Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Ash Wednesday - Well, it's always on a Wednesday; that's part of why
    it's called Ash Wednesday!  ;-)
    
    As I recall, traditional has it that the ashes used for imposition on
    Ash Wednesday are made from the dried palm fronds used during the previous
    year's Palm Sunday.  But I don't know why.  Mebbe somebody was feeding
    me a line on this.
    
    Elucidate, Alfred!
    
    Richard
    

    if john covert were here i'm sure he'd do a better job of
    this...
    
    ashes are a symbol of penance..as in "ashes and sackcloth"
    as they are placed on the forehead the priest says "Remember
    ...that you are dust and to dust you will return"..ashes to
    ashes and dust to dust.
    
    the ashes are indeed from the fronds of the palms from the
    previous year's Palm Sunday.
    
    peter

    
    Well I do know.  But I remember hearing about my older brother
    confusing his teachers because he used to take off Ash Wednesday
    as well as Yom Kippur and probably a blend of other religious
    holidays.  We're Protestant...but hey, why not?!!
    
    Jill ;^)

re: Note 608.0 by Alfred "Radical Centralist" 

>	Today starts Lent - the 40 days before Easter. A time of preparation.
>	For many it is a time of self denial. 

I've often heard the concept of giving things up for Lent.

Less often heard is the concept of doing extra things during Lent.  From Bible 
study, to prayer and meditation, to feeding the hungry by volunteering at a 
local food bank.

In either case, after 40 days and nights of giving up that which is harmful 
and doing that which is helpful, one might find their habits changed, so such 
growth extends well beyond Lent to one's whole life in Christ.

Peace,

Jim

From "Crossroads," the newsletter of my local church:

	The word Lent comes from a Latin word meaning "springtime" or the
"lengthening of days."  It's a period of 40 days (excluding Sundays) prior
to Easter.  Why a 40 day observance?  Because Jesus, Moses and other biblical
personages went into the wilderness for 40 days to prepare for various tasks.

Peace,
Richard

re.5

	Hmm,

The thought just occurred to me from your reply. What is the source of Lent?
It sounds like a pagan jalopy with a new paint job.

ace

    ace,
    
    Why are you mocking people who have a sincere belief in the personal
    meaning of Lent and its source in the tradition of Christianity?
    
    Pat

    
    ace,
    
    Lent is not "pagan jalopy" that the Church acquired. It
    is a tradition with a history within the Church. Certainly
    there are paganisms that have become part of the Christian
    tradition but Lent is not one of them.
    
    peter

    RE.7
    
    I'm with Pat this time. I see no point in your comment Ace. All it
    does is start the same painful process that we have had to deal with in
    this file. We seem to be starting "fresh" again....until your comment
    starts the divison among people again. Lent is important to me
    an many others in here. 
    
    Marc H.

I've met Ace in person, which I think gives me a little different slant.
Though theologically he and I differ, I don't believe Ace meant his metaphor
to be a malicious one.

Many Christian celebrations were built "on top of" popular non-Christian
observances in an attempt to replace, or perhaps to displace them.

Richard

    RE:608.10
    
    >Many Christian celebrations were built "on top of" popular
    >non-Christian observances in an attempt to replace, or perhaps 
    >to displace them.
    
    Just as a side note:  There are many pagan holiday, symbols, and
    rituals were built on Christian and Jewish traditions.  Just as 
    occult groups formed covens of 13 people to mock Jesus and the 
    Twelve.  They took much from the church and distorted and twisted it.
    
    Jill

    The problem with this string centers around whether one believes that
    paganism is an evil to be defended against or whether one believes that
    paganism is a valid religious expression.  I believe that paganism is a
    valid religious expression.  Much of the message of Easter corresponds
    with the message of earth based goddess religions.  The dieing and
    rising God, The rebirth of the fertility of the spring, the end of the
    winter slumbers, the eggs and rabbits, the dating of Easter in terms of
    the equinox and lunar calendar.  Both religions share in common the
    eternal desire of humankind to be in relationship with the divine.
    
    Patricia

    
    .12
    
    Thank you, Patricia.
    
    Dorian

>    The problem with this string centers around whether one believes that
>    paganism is an evil to be defended against or whether one believes that
>    paganism is a valid religious expression.

	Yes and No. I, for example, do not believe that paganism is evil any
	more than water is poison. Of course you can't breath water so if it
	replaces air one dies. So replacing Christianity with Paganism causes
	one to miss out on communion with God. 

	So I would no more try to talk one out of paganism than I would try
	to talk someone out of breathing water.

			Alfred

I've been advised that the word "Lent" comes from the Anglo-Saxon, not from
Latin.  The Latin for Spring is principium.

Richard

    Patricia,

    I am surprised.  Just last week I was the target of your comment that I
    want to suppress "meaningful dialog."  Nothing specific, you just
    pointed it it out in 34.406.  I bring up topics here with sincerity and
    clarity.  I do not use ridicule to belittle the beliefs of others.

    Then along comes the "pagan jalopy with a new paint job" (608.6)

    So is this "meaningful dialog" for you, Patricia?  It isn't for me.

    I suppose you found it to be so, since you try to define and defend it
    in .12.

    The beliefs you cite are perhaps a pagan perspective.  I'm not a pagan
    and claim to have no knowledge of these non-Christian beliefs.  Is
    there a PAGAN-PERSPECTIVE notes conference?
           

Hmmm.

What is a "valid religious expression"?  

I would think that a valid religious expression needs
to ben an "acceptable" religious expression.  Acceptable
to who?  to God.

Who is God and what makes religious expression acceptable
to Him?  Indeed, there is much disagreement about this here.
To believe that non-Christians (pagans) can worship/serve (have
another) god and have this be considered acceptable by the
one true (Christian) God who has revealed Himself to us must 
be considered a grand lie and I do so consider it.

Collis

    I thought Lent was what you found in your navel.
    
    -- Mike

  >...found in navel

I have a good friend who was notorious for picking lint from
his navel.  Just before he got married, we told him that
his new wife would not allow him to do this anymore.  He said,
"Ya, but now I get to pick it from her navel."  :-)

    You know, Collis, your story brings to mind the question of how one 
    becomes notorious for doing something like that (the sort of thing most
    people just don't do in front of others.)  But I'm sure I don't want to
    know.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    re .16

    > Then along comes the "pagan jalopy with a new paint job" (608.6)
    >
    > So is this "meaningful dialog" for you, Patricia?  It isn't for me.


    It may be meaningful in that the quote is:
    	"It SOUNDS LIKE a pagan jalopy with a new paint job"
    and not:
    	"It IS a pagan jalopy with a new paint job"

    Offering an opinion as an opinion can be more meaningful than asserting
    that opinion as a given truth.  When an opposing view is presented as a
    personal insight, there is the presumption that there can be a
    discussion of the issue and perhaps a consensus; hence the chance for
    "meaningful dialog".  If an opposing view is presented as a natural or
    divine fact than there is the implication that no further discussion is
    needed.
    
    This is just how I see it...
    
    		Eric

    RE: .17 Collis,
    
    			Seems to me that this country was founded on the
    precept of "religious expression".  I don't recall the word "valid" as
    being part of that....of course I may be wrong....
    
    Dave

    .16,
    
    How one could consider .12 a defense of .6 is beyond me.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard,

    What's motivating you to speak out on .16, but not on .6?

    .6 is "valid" in that Congress shall pass no law abridging it, but it
    is mocking and contemptuous in my opinion, to anyone.  Don't you possess
    an opinion to that point?

    As for .12, it defines and defends an alleged pagan association with
    Lent.  That, in my opinion, is obvious as well.

.24,

>    What's motivating you to speak out on .16, but not on .6?

I spoke to .6 in .10.

Richard

    I've not met Ace.  I have to understand what he writes from what he
    writes.

    As for Lent being a derivative of pre-Christian pagan practices, I'm
    still waiting for some evidence of that to be discussed here.

    Apparently, when it comes to the contradiction of Christian tradition,
    superficial plausibility is satisfactory in CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE for
    many.

    Patrick,

    You know, you've responded to this topic four times to complain about
    the entries of other noters, both the content and intent.  I would
    find it personally beneficial if you would explain to me what the
    source and tradition of Lent is.  I only have a rudimentary knowledge
    of the required behavioral practices from my childhood, and plead
    ignorant to knowing�when and why the tradition started.

    Reading .5 and .6, I come away with the implication that the
    Christian tradition of Lent MAY have been adopted to supplant
    contemporary pagan observances.  I have also heard such was the
    reasoning for selecting the date for Christmas.  I haven't seen anyone
    here espousing the rejection of Christian Lenten practices in favor
    of pagan ritual.  Patricia has shown tolerance for pagan observances,
    but not at the demise of Christian tradition.

    So please... shed a little light.  What is the origin of Lent?  How
    has the tradition developed?  What does it mean to you personally? 
    If the only insight that I can get from you resembles a monologue from
    Saturday Night Live's "grumpy old man", what then am I to think?


    Respectfully,

    		Eric

    A prayer for Lent...          
    
    God of times and seasons,
    you have brought us 
    again to Lent - for the 
    study of your Word, for
    the remembrance of the
    temptation of your Son,
    and for the contemplation
    of his cross.
    
    The birds know their
    seasons; forbid that we
    be blind to our times.
    
    Grant us a Lenten blessing,
    and may no one miss this
    time of growth.  We ask 
    this through Christ our Lord.
    
    		Amen
    
    From a calendar from the Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish... 

    I'm not complaining, I'm attempting to engage in a discussion.  If
    calling Lent a "pagan jalopy" doesn't merit rebuttal, then there's
    little purpose to my participation here.  I do not make an apology for
    pointing that out.

    The defense of the "pagan jalopy" without introducing facts or
    reasoning into the note needs to be pointed out as well.

    Lent is a 40 day season of the Christian liturgy.  It is a period of
    the year set aside for reflection upon the passion, death, and
    resurrection of Jesus Christ and personal repentance.  It is a period
    of the specific actions of prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.

    Lent, the word, comes from the Anglo-Saxon word for Spring.  It,
    however, was a spontaneous practice of the first three centuries after
    Christ.  The first formal recognition was in the Cannons of Nicea
    (325AD).  Different traditions exist to explain the 40 days of Lent
    actually are 46 in number from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday.  Jesus
    prepared for his ministry with a fast of 40 days and this in connected
    to the precedent of Moses and Elijah.  Lent is neither a derivative of
    pre-Christian pagan practices nor a medieval invention.
    
    In the Roman Catholic tradition, the adults who are to be baptized on
    Easter are presented to the Congregation as was done in ancient
    practice. In the Roman Catholic Church today there is far less emphasis
    on the legalisms of rules of fast and abstinence and a greater emphasis
    on affirmative acts of charity during Lent.

    This is sort of a general question:  why is it so difficult for many
    people to accept the notion that religions *evolve* from previous ideas
    and necessarily pick up nuances from other sources here and there?
    
    I remember how offended some Jews I know get when it is pointed out
    that Hannukah, the Festival of Lights, is directly derivitive of
    Caananite Solstice festivals and that the marriage of the Sabbath Bride
    to the Congregation is a modification of Goddess worship.
    
    Since Paul's missions led him directly through the Hellenized world,
    why is it so difficult a notion to think that Pauline Chrisitianity
    picked up ideas from that world?  Paul clearly was writing to his
    audiences everywhere he went.  In Galatians, he warns Christians away
    from strictly adhering to Mosaic law because in Asia Minor, the
    "Judaizers" were an influence.  In Corinthians, he talks about problems
    of morality particular to Corinth's reputation.
    
    Why is it offensive to look at religion in an evolutionary fashion?
    
    Daniel

    Re: Lent
    
    Last Sunday, the Minister in our church preached on the meaning of
    Lent. In light of the discussion in this note string...its real
    interesting.
    
    Without typing in the whole serman (20 minutes). The main points
    were: 
    
    The Lent tradition is rooted deeply in the 40 days that Jesus spent
     in the desert wilderness. This period of time was used by Jesus
    to meditate on his new, recently found role as son of God. Jesus
    had just "come out" into the public and was establishing his role to 
    himself. Hence, in the desert when Satan was tempting him, Jesus
    used that time to strengthen his grasp on just what he was "all about".
    
    The minister also drew parallels between Lent and other pagan
    religions. *Not* to say that the basis for Lent *is* pagan,
    but that other pagan religions have a similar experince to Lent,
    in which the person goes out into a quiet, wilderness area to 
    meditate. The ministers point is that a time of reflection is 
    basic and good for people to do....time to recharge and redirect
    oneself...or...as the minister said..to be willing to let the Holy
    Spirit enter into your life.
    
    She also sited the Catholics as having a structure for this type of
    relection time..i.e. the monistaries (sp?).
    
    I found that the pagan part didn't bother me....as an additional
    insight into the human nature for a time of reflection (american
    indian reference was used). The reason was that the actual spiritual
    background is through Jesus.
    
    Coments???
    
    Marc H.

>    This is sort of a general question:  why is it so difficult for many
>    people to accept the notion that religions *evolve* from previous ideas
>    and necessarily pick up nuances from other sources here and there?

    Why is anyone surprised that people don't accept the notion that
    religion evolves? I think that most people don't accept it. Oh, sure,
    some things change but mostly on a superficial level. Mass goes from
    Latin to English. New hymns are written. But basic values are a
    constant.

>    I remember how offended some Jews I know get when it is pointed out
>    that Hannukah, the Festival of Lights, is directly derivitive of
>    Caananite Solstice festivals 

    	I'm not surprised. Perhaps you didn't mean it the way I interpret
    it but is seems as if you are saying that the events that Hannukah
    celebrates didn't actually happen. Just because two events are
    celebrated in similar ways at similar times doesn't mean that one is
    derived from the other. Correlation doesn't prove causality.

>    Why is it offensive to look at religion in an evolutionary fashion?

    	Why is it offensive to tell someone that their basic root values
    are based on a lie? Good question but left as an exercise to the
    reader.

    		Alfred

    If the inference is that viewing a religion in an evolutionary fashion
    means "telling someone that their basic root values are based on a
    lie", then I could not disagree more.
    
    -- Mike

>Note 608.32                           Lent                              32 of 32
>CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist"                   27 lines   2-MAR-1993 08:11

>    Why is anyone surprised that people don't accept the notion that
>    religion evolves? I think that most people don't accept it. Oh, sure,
>    some things change but mostly on a superficial level. Mass goes from
>    Latin to English. New hymns are written. But basic values are a
>    constant.

Alfred, please don't take any offense by this, none is intended, but that
is profoundly unhistorical.  You are talking about minor format changes,
but history shows that all sorts of major shifts can occur within a religion
for various reasons.

The best example I can think of is within my own:  If I were to look
at Judaism from 2000 years ago, it would bear almost zero resemblance
to today's religion.  You can tell that even from the Bible, and it
is further supported from archeological and historical evidence.  The
Jews of the pre-Diaspora lived in a religion more reflective of the
ancient Near East than of modern, Talmudic Judaism.  Yet, as I said,
mention that to some people and steam comes out of the ears even though
it just seems to me to be common sense.  Language evolves, government
evolves, philosophy evolves, yet religion doesn't?  People's attempt
to understand God is so rooted that there are never major philosophical
changes? Did Midrash end with Rabbi Hillel? Did Christianity's understanding
of Christ end with Paul?

That's part of the main point of the notes I had been entering in string
554.* before my last assignment ran out: to discuss the historical
context in which Christianity developed and the varying influences
over its early days.


>>    I remember how offended some Jews I know get when it is pointed out
>>    that Hannukah, the Festival of Lights, is directly derivitive of
>>    Caananite Solstice festivals 
>
>    	I'm not surprised. Perhaps you didn't mean it the way I interpret
>    it but is seems as if you are saying that the events that Hannukah
>    celebrates didn't actually happen. Just because two events are
>    celebrated in similar ways at similar times doesn't mean that one is
>    derived from the other. Correlation doesn't prove causality.

It is not denying the existence of the Maccabbean war with the Seleucids
to acknowledge that, being strict Yahwists, the Hasmonean Kings took
the Caananite Solstice holiday and rededicated it as commemerative
of their victory.  That's a standard technique throughout history: you
don't simply abolish someone's practice, you re-appropriate, and re-invent
it for your own needs.

I hope this doesn't offend too much, but look at Christmas: in order
for Jesus' parents to realistically have been travelling to Jerusalem,
it would have been near one of the pilgrimage holidays -- none of them
fall anywhere near modern December on the calender.  So was Jesus most
likely born in that month or is it more likely that early Christian
tradition celebrated the holiday then because there was already a Solstice
holiday and supplanting it with their own aided conversion of gentiles?
Similarly, as Chrisianity spread north, the winter symbols of Druidic
sects were adopted to aid conversion.

Do the gospel's even pinpoint Jesus' birthdate?

>    	Why is it offensive to tell someone that their basic root values
>    are based on a lie? 


Why is it telling someone what they believe is a lie?  I mean, what is
more important to the belief: the central, moral lessons, or the 
specific details of the history?  Is Channukah any less a celebration
of the Hasmonean victory because the holiday's timing and symbols
were designed to draw people away from Solstice holidays?  Is Christmas
any less a celebration of Christ and his meaning for Christians by
questioning whether or not the gospel story supports December as his
likely birthdate?

I guess I really don't understand how someone's central beliefs
are supposedly shattered by seeing a larger, evolutionary context
for a religion.  Find me any religion on the globe that resembles
today what it looked like two millenia ago....I really doubt it's
there.


But there is one thing I am likely to agree with: it may be fruitless
to continue this discussion.  I think a lot of the hardest arguments
on C-P seem to come from people who bitterly dispute something based
upon entirely divergent suppositions...it may just be best for some
of us to avoid discussing things with each other.  If the premise is
that Christianity has only had "minor" changes (a psalm here or a
psalm there) in nearly two millenia, I can't imagine how a common
ground for discussion can arise.

regards,

Daniel

    re .29

    First of all, thanks for the background information on the Christian
    observance of Lent.  I find value and comfort in that information.  It
    certainly goes further that just saying that the pagan link is wrong.


    However...

    > I'm not complaining, I'm attempting to engage in a discussion.  

    Please don't insult my intelligence.  Of course you were complaining. 
    You were also engaged in discussion. The two are not mutually
    exclusive.   I then went on to complain about the lack of positive
    information in your replies.  You then supplied it...
    
    
    Eric

re Note 608.30 by BUSY::DKATZ:

>     This is sort of a general question:  why is it so difficult for many
>     people to accept the notion that religions *evolve* from previous ideas
>     and necessarily pick up nuances from other sources here and there?
  
        Daniel,

        In this particular instance, I'm not sure that the problem
        lies with the suggestion that Lent has similarities to
        non-Christian practice (although I will grant you that some
        will find even that kind of statement bothersome).

        You use the word "evolve", but others have used the word
        "derived."  Both words seem to imply that the later is a
        descendent from the earlier.  Many will want to draw a sharp
        distinction between the form of a celebration or observance
        and the event or belief being observed.

        For example, Christians are not celebrating the goddess
        Isthar at Easter, nor are we even celebrating what we
        consider to be a corrected or perfected version of what the
        Ishtar worshipers observed.  Even if we agree that certain
        cultural elements of the observance, e.g., Easter eggs,
        pre-date Christian observance this does not imply that the
        significance of the Christian observance was in any way
        derived from the pre-Christian observance.

        So we will naturally be sensitive to statements which appear
        to confuse cultural elements of an observance with the
        significance of the observance, especially the historic
        reality behind them.  We are sensitive to possible chains of
        inference that, for example, since there was a pagan Roman
        holiday late in December at which time we now celebrate
        Christmas that therefore there is something untrue about that
        which we celebrate at Christmas.

        I personally disregard such stretches of inference, but I
        understand that others may be more sensitive.

        On the other hand, the "pagan jalopy" statement in .6 was a
        statement made with absolutely no support in that note.  It
        appeared to be a total yet unsubstantiated dismissal of what
        is a very reasonable and pious traditional Christian
        practice.  Perhaps it was not intended so, but such a
        statement without support or discussion is almost certain to
        offend and to arouse angry rebuttal.

        Bob

    RE: .34 I suspect that some of our disagreement may be in terminology.
    Some - not all. :-)

    For example in your examples of Hanakah and Christmas I see no
    evolution. That implies that one thing gradually turned into the
    other. That is not the case. The winter solstice did not evolve into
    Christmas. Rather Christmas was born as a celebration of Jesus' birth
    totally unrelated to that time of year. The time of celebration may
    have been picked for "political" reasons but that is not evolution.

>You are talking about minor format changes,
>but history shows that all sorts of major shifts can occur within a religion
>for various reasons.

    Give me an example in Christianity? Of course it may be we have
    different views of major. The Protestant Reformation didn't change
    anything major to me about Christianity.

>Why is it telling someone what they believe is a lie?  I mean, what is
>more important to the belief: the central, moral lessons, or the 
>specific details of the history?  Is Chanukah any less a celebration
>of the Hasmonean victory because the holiday's timing and symbols
>were designed to draw people away from Solstice holidays?  

    I see this note as clearly contradicting the idea that Chanukah 
    evolved from the solstice holidays. Perhaps your terminology is getting
    in the way?
    
    		Alfred

re Note 608.34 by BUSY::DKATZ:

> Language evolves, government
> evolves, philosophy evolves, yet religion doesn't?  People's attempt
> to understand God is so rooted that there are never major philosophical
> changes? 
  ...
> That's a standard technique throughout history: you
> don't simply abolish someone's practice, you re-appropriate, and re-invent
> it for your own needs.

        The problem with the above arises from your use of the words
        "People's" and "you" -- for many Christians, the words of
        Scripture (and for Catholics the teachings of the Church) are
        not the work of "people" but of God.  Obviously, God's
        understanding of God does not evolve -- it is perfect and
        complete from the start -- in fact we must deny that there is
        any evolution of understanding of God in Scripture or
        Christian tradition.  (It is those who think they see it that
        are misguided.)

        Likewise, if God guided the Church to a practice, God doesn't
        have to copy anybody and in fact certainly wouldn't copy --
        or allow his Church to copy -- anything having any connection
        to what He hates (in fact, if there is a similarity, it is
        probably because Satan copied God, perhaps outside of time,
        violating human notions of causality).


> I guess I really don't understand how someone's central beliefs
> are supposedly shattered by seeing a larger, evolutionary context
> for a religion.  Find me any religion on the globe that resembles
> today what it looked like two millenia ago....I really doubt it's
> there.

        Because faith is what it is -- the acceptance of things
        beyond or absent the usual hard evidence -- "central beliefs"
        can be extremely fragile and will be defended in all possible
        ways, including the irrational.

        Bob

>    If the inference is that viewing a religion in an evolutionary fashion
>    means "telling someone that their basic root values are based on a
>    lie", then I could not disagree more.
    
    You really don't see telling someone that the events, actions, and 
    statements that they base their values on are not based on reality and 
    on God but on a long term set of changes imposed by people to fit 
    political and cultural desires is an attack on their basic beliefs?
    
    			Alfred

    "Not based on reality" are your words, not mine.  Recognizing the
    evolutionary process of religion is only an attack on someone's basic
    beliefs if those beliefs are founded on a ridigly dogmatic perspective. 
    
    It is as silly to proclaim that religious evolution implies that
    beliefs are "lies" as it is to proclaim that Newton's physics were a
    "lie" simply because Einstein's physics superceded them.
    
    -- Mike

>    "Not based on reality" are your words, not mine.  Recognizing the
>    evolutionary process of religion is only an attack on someone's basic
>    beliefs if those beliefs are founded on a ridigly dogmatic perspective. 

    Ah, good, then we agree. At least for Christianity. The notion that
    Jesus was and is God did not evolve from something else. To suggest
    that it did is to call Christianity a lie. To say that Jesus was not
    a historical person or that the events in His life as reported in the
    Bible did not happen but evolved as ideas from earlier religions
    implies strongly that Christianity is based on false roots. That much
    is clear.

>    It is as silly to proclaim that religious evolution implies that
>    beliefs are "lies" as it is to proclaim that Newton's physics were a
>    "lie" simply because Einstein's physics superceded them.

    If I didn't know better I'd think you were calling my beliefs silly. 
    But that can't be because you don't believe in insults. So I guess I 
    don't know what you mean.

    		Alfred

    >The notion that
    >Jesus was and is God did not evolve from something else. To suggest
    >that it did is to call Christianity a lie.
    
    Q: is it calling Christianity a lie, to acknowledge that the groundwork
    for believing Jesus is God was put down by Judaic Apocalyptic sects in
    the centuries previous to Jesus' birth?  IS it also calling
    Christianity a lie to acknowledge that those Apocalyptic sects derived
    some of their beliefs from surrounding influences, including,
    non-Judaic sources?
    
    There was an entire Messianic culture present in Judea at the time of
    Jesus' birth.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

A few additional thoughts:

Bob:

When I say "evolve" or "derive" I do not think it necessarily imputes
the legitimacy of the philosophy; it is meant to acknowledge that
things do not occur in vacuums.  Christianity was the result of a
number of factors from the Apocalyptic literature of the Qumran
Community to the ease and speed of travel in the Pax Romana.  The
absence of any of these factors would have had a profound effect on
the direction of Christianity.  What if Paul's perspective had lost
early on?  Christianity might have become more of a branch of Judaism
than a separate religion because the other side of the debate believed
very strongly in perserving Mosaic Law for Christians, including
the circumcision debate.

For what it is worth, I do agree that "pagan jalopy" wanted for tact
at the very least.

Alfred:

I do not have specific examples of evolution in Christianity per se.
I have studied ealry Christianity in depth, so I know about the early
influences and development of Christian theology.  But I would be truly
shocked to find out that there have been no major theological changes
in the intervening millenia. Jesus as the Messiah doesn't have to change
as central for other elements to change.

As for my defintion of "evolution," I ought to point out that appropriation
of a tradtion doesn't wipe it out.  The Solstice holiday lived on under
the Hasmonean dynasty not only in reality, but also in the re-invented
commemeratove holiday.  The symbols and timing maintained that link,
and the archetypes do not loose their effects simply because the context has
changed.  I believe the same applies to Christian development -- the
improtance of lights, trees and wreaths to Western Christmas celebrations
keeps the Druidic symbols ad signifigance alive, even if it is fused
to non-Druidic theology.  That process is what I mean by evolutionary --
perhaps synchratization is the better, more accurate, term.

regards,

Daniel

    Myths "evolve" through time from one cultural setting to another.

    I believe in Christ and the what He taught about himself and what his
    followers taught about his, what we learn today as Christianity to be
    truth, eternal truth.

    It's a tiresome slap at my beliefs to call them "rigidly dogmatic". 
    Any examination of any complete system of belief is going to discover
    some "rigidly dogmatic" beliefs in there.

    The spin of this phrase, of course, is that such beliefs are
    communicated with arrogance, violence, and a denial of the individual's
    capacity to reason.  I reject this characterization of Christianity
    categorically.

    Evolution presupposes that forces exist to change "things" in the
    environment be they species, ideas, myths, or beliefs.  God transcends
    evolution and the God is the author of evolution and what God has
    revealed about himself is not subject to change.

    What does change is the cultural adaptations of his followers to
    evangelize the world.  If churches didn't do it then they would be
    labeled xenophobic.

    Finally, if someone has evidence or facts to show a connection (an
    evolution?) of the Christian practices of Lent to some pre-Christian
    pagan practice, then let's read about them.

	RE: .43 No what you suggest is not a lie. However, to suggest an
	evolution is very different from your question.

			Alfred

    RE: .46
    
    Pat,
     As a point of discussion, what phase would you use to describe
    the changes to the Catholic faith brought on by Vatican II?
    
    Marc H.

    .47
    
    Alfred,
    
    Like I said after that note -- I would certainly accept synchretization
    as a more accurate substitute for "evolution"
    
    Daniel

    I think religions tend to exhibit both sychretization *and* evolution.
    
    -- Mike

	It's me, rebel rouser extraordinare. My. my, what a ruckus goin' on 
heah!  8*)

	When I wrote .6 I really didn't know much, if anything, about Lent. It
seemed to me from .5 that Lent might fall into the catagory of pagan practices
adopted by the early church in her marriage to the world. But I really didn't 
know, and still don't for sure. It just seemed that way. I meant no offense.
However, my interest is really up now. 8*)

	By the way, I don't disagree with giving things up for the Lord. In 
fact, I think we should, Lent or no. If a person needs Lent to do that, then
the more "Lents" the better!

	I have not been able to find any indication in the Bible, or any
hint that any of the apostles either practiced or taught the believers
to observe Lent. So where did it come from, and who authorized its practice,
and when? It was apparently added after the first century. 


Regards,
ace
	
	

	

Note 608.51

>	I have not been able to find any indication in the Bible, or any
>hint that any of the apostles either practiced or taught the believers
>to observe Lent.

I was wondering when someone would bring this up.

Richard

    The specific practice of fasting is documented in the Bible in Acts
    13:2-3 and 14:23.

    The observance of Lent as a special time of repentance originated
    spontaneously in the Christian Church in the first century.  The
    reference to in the Cannons of Nicea indicates that it is a
    long-standing practice.

    Christ in calling for the repentance of sinners "authorized it".  The
    Christian Church recognizes the 40 day period of Lent as imitation of
    the fast which preceded Jesus' ministry as described in Matthew 4.

    By the way, isn't this also the month of Ramadan in the Moslem world?
    As I understand it, Moslems fast from sunup to sundown during that holy
    month.
    
    -- Mike

>    By the way, isn't this also the month of Ramadan in the Moslem world?
>    As I understand it, Moslems fast from sunup to sundown during that holy
>    month.
 
	That is correct. They do eat *very* well after sundown though I hear.
	That's my kind of fast. :-)

			Alfred

re.53
	Patrick,

	Appreciate the history lesson, but I remain unconvinced that "Lent" was
authorized by the Lord Jesus through the calling of sinners to repentance or 
the first century church. This would be like saying that sinners should climb
trees to wait for the Lord's calling because this is how He called Zaccheus.

Fasting seems straightforward enough, Lent seems much more complex than that.
Lent seems more like the practice of asceticism, than of biblical origin. 

	You mentioned that "Lent" was indicated in the Council of Nicea. Could
you provide a reference to that portion? You also said that Lent originated
spontaneously in the first century christian church. Where did you get that
from? A reference would be helpful.

Or are you just making this up as we go along? 8*)  8*) Seriously though, 
references would help to establish how early the practice began and where it
was introduced, thus it's origins.

Thanks,
ace

    ace,

    You make the point yourself because if the followers of Jesus did climb
    trees to wait for the Lord's calling, then we would do so today in
    following their example and tradition, but they didn't.  They fasted
    as Jesus and St. Paul did, so we do.

    The pagan practice of asceticism is only superficially connected to
    Christian fasting.  In that Christian fasting is performed for the
    repentance of sin it is substantially different.  What is the motivation
    of pre-Christian pagan asceticism?

    The article "Lent" in the Catholic Encyclopedia (Stravinkis, ed.)
    mentions the Canons of Nicea, which I assume are a councilor document of
    that period.  I mentioned earlier the references to fasting in the
    Acts of the Apostles.

    Pat

Re:  608.22

  >Seems to me that this country was founded on the
  >precept of "religious expression".  I don't recall the word "valid" as
  >being part of that....of course I may be wrong....
    
It was Patricia who said " I believe paganism is a valid religious
expression".  I simply commented on it noting that all that we know
about Yahweh indicates that He disagrees with Patricia.

Collis

re.57

	Patrick,

	I guess you use the terms fasting and Lent as synonomous terms and
events. Is there more the Lent than fasting?

Ace

    re: .-1
    
    Prayer, Fasting, Almsgiving
    
    As I wrote earlier in the note, it is a special time set aside for acts
    of self-denial and for affirmative acts of charity.  There are special
    prayers and devotions in Roman Catholicism during Lent.

re.60

	Would you mind posting the special prayers and devotions Catholics use
during Lent? Perhaps they will reveal something. That is, if they are
reasonably short and not too cumbersome to type.

Thanks,
ace

    First Week of Lent, Wednesday, Evening Prayer

    (Philippians 2:12-15) Work with anxious concern to achieve your
    salvation.  It is God who, in his good will toward you, begets in you
    any measure of desire or achievement.  In everything you do, act
    without grumbling or argument; prove yourselves innocent and
    straightforward, children of God without reproach.

    To you, O Lord, I make my prayer for mercy /R
    Heal my soul, for I have sinned against you /R
    Glory be to the Father...

    As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so
    will the Son of Man spend three days and three nights in the heart of
    the earth.

    Blessed be almighty God, who watches over us as a Father; he knows all
    our needs but wants us to seek first his kingdom.  Let us cry out to
    him as his people:
    
    May your kingdom come, that justice may reign.

    Father of all holiness, you gave us Christ as the shepherd of our souls;
    stay with your shepherds and the flock entrusted to them, do not leave
    this flock without the loving care of its shepherd./do not leave your
    shepherds without an obedient flock to follow them.

    Teach Christians to help the weak with loving care/ and in serving them
    to serve your Son.

    Gather them into your Church those who do not yet believe,/ and help
    them to build it up by good deeds done for the love of you.

    Help us to turn to you for forgiveness,/ and, as you forgive us,
    reconcile us also with your Church.

    May the dead pass from this world to eternal life,/ to be with you
    forever.

    Our Father...

    Lord, look upon us and hear our prayer.  By the good works you inspire,
    help us to discipline our bodies, and to be renewed in spirit.  Grant
    this through Our Lord Jesus Christ who lives and reigns with you in the
    unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
    

re.62

I see. thanks.

ace