The theory that Babylon's pagan practices were integrated into Catholic worship and practices was developed and popularized by Alexander Hislop (1800s) in his book "The Two Babylons". Evangelical theologian Ralph Woodrow became so enthralled by Hislop's ideas that he rewrote Hislop's book putting it into modern English and context. This new book, "Babylon Mystery Religion" was a hit and became well-known in some evangelical circles.
Now, here's the interesting part...
One day Woodrow was challenged by a history professor as to the historicity of the claims in the book. Woodrow, being a man of integrity, decided to research Hislop's claims. He was shocked to find that there was no evidence (compelling or otherwise) for anything Hislop had claimed. Woodrow was so upset that he had followed Hislop and popularized Hislop's false ideas that he removed his own book from print, incurring a heavy financial loss. Then, to remedy the situation the best he could, he wrote a book, "The Babylon Connection" (still in print), which goes step by step proving that Hislop's "history" is really a mythology of his own making.
As Woodrow puts it:
"As I did this [research], it became clear-Hislop's "history" was often only mythology... an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities-why anything could be "proved"!"
*Also, just like Candy "cherry-picks" from the Bible, she also "cherry-picks" from Hislop, choosing to believe his outrageous claims about Catholicism, but ignoring his other silly proclamations (i.e. According to Hislop's theology, if you wear a cross around your neck, you are promoting a pagan sign of the devil).
Now Candy made some specific (and very silly) allegations.
I'll talk about the supposed Dagon "fish hat" here:
If you research it, you will find that:
1. The Catholic church is charged in ancient times for causing the fall of Rome...How? The charge made by angry pagans said that the Church wiped out all pagan worship thereby causing Rome to collapse. (Read about it in Augustine's The City of God.)
2. Why would the Church then purposely adopt pagan practices?
3. Very little is known about Dagon, but what is known is that ancient Bishop's mitres resembled smallish caps. They did not arrive at the now familiar shape until the 1500s. Therefore, the Church did not "copy" the alleged headgear that Dagon was wearing (unless you are willing to say that the Church waited 1500 years to do so).
4. The pictures Candy posted which "compare" Dagon's headgear to a bishop's are for the most part recent artistic renderings. Certain features have been "enhanced" to help make the "point".
5. It is common for a leader to have a "big hat". There is nothing pagan or wrong with that. It is merely custom. That is really the only similarity between Dagon's headgear and that of a Bishop's.
*More about the "whore" and Revelation 17 later!
1 comments:
I like how you dig and use research to refute information. I've always been amazed when people make a choice to use limited information, and only that limited information, to make outrageous claims.
Something as simple as a search in Google will bring up much to contradict CB's Whore of Babylon piece; she, instead, chooses to use only information that supports her already established beliefs.
Bear with me; I have a point in the upcoming rambling...
When I was a Senior in College, my senior thesis was on "The effects of computer mediated communication upon human communication". The entire concept was born out of my total and complete frustration with the way "netspeak" and "textspeak" had been absorbed into every day written and spoken language. I was (and still am, although I understand it a lot more) very against it and did a lot of reading and gathered a lot of evidence to support my opinion that it corrupted language and intelligence. Seeing kids use text/net speak in written assignments for school, receiving a printed invitation from a cousin for a party that said "u r invited 2 a prty 4 J..." drove me over the brink.
Every single thing I read that supported my belief made me more and more arrogant in it. I believed I was right and this type of language had no place in written and spoken communication.
But, something happened along the way that I couldn't do anything about. A requirement for my thesis was that I incorporate, compare, contrast and discuss ALTERNATE opinions on the matter. The reasonings for that are many, but the most important one is that you cannot understand something fully unless you understand both or all sides of it. You must understand what you are "against" as well as what you are "for".
My research led me through linguistic and social theory and study rather than just communication study. And I was, in short, blown away by what I learned. I learned that language is not static; I knew this to some degree but had a hard time admitting it in light of my personal feelings about the changes in language. Language changes with each new societal and technological development. We talk and write differently now than we did even fifty years ago. The telephone changed communication drastically and altered written communication in numerous ways.
Instead of rambling more about my research, what I learned is key to my point. I learned the although my irritation with the changes is not unusual, there is not much I can do about it. It is the nature of language and in another fifty years my thesis project will look like the work of high schooler with little understanding of the linguistic changes affected by societal changes.
I know now that language changes constantly and that is the nature of language. I'm still not happy about some of the effects, but that's a personal opinion and I know that. It is my issue to deal with. The changes and effects are not "wrong"; they are what they are, and they are normal, natural progression in human communication.
In my research, I found thousands upon thousands of pieces of information to support my stance. But, when necessity dictated I go further than what I WANTED to read, I also found thousands and thousands of pieces of information that went against my belief.
My point, in case it's been lost, which I don't doubt because I tend to ramble, is that when you look only for what you want to find, you will have more than enough "evidence" to back up what you say or believe. But, if you expand your research and intentionally seek out alternate opinions and views, you just may be surprised what you learn - about yourself and the topic about which you are speaking.
I think that in CB's case, she stops her search when she reads something that supports her existing belief. She see's no reason to go any further; no reason to seek alternate views because she is already completely convinced that she knows "the truth" and for some reason cannot allow herself to believe others have a truth that is different form hers or even more, that her truth is not, in fact truth.
Any one of her Catholic posts can be refuted by a simple Google search. It doesn't take a lot of digging to find an alternate view. She simply chooses not to.
Ok, long winded story over. But, I can't help but make the comparison. I do that a lot since my "enlightenment" with that thesis project.
Post a Comment