Christians defacing monuments of other faiths

Spacedog

Hi,

After a recent trip to Egypt, to see the ruins of the first civilisation. I need to ask your opinions on the defacement of non Christian monuments, and the adoption of aspects of old religions into Christianity.

Many of the carved images of the Pharaohs were chiselled out or replaced with crude crosses made from broken pieces of stone.

Is it fair game for this to have happened, as one belief system/civilisation dies out is it inevitable for it's most treasured artworks to be over written by the next? perhaps in a thousand years time the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel will have a flying spaghetti monster instead of God.

Are Christians any better than the Tallaban destroying ancient Buddha statues in the name of Islam?

Ghost Buster

Spacedog wrote: »

Hi,

After a recent trip to Egypt, to see the ruins of the first civilisation. I need to ask your opinions on the defacement of non Christian monuments, and the adoption of aspects of old religions into Christianity.

Many of the carved images of the Pharaohs were chiselled out or replaced with crude crosses made from broken pieces of stone.

Is it fair game for this to have happened, as one belief system/civilisation dies out is it inevitable for it's most treasured artworks to be over written by the next? perhaps in a thousand years time the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel will have a flying spaghetti monster instead of God.

Are Christians any better than the Tallaban destroying ancient Buddha statues in the name of Islam?

As many aspects of Christianity are picked, Dr Frankeneteinesque, from other religions then i suppose with that rational in mind the practice you describe is totally acceptable.
I dont agree with it though.

Fanny Cradock

Ghost Buster wrote: »

As many aspects of Christianity are picked, Dr Frankeneteinesque, from other religions then i suppose with that rational in mind the practice you describe is totally acceptable.
I dont agree with it though.

Care to unpack that?

Coriolanus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Care to unpack that?

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Many aspects of Christianity are picked, Dr Frankeneteinesque, from other religions.

I suppose with that rational in mind, the practice you describe is totally acceptable.

I dont agree with it though.

Something like that.

Anyway, imo, while it's a natural progression, it's not necessarily a desirable or ethical one.

Fanny Cradock

Touché!

Nevore wrote: »

Anyway, imo, while it's a natural progression, it's not necessarily a desirable or ethical one.

Out of curiosity, if such practices are a natural progression - and we are talking long term here - how do you justify the conclusion that it's not ethical? Presumably ethics aren't set in stone (no pun intended) and are a function of whatever societal thought happens to be acceptable at the time.

Coriolanus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Touché!



Out of curiosity, if such practices are a natural progression - and we are talking long term here - how do you justify the conclusion that it's not ethical? Presumably ethics aren't set in stone (no pun intended) and are a function of whatever societal thought happens to be acceptable at the time.

Well, I'm a relativist, so you could insert "ethical under my particular guiding principles" instead of just "ethical". People could, and have done I'm sure, argue that under their particular ethical principles the actions are perfectly acceptable.

Ghost Buster

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Care to unpack that?

Okey dokey but before i do understand that Im not making any claim as to tyhe authenticity or otherwise of Christianity. This aint the place. Im just saying that if a religion is willing to draw its festivals and source material from older religions then naturally it will have no qualms in putting its mark on similarly older buildings, temples, statues etc.
Well. Many Christian holidays and days of note are superimposed over much older pagan festivals
Christmas happens at the same time as the winter solstice in celtic paganism
It happens at the same time as a Roman pagan festival - Attis was a son of the virgin Nana. His birth was celebrated on DEC-25. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about MAR-25, after being crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, as the solar deity for the new season. His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on "Black Friday," and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE.

Or a Greek festival - Dionysus is another savior-god whose birth was observed on DEC-25. He was worshipped throughout much of the Middle East as well. He had a center of worship in Jerusalem in the 1st century BCE. Some ancient coins have been found in Gaza with Dionysus on one side and JHWH (Jehovah) on the other. In later years, his flesh and blood were symbolically eaten in the form of bread and wine. He was viewed as the son of Zeus, the Father God.
Or Egyptian - Osiris is a savior-god who had been worshipped as far back as Neolithic times. "He was called Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods...the Resurrection and the Life, the Good shepherd...the god who 'made men and women be born again'" 5 Three wise men announced his birth. His followers ate cakes of wheat which symbolized his body. Many sayings associated with Osiris were taken over into the Bible. This included:
23rd Psalm: an appeal to Osiris as the good Shepherd to lead believers through the valley of the shadow of death and to green pastures and still waters

Lord's Prayer: "O amen, who art in heaven..."

Many parables attributed to Jesus.
Worship of Osiris, and celebration of his DEC-25 birth, were established throughout the Roman Empire by the end of the 1st century BCE

Persian - . Persian Pagan Religion: Mithra was a Persian savior. Worship of Mithra became common throughout the Roman Empire, particularly among the Roman civil service and military. Mithraism was a competitor of Christianity until the 4th century. Their god was believed to have been born on DEC-25, circa 500 BCE. His birth was witnessed by shepherds and by gift-carrying Magi. This was celebrated as the "Dies Natalis Solic Invite," The "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun." Some followers believed that he was born of a virgin. During his life, he performed many miracles, cured many illnesses, and cast out devils. He celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples. He ascended to heaven at the time of the spring equinox, about March 21.

The Babylonians celebrated their "Victory of the Sun-God" Festival on DEC-25. Saturnalia (the Festival of Saturn) was celebrated from DEC-17 to 23 in the Roman Empire. The Roman Emperor Aurelian blended Saturnalia with a number of birth celebrations of savior Gods from other religions, into a single holy day: DEC-25. After much argument, the developing Christian church adopted this date as the birthday of their savior, Jesus. The people of the Roman Empire were accustomed to celebrating the birth of a God on that day. So, it was easy for the church to divert people's attention to Jesus' birth.

PDN

The respect we give to historical monuments is probably a fairly recent phenomenon. Go back a few centuries and nobody probably saw any value in preserving old stuff.

Angry Troll

PDN wrote: »

The respect we give to historical monuments is probably a fairly recent phenomenon. Go back a few centuries and nobody probably saw any value in preserving old stuff.

sad but true

Lab_Mouse

PDN above got it right.The most recent one I can think off is the taliban destroying 2 giant sized statues of Buddha few years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

EDIT:sorry OP didnt see the last line in your post

PDN

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

PDN above got it right.The most recent one I can think off is the taliban destroying 2 giant sized statues of Buddha few years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

EDIT:sorry OP didnt see the last line in your post

One of the funny bits in 'The God Delusion' is where poor Richard cites the destruction of those Buddhas as an example of the detrimental effect of religion upon the world. Of course, without religion, they wouldn't have been there in the first place.

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

One of the funny bits in 'The God Delusion' is where poor Richard cites the destruction of those Buddhas as an example of the detrimental effect of religion upon the world. Of course, without religion, they wouldn't have been there in the first place.

I dont think he is claiming that they wouldnt be there in the first place without religion. He is, I think, stating that folk use religion as licence to behave abominably.
The point is about the destruction religions visit upon each other in their quest to be "the one true religion" rather than how the idols, effigies and temples got there in the first place one would have thought.

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

poor Richard

:pac:

Unfortunately, I dont have my copy of the God Delusion at hand. Its at my "other home".
But I will assume what you have said is correct.


So Richard states that the vandalism of these statues is an example of the detrimental effect of religion. I certainly agree with that.
I also agree with you when you say the statues would not have been erected were it not for another religion.
But that doesnt take away from his point now, does it?


He could have picked even better examples in my opinion.


Edit: Im really just reiterating Ghost Busters point but no harm in leaving it up.

philologos

If we are to follow Richard's line of thinking, the Buddha and what he had said is nothing more than delusional nonsense though?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

If we are to follow Richard's line of thinking, the Buddha and what he had said is nothing more than delusional nonsense though?

It's probably my head today, but I don't understand your post at all.:(

mardybumbum

Jakkass wrote: »

If we are to follow Richard's line of thinking, the Buddha and what he had said is nothing more than delusional nonsense though?

Ok, Im sorry Jakkass.
Im not getting that at all?

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

:pac:

Unfortunately, I dont have my copy of the God Delusion at hand. Its at my "other home".
But I will assume what you have said is correct.


So Richard states that the vandalism of these statues is an example of the detrimental effect of religion. I certainly agree with that.
I also agree with you when you say the statues would not have been erected were it not for another religion.
But that doesnt take away from his point now, does it?

It does take away from his point.

Dawkins argues that religion in general (not just specific varieties of religion) is detrimental. Therefore the Taliban, in removing a religious artifact, were removing something detrimental.

Even atheists shouldn't try to have their cake and eat it.

philologos

I don't see why Richard Dawkins would admire Buddhism enough to regard it as somehow more worthy of protection than Christianity or Islam. Unless he's a hypocrite that is. At least Christopher Hitchens is an equal criticism atheist.

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

It does take away from his point.

Dawkins argues that religion in general (not just specific varieties of religion) is detrimental. Therefore the Taliban, in removing a religious artifact, were removing something detrimental.

Even atheists shouldn't try to have their cake and eat it.

Listen, I agree that religion is detrimental but I can admire the architecture of cathedrals, paintings depecting biblical events, and pretty statues.
I dont find a statue of buddha detrimental, the same way in which I dont find a post box to be detrimental. Its a statue, thats all.

"Therefore the Taliban, in removing a religious artifact, were removing something detrimental."
So by doing something detrimental to remove something detrimental you are undoing the detrimentalness* of it all. :pac:







* Yes, I made that word up.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why Richard Dawkins would admire Buddhism enough to regard it as somehow more worthy of protection than Christianity or Islam. Unless he's a hypocrite that is. At least Christopher Hitchens is an equal criticism atheist.

Why should Buddhism warrant the same criticism as Christianity, when Buddhism is empirical and many sects (prob not the right term) teach their followers to be critical of Buddhism itself and not to accept what they are being taught without using skepticism? Find me a passage where Jesus says you shouldn't trust what is written or said by Him and then I'll gladly agree with you.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Why should Buddhism warrant the same criticism as Christianity, when Buddhism is empirical and many sects (prob not the right term) teach their followers to be critical of Buddhism itself and not to accept what they are being taught without using skepticism? Find me a passage where Jesus says you shouldn't trust what is written or said by Him and then I'll gladly agree with you.

Jesus did however warn people before becoming Christians because of what it would demand of them.

Besides, I think if Jesus really thought that not believing in Him would cause people to perish, and miss out on eternal life, then He made the right choice to tell people about it, and to tell them to trust in Him.

Scepticism can be misplaced, and scepticism can have consequences. I think that is a worthy criticism if what Jesus said indeed is true.

mardybumbum

Malty_T wrote: »

Why should Buddhism warrant the same criticism as Christianity, when Buddhism is empirical and many sects (prob not the right term) teach their followers to be critical of Buddhism itself and not to accept what they are being taught without using skepticism? Find me a passage where Jesus says you shouldn't trust what is written or said by Him and then I'll gladly agree with you.

Nooooooooes. :eek:
Lets try to stay on topic for a wee bit longer.
I want to see how PDN explains away this one.

Turtwig

mardybumbum wrote: »

Nooooooooes. :eek:
Lets try to stay on topic for a wee bit longer.
I want to see how PDN explains away this one.

Ok,s sorry like I said, I'm in a weirdish mood at the moment, so em just remind me again if I stray from the goal.:)

mardybumbum

I apologise. I am not a moderator of this forum so feel free not to listen to me at all. I may have came across as rude.
I am just interested in hearing his explanation.

Sorry again.

Turtwig

mardybumbum wrote: »

I apologise. I am not a moderator of this forum so feel free not to listen to me at all. I may have came across as rude.
I am just interested in hearing his explanation.

Yeah, but I sorta hijacked your discussion.:o

Sorry again.

Not necessary.

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

Nooooooooes. :eek:
Lets try to stay on topic for a wee bit longer.
I want to see how PDN explains away this one.

Explain away what?

Dawkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental. As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that religion took away something that wouldn't have existed without religion.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

Find me a passage where Jesus says you shouldn't trust what is written or said by Him and then I'll gladly agree with you.

How about this one:

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid." John 5:31-32

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why Richard Dawkins would admire Buddhism enough to regard it as somehow more worthy of protection than Christianity or Islam. Unless he's a hypocrite that is. At least Christopher Hitchens is an equal criticism atheist.

Slight Correction :

Dawkins doesn't admire Buddhism either as he refers to this footnote[95].

I still think though it deserves more respect than Christianity.:p

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

Dawkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental. As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that religion took away something that wouldn't have existed without religion.

Your argument doesn't make much sense when stated in a different way.

PDN wrote: »

Dawkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental. As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that Islam took away something that wouldn't have existed without Buddhism.

You agree that Buddhism and Islam are not the same?

TEMPLAR KNIGHT

Christians are persecuted in a lot of Muslim countries so the more damage they do the better , go on the boys!

mardybumbum

TEMPLAR KNIGHT wrote: »

Christians are persecuted in a lot of Muslim countries so the more damage they do the better , go on the boys!

Thanks for that fine contribution.