“Seek pleasure and avoid pain” is one of the chief teachings of Epicurus, twisted ruthlessly by his philosopher rivals and later by the Christian church when it had achieved temporal power. Epicurus believed in modest living – having sufficient security and sufficient pleasure, but never too much. He was accused of having orgies and living riotously. If having a bowl of lentil soup and a philosophic chat with a person of the female persuasion is living riotously, then the accusations were wholly correct. The truth is that he hated all extremes of behavior. By seeking pleasure he meant spending time with friends in the Garden, eating and drinking modestly, and avoiding disagreeable people. These included the rude and vulgar, the violent, the bullies and extremists of all stripes, those set upon power, fame and putting other people down, and those lusting after too much money, and too much sex and too many possessions. Can apologists for Christian churches truthfully deny that this is a rather sensible philosophy? Please comment!
I stand accused of straying into current affairs too much on this blog. However, were he alive today I have a suspicion that he would be appalled at the antics of the bankers and the super-rich and the pell-mell fraying of the social consensus.
As a Christian apologist,I would heartily agree with such a philosophy. I am sure the early Christians would have no quarrel with it either. There is, however, rather more to being a Christian than a philosphical stance albeit, a livable and a workable one such as Epicurus’.
When Constantine Christianised the Roman Empire for political reasons I suggest that, being the dictator that he was, he brooked no dissent. Therefore any belief system or philosophical standpoint other than Christianity was denigrated. (He allowed, however, pagan and roman gods, which are still extant in some institutional churches today!)
St Paul debated with the Epicureans when he was in Athens but put the Christian viewpoint rather than denigrating what he must of known was a philosophy rather than a religous belief system.
The church of Jesus Christ isnt necessarily the institutional megaliths we see today, or 1900 years ago..
I cannot agree that Constantine should take the rap for the treatment of dissenters, philosophic and religious. He was not responsible, surely, for the macho male take- over of the early church by the lads, and it is unlikely that the emperor had much to do with pursuing the heretics who believed that God was within us and eliminating them. This holy work was continued, with the height of intolerance reached, arguably, around the 15th Century, when the church was at it’s richest and most powerful. Dissenters were tortured, burned, and otherwise liquidated.
I’m sure you are right that Constantine was nasty piece of work and also that the church of Jesus Christ now has a wide membership with views varying from ultra liberal to Opus Dei. But it is hard to ignore the history.
Yes indeed, I agree with Robert . The fundamentalist element in all religions soon ascribe to the ‘in group /out group’ stance where they are right, everyone else is wrong and,as in Christianity, everyone but those who agree are going to hell. Even, very sadly the peaceable Buddhists these days, according to one article I read.
A superficial study of church history shows how intolerant so called Christians have been down the ages. So it was not only Constantine, if indeed he cared that much or had the time to care while defending Rome’s boundaries.