing anti-Hindu lies - pamphlets, books and more fictions.
The Traditionalists of the empire slowly learnt to loathe and hate christianism and christians for their utter intolerance and consequent incorrigible destructiveness. This was WELL BEFORE christianism ever got political power.
The angelsk-speaking Indian (would-be) 'intellectuals' - BR was it? - will never learn from history. (And they would keep others ignorant too with their pontifications on "ignore history as it really had happened; let's pretend what I say holds true. We will 'explain' it all with a socio-political model/reasoning. We're not laughable communitwits to resort to inferior socio-economic explanations for everything.")
Where was I. Oh yes. In a huff.
Indians will never learn from history. Then live to learn it first-hand.
Christianism is about its ideology ("religion") - not to be disguised and excused under terms like "socio/politics" and (unmotivated/random) "imperialism". The history of christianism is explained by the ideology. People should stop ignoring its central and defining characteristic, as if the elephant in the living room will magically disappear if we go about it as if it wasn't there.
The politics is a consequence of the religion. Need to stop excusing it. Need to stop creating delusions about it and deluding others with it.
Fortunately, there exist historians (e.g. DE, EN, FR) - scholars, not armchair pontificators - who have written books on what *actually* happened. It's known history after all: there are *first-hand* ancient sources they can work with, as opposed to hypotheses and hand-waving on "what could have been, therefore it maybe was?" type conjecture. But to read those works with equanimity, one would need to let go of pet theories on christianism ("It was Paul!" "No no no, dude, I've figured it out: it was Constantine! See, my copy of Da Da Vinci code says - when you hold it against the moonlight in this angle, while standing on one leg and squinting until you're permanently immune to all useful history books...") - theories that are successful in one thing: not presenting history, but letting christianism off the hook for christianism's bloody, relentless history.
Bah. How long will the self-and-mass-delusion go on for.