Re: Orthodoxy vs. Ancient Hellenic Religion?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Greek Connection Message Board ] [ Greek Connection ]

Posted by Achilles on July 19, 2001 at 18:56:16:

In Reply to: Re: Orthodoxy vs. Ancient Hellenic Religion? posted by GS on July 19, 2001 at 04:05:08:

GS wrote:

: I still think that one of the things (one not the only) that you do not accept christianity is that it's judeic based. That's what i consider wrong. If it was only the "oppresion" and the way it was enforced in Greece as you say, you would not even have to mention about the actual origin of Christ. What if Christ was Greek, would you then be able to accept Christianity as a logical progression of the hellenic culture?

 Christianity was never a “logical progression” of Hellenic culture as you put it. If anything, the advent of Christianity repressed Hellenic thought.
 Christianity is illogical by its very nature. We can see this through a variety of examples in history and closer analysis of the faith.
 If Judeo-Christian mythology contributed on the same scale as Hellenic ideology has, in relation to mathematics, science, art and literature, etc. then I would gladly embrace the concepts. The structure of the Judeo-Christian faith system is filled with anomalies, fairie tales, and inconsistencies. I do however recognise the moral and ethical aspects which Judaism and Christianity contributed.

: My main points towards what you say would be:

: 1. I do not agree that the Christian religion was "enforced" to Greeks the way you present it.

 I can understand your standpoint and why you do not personally agree about the Christian religion’s “enforcement” towards the Ancient Hellenes.
 If you have a different presentation where you can back up your statement with factual references, please share it.

Of course there were differences and cases of violence as well. Many Christians indeed destroyed some of the ancient temples etc, I accept that as a fact.
: However, you can not compare this to the Turkish occupation as you refer to. The Turks were:
: a) a foreign nation….

So were the Romans (Byzantines)

b) invaded the Greek land with an army and military forces.

So did the Romans (Byzantines)

c) were the occupants of Greece and its opressors

So were the Romans (Byzantines)
The Roman Empire brought Christianity out of the catacombs and into the mainstream.

That is not the case with the Christians because:

a) the Christians were Greek themselves

(some Christians were Greek, some were Roman and some were Hebrew)

b) They did not invade Greece

They didn’t need to invade Greece under Emporer Constantine’s rule, Christianity was enforced by law and the Hellenes were absorbed over time into the “New” Christian culture.

c) They were not occupying any land and opressing its inhabitants, since they were the inhabitants themselves.

The change happened from within the nation. Of course, it took approximately 400 years after the inhabitants of Greece accepted Christianity as the official religion of the Empire.

: In that sence it is difficult to find any positive influences form the Turkish occupation years, since they were an oppressive military regime, trying to covert these lands as their own .

So were the Romans (Byzantines)

As a nation Turkey might indeed have some things to offer, yes, but not in the form they tried to enforce them by occupying lands.

Same argument pertains to the Romans (Byzantines)

: As far as the Arabic culture of course it has positives and I believe the interexchange of ideas between Greeks and Arabs were a lot better since there wasn't any major war and occupation between them.

: Your point about the plants etc, I think I made my point and I believe most of the people will agree with me, you presented only the destructive point of view of a new form, but i think that there might be negative but many positive things as well (and that's exactly what happened with Christianity in Greece in my opinion).

 Respectfully, this is your personal opinion.

: Lastly I found your statements about Alexander the Great: "Survival of the fittest" very inaccurate.

 How was my statement inaccurate?

: Now with statements like that you unfortunately will expect people to try and say that you have maybe even neo-nazi ideas since that frase was the basis of all Hitler's empire.

 This discussion initially began as an exploration studying the revival of traditional Hellenism. I do not see why you adamantly persist on the issue of Anti-Semitism. I believe that I have clearly stated my position on this matter in an earlier thread. Therefore, regardless of what I have said in my defense it seems that you have taken it upon yourself to be my judge and jury. The points which, you presented is clearly theory and conjecture. Furthermore your accusation is unsubstantiated without any real hard facts. It’s interesting to note that from all of the infinite number of interpretations for the “survival of the fittest” comment I made, you chose to associate me personally with the likes of Adolf Hitler and Nazism.
 I find these personal attacks of yours insulting and uncalled for so please refrain yourself and stick to the subject matter at hand. This persistent harassment ends here. If you choose to continue badgering me, I’ll refuse to reply to any more of your posts!

: My opinion on this is that there should not be only strong that survive, since the right to survive is equal to any human.

 I agree, the “right” to survival is a universal right for all of humanity, yet in those days people still had to regularly face natural disasters, pestilence, plague, and warring tribes. In addition, the people who were more readily prepared to deal with those obstacles inevitably had a greater chance of survival.

That is one of the positive points of christianity as well. It is true that in practise sometimes that was not the case, but in general that was one of the main points of christianity that i like. However, I myslef do not agree 100% with the forms of christianity as well, and I believe that in the modern world any form of religion seems to be out-of-date.

 Every religion has good and bad points to offer

: Finally, if we take into account your saying, "survival of the fittest", then maybe we can assume that that's exactly what happened in the case of the Christians. ie, with your sayings, the Christians proved to be fitter so they survived and "prevailed" in Greece, so I don't think you should have any problem with that since that was a natural course of evolution.

 Repeating myself again, the Christian ideology survived and prevailed at the expense of losing Hellenic ideologies and the Greek nation suffered through centuries of ignorance and oppression.


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup





Optional Link URL:

Link Title:

Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Greek Connection Message Board ] [ Greek Connection ]