beatrice_otter: Dali's Christ of St. John of the Cross (St. John of the Cross)
2023-07-11 12:20 am

Time Travel, killing Jesus, and the religion of empire

There's a post about time travel going around tumblr, and somebody tagged that they would kill Mary before the birth of Jesus, so that Christianity wouldn't exist.

Problem is, while that might indeed kill Christianity, it would probably just mean that Constantine would slot Mithraism into his Imperial domination schemes instead.

In the late 200s AD there were two mostly-underground monotheistic mystery cults rapidly gaining adherents in the Roman Empire. There were a lot of similarities between the two, at least superficially. For example, there was a lot of emphasis on communal ritual meals. One was Christianity. The other was Mithraism. Constantine was intrigued by both. We know he was involved in Mithraism in his youth.

But what Constantine really liked the idea of using religion to unify the Roman Empire. By the 300s, the Roman Empire was beginning to fragment, with regular civil wars. Constantine came to power in one of those civil wars. He thought that if everyone worshiped the same god (instead of different gods worshiped in different places, with the Roman pantheon and emperors as a thin veneer of unity), it would help keep the whole ramshackle edifice together. (Spoiler alert: it did not.) So he picked one of the two monotheistic religions that was rapidly gaining in popularity, and encouraged people to convert to it, heaping power and wealth on (some of) them. And that's how Christianity became an imperial religion.

Christianity changed rapidly in response to that. Major parts of the religion were changed or dropped entirely. For example, until Constantine, the vast majority of Christians were strict pacifists. In most communities, soldiers were required to leave the army and find a new trade before they could be baptized. Obviously, this was unacceptable if Christianity was going to become the religion of the Roman Empire. In a straight-up choice between pacifism and Imperial power, the Christian church as a whole dropped the pacifism like a hot potato. 100 years after Constantine you have St. Augustine laying out the "Just War" theory where war is fine as long as you have a good reason for it. That's a complete 180 from everything the early Christians believed. There are many other examples of things that got dropped or changed in Christianity to make it more palatable to Imperial might.

There are a lot of toxic things in Christianity as we know it. But the thing is ... many of them come from this process of adapting their beliefs and practices to fit what Constantine (and later Emperors, and the entire power structure of the Empire) wanted Christianity to be. Namely, something tame that affirmed and enforced the existing Imperial power structure. And Christianity has been a partner and tool of the power structures of the dominant culture ever since. This is one of the reasons there's so much difference between Jesus' teachings and Christian teachings, in so many cases. In a straight-up choice between faithfulness and power ... a majority of Christians in the last two thousand years have most often chosen power.

But here's the thing. If Christianity didn't exist, that doesn't mean none of this would have happened. It just means that Constantine would probably have chosen Mithraism instead. Do you think the Mithraists would have been any less willing to take the power and wealth on offer to them, in exchange for becoming a lackey of empire? Do you think Christianity was uniquely corruptible? I don't.
beatrice_otter: WWII soldier holding a mug with the caption "How about a nice cup of RESEARCH?" (Research)
2022-12-07 08:47 pm

Is Christmas Pagan?

There’s a lot of discourse around this every year, and many of the assumptions people have about the origins of Christmas and many Christmas traditions are either flat-out untrue or have no evidence behind them, and others have truth in them but are misleading.

First is the claim that the date of Christmas is pagan in origin, that it was a co-opting of a Roman pagan holiday. This claim was made up in the 20th Century when people noticed that a) there were actually two different Roman holidays that overlapped with December 25th (Saturnalia and the Feast of the Unconquered Sun) and b) the accounts of feasting and partying for Saturnalia (we don’t have good records about the Feast of the Unconquered Sun, it was from one of the secretive mystery cults) sound a lot like the feasting and partying we do today for Christmas. There’s no evidence for this claim beyond “this sounds like it would make sense.” And there are significant problems with it.

Christmas was the last of the major holidays to be added to the Christian calendar, in the 4th Century BC; it’s not in the New Testament (unlike Easter and Pentecost, the two most theologically important holy days in the Christian calendar). We have the contemporary account of how they chose the date, which is not about pagan holidays but rather about numerology. They might have been lying, of course; but just because ancient numerology doesn’t make sense to modern people that doesn’t mean that they were lying about it. If you’re curious, here’s the story of how the calculations were made: at that time, they believed that Jesus had died on March 25. Jesus was perfect, therefore Jesus must have had a perfect life in numerological terms as well as everything else, therefore he must have died on the anniversary of his conception. (This is why Catholics celebrate the Annunciation–the day the angel came to Mary–as March 25th.) If Jesus was conceived on March 25th and had a perfect nine-month pregnancy, that puts his birth at December 25th.

As for the partying, Christmas was a time of fasting in the early church, not a time of partying. Solemn prayer and hymn-singing. No meat. Long worship services. If the date was chosen in relation to either Saturnalia or the Feast of the Unconquered Sun, the purpose was not to co-opt the pagan partying and say “hey, you can still have your midwinter parties in the Christian church!” but rather to contrast the drunken debauchery of the pagans with the sober piety of the Christians.

Christmas just wasn’t that important a date until Christianity started moving north (it shared prominence with Epiphany in the middle of winter, and was much less important than Easter). Up north, where the days are very short and everything is cold and dark, celebrating something in the middle of winter is very important to keep spirits up. And yes, the Germanic tribes and the Nordic peoples and the Slavs all had major festivals in midwinter, and many of the traditions associated with those festivals got attached to Christmas. (Trees, burning the Yule log, etc., etc.) But even up in the North where Christmas was much more important than it was in southern Europe, Christmas didn’t become The Biggest Celebration Of The Christian Year until the Victorians in the 19th Century.

Back to those pagan Germanic customs. Christian missionaries did not take those elements and incorporate them into Christmas celebrations. In fact, Christian missionaries and priests spent centuries trying to stamp those pagan elements out! They spent centuries telling people they were going to hell for still practicing paganism if they celebrated Christmas in a pagan way. For every priest who accepted or encouraged those pagan traditions, there were ten more trying diligently to stamp them out. Until eventually they gave up.

The pagan customs–trees, holly, etc.–have not survived because Christian priests co-opted and appropriated them. They have survived because the people who first practiced those customs kept them after converting, despite centuries of Christian authorities trying to stamp them out.

Rebloggable on tumblr.
beatrice_otter: I don't want to be killed because of a typo.  It would be embarrassing. (Typo)
2022-03-29 10:36 pm
Entry tags:

(no subject)

Note to fic writers: most buildings Roman Catholics use for worship are not cathedrals. They're just regular churches. It's only a cathedral if it's the church that a bishop (or higher) presides over. So there's usually only one cathedral in a region. And it's always really big and fancy with a large and ornate worship space and lots of offices for the bishop and his staff. By "large" I mean the sanctuary (worship space) is usually bigger than a football field and by "ornate" I mean the building is probably enough of a work of art that tourists come just to look at it. Some areas have large and ornate churches that are big and fancy enough they could be cathedrals, except for the fact that they don't have a bishop; those are called basilicas. Ordinary churches are much smaller and plainer, and have a lot less fine art in them. The vast majority of Roman Catholic churches are neither that big nor that fancy.

Calling an ordinary church a cathedral is sort of like calling an ordinary single-family home a palace. Both in the sense that it's absurd because it's not anywhere near big and fancy enough to be called that, but also because it implies that the place belongs to royalty. Back in the days when Europe was ruled by kings and princes, bishops were "the princes of the church."

(Also. These days, in the majority of American churches of any denomination, you are more likely to see jeans than suits. Nice slacks and a nice shirt are the most common thing to wear in most churches, but not anything as formal as a suit even on Christmas and Easter.)

beatrice_otter: Sha're in a blue veil (Shau'ri)
2017-09-20 12:04 pm

From 2016 to 2017: differences in US public opinion on diversity, immigration, and refugees

For those of you who don't know, the Barna research group is a group that focuses on researching religious trends in America.  Although they are very DEFINITELY Christian and doing this for a Christian audience, they are also quite firm in their belief that in order to make good choices people need good, reliable information to base it on.  So they're pretty good about being as fair and accurate as they can in their research practices.

Their newest finding?  That in the last year, public opinion in America has swung quite dramatically in favor of immigration, diversity, and refugees, with most population segments adding at least 10% to their approval.  And practicing Christians who believe the US should welcome refugees more than doubled between 2016 and 2017, which is why there are currently more religious leaders across the board speaking to refugee and immigration issues.  (Evangelicals are the lone holdouts, surprise, surprise.)  For example, the Christian community is pretty much united in opposition to ending or limiting the DREAM program.  Even the Evangelicals agree there.

Unfortunately, the shift doesn't seem to be from racists, nationalists, and other right-wingers changing their minds.  Where the shift seems to be coming from is the people who were undecided a year ago moving towards open-mindedness, tolerance, and compassion.  So it's not that the whole country is moving towards tolerance, it's that the people in the middle are moving leftward on this issue.  Which is good, don't get me wrong!  It just means we've got our work cut out for us to reach out to the Evangelicals and the FOX newsers and all and help them see things in a different light.

(Obviously I'm not talking to people who aren't safe or wouldn't be safe if they tried to reach out, whether psychologically or physically.
beatrice_otter: Dali's Christ of St. John of the Cross (St. John of the Cross)
2017-03-29 02:29 pm
Entry tags:

That Old-Time Religion

As a Christian, I regularly get infuriated how many people make a show of "gimme that ol' time religion" while forgetting the fourth verse:

Makes me love ev'ry body,
Makes me love ev'ry body,
Makes me love ev'ry body,
It's good enough for me.