Page 3 of 3

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:36 pm
by Ragnar
daibanjo wrote:Also I'm interested in history and the growth of Christianity is a subject that continues to fascinate me.
Aye, I am curious as to how a couple of fisherman and the bastard son of an out of work carpenter managed to achieve world domination in about 50 years.

(I seem to remember that Britain had a monestry as early as 51C.E?)

Maybe they just got lucky when they hired their literary agent.

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:01 am
by Willow
Well Ragnar there are a couple of theories as to why it caught on.

One of the explanations I find most interesting, is that because Chistianity was an urban religion, very early on Christians began caring for the poor and sick who were subject to the plagues and epidemics that often occurred in city slums. This lead to the early Christians buiding up immunities to amny of the diseases and they had lower overall mortality rates and longer life expectencies. Seeing this, people joined nonstop and the orphans of those who died were often left with the christians. As well in the early church women made up many of the converts, so they would teach their children.

Di, you are right, Christianity was totally a Jewish sect for the beginning of its life, I don't even think the word Christian appears in the bible (I might be wrong). I am not sure if it started right away as a power grab, but eventually it ended up that way.

Have you ever read a history of Christianity by David Chidester? It is a very thorugh recounting of that history (most of which you probably already know). He can be a little more on the side of the church sometimes, but if there is a fact about christianity, he usually has it in there. textbooky, but good nonetheless.

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:48 am
by underlilith
So.. if i publish my beliefs in a book in about 20 or so years, you think i could make a religion out of it? :lol:

(that's a joke by the way)

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:00 pm
by Dark Waters
It's only a joke sort of.

Too many have done exactly that not only with variations of Christianity and Islam but with all the Pagan "beliefs" out there that have been published.

When I look at a book, I can tell a lot about them from their introduction. I look for ones that outright say something along the lines of "this is the path and the ways that worked for us, but everyone has different ways of looking at things and each has their own path."

I've seen some that say anyone who didn't do it their way was a fraud, ones that said you had to be "initiated" by a member of the opposite sex, and one I flipped through out of morbid facination that had an elaborate bondage scenario as the required initiation.

Unfortunately, those are people that are just living out their fantasies but have managed to build a cult around themselves for no other reason than they were published. And far too many in this world are looking for a new form of faith, or even an old one, because the main ones have left them unfulfilled and wanting. But it is also those books that give the rest of us a bad name.

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:09 pm
by Scathach
underlilith wrote:So.. if i publish my beliefs in a book in about 20 or so years, you think i could make a religion out of it? :lol:

(that's a joke by the way)
Actually, you probably can.The problem with this is that religious founders "tend" to come to bad ends. Not only that, you'll surely get slapped with the label of "cult", and the full force of society will come down on you. Still, the book, "The 78 Laws of Power", gives pretty good instructions as to how to do just that. Doing what it says though, will probably condemn your soul for all eternity, at the very least, it will turn you into one of the biggest,(oh, that's right, there's a censoring program on this site), in history.

Yes, I know it was a joke, but I just couldn't resist :evil:

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:42 am
by daibanjo
underlilith wrote:So.. if i publish my beliefs in a book in about 20 or so years, you think i could make a religion out of it? :lol:
Remember Joe Smith and the book of Mormon. Didn't take him 20 years but they shot him.
That happens a lot.

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:00 pm
by Arcanum Owl

If I ever wrote a book based on my beliefs I'd probably be the first to include proper referencing to books that actually do exist.
lol Personally I found the first written account of the supposed King Arthur by that Gregory of Monmoth which used 1 main manuscript for all his referencing, a manuscript which was reported to either not exist or was destroyed 200 yrs prior. (If my memory serves that was his name)

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:33 am
by daibanjo
I know you'll (shrug) again but I have to respond to Arcanum Owl.
You referred to the Bishop of St Asaph, Geoffrey of Monmouth. About 1136 AD he compiled the "Historia Rex Brittanniae" The history of the kings of Britain. His references to Arthur came from Two main sources, The works of a monk named Gildas who lived in the mid 6th century and oral tradition. He himself was a Breton, from north west France. Their language is similar enough and would have been even more so back then, that he would have no problem with Welsh. Very little was written down back then, Though there is a reference to Arthur in the 6th century poem by Aneurin "Y Gododdin"
Most of the history and lore of those days was handed down by the Bards. The poets and storytellers of the time. The method the Bards used to remember their lore and stories was in the use of Triads. They were known as "Y Trioedd Ynys Prydain" The Triads of the Island of Britain. These mnemonics were written down and contain many references to Arthur and his companions. For example;

Three Fortunate Concealments of the Island of Britain:
The Head of Bran the Blessed, son of Llyr, which was concealed in the White Hill in London, with its face towards France. And as long as it was in the position in which it was put there, no Saxon Oppression would ever come to this Island; The second Fortunate Concealment: The Dragons in Dinas Emrys, which Lludd son of Beli concealed; And the third: the Bones of Gwerthefyr the Blessed, in the Chief Ports of this Island. And as long as they remained in that concealment, no Saxon Oppression would ever come to this Island. And they were the Three Unfortunate Disclosures when these were disclosed. And Gwrtheyrn the Thin disclosed the bones of Gwerthefyr the Blessed for the love of a woman. That was Ronnwen the pagan woman; And it was he who disclosed the Dragons; And Arthur disclosed the Head of Bran the Blessed from the White Hill, because it did not seem right to him that this Island should be defended by the strength of anyone, but by his own.

Three Unrestrained Ravagings of the Island of Britain:
The first of them when Medrawd came to Arthur's Court at Celliwig in Cornwall; he left neither food nor drink in the court that he did not consume. And he dragged Gwenhwyfar from her royal chair, and then he struck a blow upon her; The second Unrestrained Ravaging when Arthur came to Medrawd's court. He left neither food nor drink in the court; And the third Unrestrained Ravaging when Aeddan the Wily came to the court of Rhydderch the Generous at Alclud [Dumbarton]; he left neither food nor drink nor beast alive.

So there were numerous references that Geoffrey could use in peicing together the story of Arthur.