Specialized Areas of Interest > Theology

Disturbing Practices in the Early Christian Church

(1/2) > >>

Just wanted to add something too.  I was really hesitant to believe that animal and human sacrifice was going on in the early church.  Maybe it was more than my mind could handle, and I didn't want to believe such a thing could have happened.  But new information has come to light for me,  and it appears it was more than likely true.  I hope to expand on this later this weekend.  Right now I'm still going through one of those ah ha, oh no, ah ha, ohhh noooo moments.   Do the surprises ever end? 

As long as your mind doesn't become stagnant and you continue to search for Truth, no, the surprises never end; good surprises and bad surprises.

I look forward to reading what you have uncovered, and I will wait to comment until then... but please do create a new thread on that subject.

oh my!  I made an attempt at creating a new thread this morning.  I would have to take you all on quite a long journey to get there.  I keep trying and see if I can keep it short.  To have it make any sense at all I have to take you through the Roman Government and belief system right through to the early organized church in Rome, and show how Haruspicy continued and was probably still practiced.  ohhhhh yuk. ;-)

Haruspicy is still to this day practiced commonly in South America, Eastern Europe, much of Asia, and Africa, among other local areas that are fully indoctrinated into at least one of the world's more modern religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam). This is not a Christian, Islamic, or Buddhist Teaching or practice, but a relic of primitive practices that were hung onto by some during the syncretic transition into Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. It is human nature to resist a break from habit or tradition, even if it is consciously understood that it is unhealthy or no longer useful.

But this is no mark against the Teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha, and it certainly does not mark every early Church, nor every early Christian; for there were many varying early church differences and individual beliefs. Some while labeled Christian, practiced certain things that were flat out contrary to the Teachings of their founder...

For example, anyone who practiced human sacrifice was clearly not a Christian, however they chose to label themselves or delude themselves into believing about themselves.

The above says something about the nature of people and their advancement, not so much necessarily of churches, teachings, or labels. 

It was something I didn't want to believe could have been practiced within the church.  But now after knowing it was a major part of the Roman culture, and other cultures, I'm willing to accept that there is a possibility it was still being practiced.  I have a love for little critters and their needless sacrifice to examine their entrails seeking signs from god is quite disgusting to me.  Entrails are not disgusting to me, I have issues with the act of sacrificing a living thing and a belief system revolving on a sacrifice to a god in the hopes of some sort of service to self outcome.

Is it a reflection of the nature of the people who do it?  Yes.  If it was done within the confines of the church with full knowledge of church hierarchy, then it would be a reflection of their belief system.  Not talking about one or two bad apples here, or one or two who weren't advanced.  Did Jesus actions disrupt the temple practice of animal sacrifice?  Sounds like it, but that doesn't mean one way or the other if he was for or against it. I can't find where it is said that he sacrificed an animal or child to his father or to god.  So it leaves me to believe he probably wasn't a big fan of the practice.

But there were others at the time who were big fans of the practice.  In fact they didn't make a political move without it.  They were the Romans.  They worshiped Julius Caesar at the time.   It was called The Imperial Cult or the cult of Divus Julius.

--- Quote ---As Roman society evolved, so did cult to emperors: both proved remarkably resilient and adaptable. Until its confrontation by fully developed Christian orthodoxy, "Imperial cult" needed no systematic or coherent theology. Its part in Rome's continued success was probably sufficient to justify, sanctify and "explain" it to most Romans. Confronted with crisis in Empire, Constantine matched the Augustan achievement by absorbing Christian monotheism into the Imperial hierarchy. Cult to emperors was not so much abolished or abandoned as transformed out of recognition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_%28ancient_Rome%29
--- End quote ---

I truly wonder exactly which "cult", (not my favorite term), was transformed out of recognition some days. 


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version