Christianity and Science

[Perun]

Originally Posted by son of Roderic

The people who force others into their ways by any means necessary are the bad people.

So I take it you will also condemn these activities of the pagans?

"But there was another side to Roman tolerance. The ordinary activities of the Roman authorities both in Italy and in the provinces implied continuous attention to the approval of the gods and continuous participation of the gods in the public life of the Romans….The tolerant could turn intolerant with little warning. In the second century A.D., we are told by Ulpian, there were laws condemning to death those who consulted astrologers about the health, that is, expectation of life, of the emperors(Collatio Legum Mosaicarum et Romanarum 15.2.2). As Juvenal observed(6. 560), no mathematicians can claim true inspiration without being condemned. The Roman authorities either centrally or peripherally could take steps which, to say the least, were unexpected."
-- Arnaldo Momigliano On Pagans, Jews, and Christians pg.123-4

[etoile noir]

Originally Posted by Perun

Actually much of Dan Brown's "fiction" is based off the theories of Elaine Pagels, who is given credit she doesnt deserve as a scholar.

The book is named after da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper, therefore one must look at da Vinci's intentions, or rather our interpretations of them.

Dan Brown makes the claim that the individual seated at the right hand of Jesus in da Vinci's "Last Supper" is not, as commonly understood, the Apostle John, but rather, Mary Magdalene, who would be Jesus' wife.
Amid Leonardo's copious writings, very little reveals his personal thoughts and feelings. Artists generally do not look to be remembered through their diaries, notebooks or doodling pads. One thing for sure, nothing in Leonardo's writings suggests that the person next to Jesus is anyone other than John.

Brown capitalizes on Leonardo's soft-featured, beardless depiction of John to offer his fantastic claim that we are dealing with a woman. Of course, if St. John were really Mary Magdalene, we may well ask which of the apostles excused himself at the critical moment.

But the real problem stems from our lack of familiarity with "types." In his Treatise on Painting, Leonardo explains that each figure should be painted according to his station and age. A wise man has certain characteristics, an old woman others, and children others still.

A classic type, common to many Renaissance paintings, is the "student." A favored follower, a protégé or disciple, is always portrayed as very youthful, long-haired and clean-shaven; the idea being that he has not yet matured to the point where he must find his own way.

Throughout the Renaissance, artists portray St. John in this fashion. He is the "disciple Jesus loved", the only one who will be at the foot of the cross. He is the ideal student. To the Renaissance artist the only way to show St. John was as a beardless youth, with none of the hard, determined physiognomy of men. The "Last Supper" of Ghirlandaio and Andrea del Castagno show a similarly soft, young John.

Leonardo's innovation lies not in his depiction of John, but rather in the dynamism of his composition. Unlike his predecessors who showed a group of men talking around a table, Leonardo selects the most dramatic moment of the meal. Jesus has just made the announcement, "One of you will betray me." The composition accordingly registers the shockwave that emanates from this statement.

Instead of the typical 11 apostles on the far side of the table and Judas on the side closest the viewer, Leonardo places them all on the same side, so there is a ripple effect from the isolated Christ framed by a window out toward the apostles who are grouped into threes. The most important set comprises Peter, John and Judas. Impetuous Peter thrusts himself toward John, asking him to inquire of Jesus who the betrayer will be; in doing so, he pushes Judas outward toward the viewer.

The original image (it has been heavily repainted) had Judas' head turned directly toward John, whose serene countenance manifests the assurance of his own innocence. The low forehead, and dark, brutish features of the traitor Judas stand in sharp contrast to the luminous delicacy of John.

Art aside, the book's more controversial sections find a ready audience among those skeptical of biblical axioms such as the virgin birth. Beyond the Jesus-was-married aspect of the novel, The Da Vinci Code's plot posits that Christ's divinity was a matter of a fourth-century vote, that the Catholic church conspired for centuries to suppress the sacred status of women, and that the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei sanctioned murder as a way to keep such secrets from being revealed. Except for the barest plot outlines, little in the book is new. The idea that Jesus has children through Mary Magdalene and has a bloodline has been floated in the New Age and metaphysical community for the last 40 or 50 years.

however fiction it remains, and it is worth remembering that fiction, given enough time and attention, can be presented as fact. Same had happened with "Protocols" published in Czarist Russia shortly before the Revolution.

[son of Roderic]

These are logical points that make sense to me although I'm stil not convinced enough to abondon my views and side with the Church. Perun I have not read the link but I will when I get some time later, thank you. I have not found any writings that describe pagans torturing others....... except for the Romans torturing Jesus.

[Perun]

Here's something that maybe of interest in this debate. Christian vs. Pagan approaches to science.

"Today we know that neither an unscientific view of the world nor the exaltation of ascesticism were the creatures of Christianity but were leading features of the world Christianity entered. The irrationational side of much of Greek life and thought has been brought out in many recent studies. It is clear that the vast majority of the population of the Roman Empire at any time felt the need for religion and that even among the educated the number of pure sceptics was probably always limited. Greek science virtually ceased to advance after 200 B.C. and what science there was might more properly be called occultism, connected to magic and sorcery, appealing to revelations and dealings with the supernatural. The pagan intellectuals from the Emperor Julian down, who opposed Christianity in the fourth century were no more critical or "scientific" than any Christian, and were quite as dogmatic in their adherence to Homer and other authorities as Christians were in their appeal to the Bible."
--The Conversion of Western Europe, 350-740 edited by J.N. Hillgarth pg.4-5


Hmmmnnn.....interesting. Seems the common stereotype of the Christian Middle Ages seems to apply more to pagan Greece and Rome.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Perun

Where something that maybe of interest in this debate. Christian vs. Pagan approaches to science.


Hmmmnnn.....interesting. Seems the common stereotype of the Christian Middle Ages seems to apply more to pagan Greece and Rome.

Umm... no, and here's why.

Greek science virtually ceased to advance after 200 B.C.

At that time, they were conquered by the Roman empire. This held the process of Greek science, but, the center of scientific progress shifted to Rome.

In Rome, the emphasis was on war. For example, during the Roman wars with Persia, the technology of siege equipment became as advanced as it ever got.

[Perun]

I'll reply later to Awar.