You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
believing as I do that the ability to experience religious belief is actually part of a larger aspect of the human psyche I am not so sure
There does seem to be a need to belong which if you can extrapolate it beyond Dunbar's number (as debatable as that is) is advantageous to your group since quantity is a quality all of its own (attributed probably falsely to Stalin).
I am not sure it has been proved to be true but there is a story about Abu Hamza using the Arsenal fans who went past the mosque on the way to the game as the sort of example of belief and enthusiasm he wanted from his followers for Islam.
I am convinced its all part of the same thing.
there is an awful lot more than the monotheastic religions.
Indeed. Why did the old polytheistic religions die out - Egyptian, Greek, Roman. Why were they wrong but "modern" monotheistic religions are right?
Thank you for the book recommendation, it is now on my ipad and I may get to it next week, though it will be my third weighty number about "the west" in the last couple of years.
I had been thinking quite a bit about my experience with religion this week, as this weeks elections brought back memories of sermons of the 1970s. This was Northern Ireland in the 1970s, and the families in the congregation were urged to bring forth as many babies as possible for baptism in the expectation that us catholics would outbreed the joyless sexless prods at the bottom of the hill leading to ultimate electoral victory and the throwing off of the English yoke. My (English) dad held his tongue and played his part, and now here we are, or rather here they are, since our family left many years ago after specific credible threats were received from people who were known to have carried them out. The beatings were getting tiresome by then anyway.
I tried quite hard to find something in religion for me, up to my early twenties, study groups, retreats, all that jazz, but although I can go through all the motions and recite the lot from St Patrick's Breastplate to De Profundis and back via the Angelus Bells, and I have done, and will do again, weddings, funerals, there is comfort in the ritual even now. I just don't find a truth in it and am too stubborn by nature for the concept of faith to have a chance with me. Pastor Mick thinks otherwise, but most of what he achieves doesn't require or involve the supernatural. So there it is, I knew of but never achieved faith. I haven't been in a church for nearly two weeks now, they remain beautiful inspirational achievements in art and architecture, and calm welcoming meditative spaces too. If I believed, I'd likely go along with the "us vs them", but I don't.
Why were they wrong but “modern” monotheistic religions are right?
They have only died out in certain parts of the world.
In the past in a particular region monotheism generally either be wiped out, because they refuse to play with others, or completely dominate again because they refuse to play wth others. Its not like Pagan Rome which would tend to take in other religions and try to blend them together (why there is a blur between Greek and Roman gods for a particular job).
Its only when monotheism is introduced by conquerors who dont quite fancy their chances enough to push to far that the two survive side by side eg Hinduism in India with Islam and then Christianity.
Indeed. Why did the old polytheistic religions die out – Egyptian, Greek, Roman. Why were they wrong but “modern” monotheistic religions are right?
Because Christianity offered the "average Joe" something that the old religions didn't or couldn't; equality. The philosophy behind it comes with a pretty attractive set of rules for everyone to follow. Clearly only in theory to begin with, but it's the same set of rules that eventually allows Charles 1 to be put on trial (for example)
Its not like Pagan Rome which would tend to take in other religions
Pagan is a 4thC Roman word invented to describe people who live in backwater and don't practice Christianity, it translates as Rural.
Abrahamic religion has a bit of a PR issue. Your main celebrities ( Trump et al, US evangelists, Russian orthodox church leadership , The Catholic church over the last 500yrs, Israeli settlers, The Tory God squad etc) are absolutely irredeemable.
It's a tough sell Saxon, best of luck, not for me but best of luck!
The bible was written so long after the alleged events to place then there is little chance of anything being accurate.
The New Testament was written down between 50- 100 years after the events they talk about. In just ancient historic document research terms (what interests me) that's pretty much as good as it gets. Most people who actually research the documents as they exists agree on just about one thing. That a bloke called Jesus was crucified. Having said that Paul's letters to the Galatians ( for instance) are actual letters that you can read, written just post the events of Jesus' death by one of his followers, again in ancient document terms that's gold standard. There's huge amounts of documented ancient historical fact that's taken at face value on much much flimsier evidence
Plus the obvious follow on question is most of the north western European polytheistic religions Old Norse and so on weren't written down at all, and if they were, not for thousands of years after they stopped being worshipped or followed. This doesn't seem to be an issue.
Same Bloke if you’re a Catholic so no problem there.
Same woman? Or is it that man made god in his own image?
Because Christianity offered the “average Joe” something that the old religions didn’t or couldn’t; equality. The philosophy behind it comes with a pretty attractive set of rules for everyone to follow.
I still don’t see equality to this day. What part the church does or did play in that I don’t know. I still think a lot of average Joe’s will have been non-believers at any given point in history. It just wasn’t possible to voice that opinion.
When it was first introduced it was wildly popular. so much so that they went on something of a destruction spree of old religious statuary , books and symbols (Library of Alexandria fro example). It remains wildly popular for hundreds of years after that.
I still think a lot of average Joe’s will have been non-believers at any given point in history
From everything I've read, There's not huge amounts of evidence of great swathes of the population telling themselves under their breath that "but this is all crap though right?" it just doesn't exist in the sort of volume that would make it worth writing about. I think you're right in that lost of folks practiced faith "by rote" but that's not the same.
It just wasn’t possible to voice that opinion.
what happens to folks now who voice a different opinion to the accepted orthodoxy (flat earth anyone?)
Because Christianity offered the “average Joe” something that the old religions didn’t or couldn’t; equality
Aside from especially during the early medieval period it really didnt. At best it worked with "life is crap now but hey in the afterlife you will do well. honest". Which is a handy method of crowd control.
but it’s the same set of rules that eventually allows Charles 1 to be put on trial (for example)
And yet the reason he got killed was he believed rather firmly in the divine right of kings. Something Christianity had been happily pushing for centuries.
Pagan is a 4thC Roman word invented to describe people who live in backwater and don’t practice Christianity,
Ermmm yes I know.
Is it not just the case that we are more tolerant of people’s religious choices or lack thereof nowadays? I can’t imagine having an easy life as an atheist back in the day.
At the end of the day and in my opinion religion served a purpose when we were less enlightened. Now, I firmly believe it doesn’t. If people want to believe in something, anything then go for it and best of luck to them. Said beliefs should have no place in politics, schools, hospitals or the running of a country though.
Also what Bruce says below. Sums it up better than my hard time being an atheist line. I don’t think people loved Christianity they just didn’t get much say in the matter
what happens to folks now who voice a different opinion to the accepted orthodoxy (flat earth anyone?)
It's either, we burn them at the stake or we let them have a youtube channel with thousands of subscribers. I always get those two mixed up.
Actually, I think I'm getting the appeal of religion. If someone says something you don't like you can just kill them. Or at least you could until bloody secularists started spoiling the fun.
what happens to folks now who voice a different opinion to the accepted orthodoxy (flat earth anyone?)
This is a ridiculous false equivelance, as Bruce says, we don't burn them at the stake or murder them, we laugh at them or feel sorry for them.
Secondly, spheroid earth is not "orthodoxy" its just evidenced overwhelmingly.
Nickc you say you are non believer but spend all your time lobbing non sequiters and trying to show off your (often innacurate) theistic knowledge as an attempt to dissemble any objections to god and theism. What is your purpose in this discussion?
If you think your alone! Think of Voyager !
I still don’t see equality to this day.
Sure, It offers it though. Same as politics now. in theory all the right "equipment" is there to make eveyone's life better. It isn't though, is it? Doesn't stop us voting (despite the evidence to the contrary that it will - at some point in the future, make a difference) In that respect how is voting any different to saying prayers?
I don’t think people loved Christianity they just didn’t get much say in the matter
There's huge amounts of written stuff from priests and so on saying how awful the locals are at being Christians, they don't come to church, the break the commandments all the time. What there really isn't is masses of non belief. Firstly obviously it was bloody dangerous, but also there's no evidence, as these folks can't read or write, so there's no wide spread mass literature saying how it's all fake. What you can't do is apply your critical thinking 21st C cynicism skills (not in a pejorative sense) to these folks. There's no evidence that they thought it was fake, lots of evidence that they all believed.
This is a ridiculous false equivelance
It isn't. The point is that the average person thinks the world is round. It wouldn't occur to them to think differently. To the average; say medieval peasant. God is real, he/she doesn't have the critical thinking skills to think anything different to that notion, and why should he?
Because Christianity offered the “average Joe” something that the old religions didn’t or couldn’t; equality
Aside from especially during the early medieval period it really didnt.
Tom Holland in that book I linked to says that Jesus says that everyone is equal and God loves us all, which is revolutionary and subversive at the time. It's what got him killed. And of course, power was never going to accept that (and still doesn't) but with Christianity the underclasses, the slaves, women etc have an argument in their favour which does not exist in other main religions. After Christianity is adopted, they have can appeal to that. Lots of things in Western history follow on from that idea, such as the individualism that we now see. And even the difference in response between the populations of Asian nations and particularly the USA. A lot of Americans can't stand being told what to do, because of this individualism.
Would we have evolved and become civilised in the way we have (I know, but stick with it!) without some kind of belief system to keep us on the straight and narrow?
There's nowhere I know that hasn't in some way created a belief system to underpin morality rules - from the white haired old men in clouds to Pigs heads on sticks, in the end hasn't everyone been through some kind of system that will strike them down with great vengeance and furious anger if they don't toe the line? There's no 'control' civilisation (and the ones that were closest were 'thankfully' converted from being happy savages going about their lives by missionaries for their own good)
. Lots of things in Western history follow on from that idea, such as the individualism that we now see
This is undefinable, unprovable bunkum. all humans are idnividuals with their own needs thoughts and actions. Always have been.
And yet the reason he got killed was he believed rather firmly in the divine right of kings.
Sure, but he was put on trial like any other regular bloke. In the eyes of the law (finally) he was being judged the same. Like God said.
Would we have evolved and become civilised in the way we have (I know, but stick with it!) without some kind of belief system to keep us on the straight and narrow?
I don't think the belief system does keep us on the straight and narrow tbh, our shared social values and affinity with our 'tribe' do that. And those things are very fluid as we have seen.
The question is to what extend are our historical religions intertwined with those shared values, and do those values follow on from religion or vice versa?
We've seen how Christianity has become far more moderate over the centuries. Did that happen because we kept coming back to the underpinnings of Jesus' teaching, or did it happen because society evolved that way on its own?
This is undefinable, unprovable bunkum
There's huge amounts of evidence to suggest that individualism is a late19th early 20thC phenomenon. Mass education gives rise to critical thought. Give people the tools and they'll find out for themselves.
This is undefinable, unprovable bunkum. all humans are idnividuals with their own needs thoughts and actions. Always have been.
I think you've missed the point a bit. Humans are (and aren't!) individuals, for sure, but my point was related to how Christian-based society has defined and acknowledged that idea versus non-Christian ones.
or did it happen because society evolved that way on its own?
I think as each generation readjusts its political and cultural norms, institutions like the church adapt as well. I don't think you can separate the two.
I don’t think the belief system does keep us on the straight and narrow tbh, our shared social values and affinity with our ‘tribe’ do that. And those things are very fluid as we have seen.
I meant back in past history rather than recent / modern times - yes, we have evolved beyond religion and the fear of eternal damnation or whatever to (in the main) realise that just following basic rules and getting along is generally much better for all concerned. Would that realisation have happened without going through the fear of eternal damnation bit first though? Did it serve a purpose, which we don't really need now?
Back to my earlier thoughts on this subject though. In modern enlightened times I don't need 'God' to tell me how to be a decent person, or the fear of what will happen if I'm not to cement it. But there are things I don't understand and which so far I haven't found an explanation for that people with faith are much happier to rationalise with 'God's will' and that solves things for them. And at times I wish I had that faith.
I think you’ve missed the point a bit. Humans are (and aren’t!) individuals, for sure, but my point was related to how Christian-based society has defined and acknowledged that idea versus non-Christian ones.
Fair point, but people will still behave individually and ask questions if given the opportunity to do so without repercussions.
They did not need christianties permission to think and behave freely. It has been going on since year dot.
In modern enlightened times I don’t need ‘God’ to tell me how to be a decent person
There's an argument that says that our (21st C Northern European) ethics/morals/values are Christian based regardless. So most of things that we all accept as "the right thing" be that look after the poor, feed the hungry and so on, are all essentially Christian philosophy. Has "God's" work been done? Does it matter that you don't believe anymore?
I think as each generation readjusts its political and cultural norms, institutions like the church adapt as well
Which doesnt really support your case about Christianity's impact on Europe.
In what way does it not?
In what way does it not?
If it needs to adapt then where is the drive for the adaption coming from?
They did not need christianties permission to think and behave freely.
But you do need an education. And no one got one. or the one they did get was bible stories You keep on saying that you like the scientific model as it is falsifiable. Then apply the scientific model to the theory that medieval peasants thought that Christianity was all a load of nonsense or that they were individuals in the sense that they had critical thinking skills that they could apply to religion..
Find the evidence for it.
If it needs to adapt then where is the drive for the adaption coming from?
From the societies that are changing their views on right and wrong. Slavery is a good example of it, isn't it? The early church were fine about it, then slowly but surely those attitudes changed, until the abolitionists who are mostly Christian based.
Humans are (and aren’t!) individuals
the theory that medieval peasants thought that Christianity was all a load of nonsense or that they were individuals in the sense that they had critical thinking skills that they could apply to religion..
Find the evidence for it.
To indulge for a moment the slightly strawman argument - isn’t there a small problem with sourcing ‘evidence’ from mediaeval peasantry?
From Quora:
In Medieval times, “Literate” actually meant able to read and write in Latin, which was considered to be the language of learning. Being able to read and write in the vernacular wasn’t considered real learning at all. Most peasants prior to the Black Death (which really shook up society) had little chance to learn - hard labouring work all of the hours of daylight does’t leave a lot of energy for reading or writing.
It’s worth noting, however the panic amongst the ruling classes when translations of The Bible started to appear written in English. This really started in the late 14th Century (about 30 years after the Black Death). The level of panic suggests that the Ruling Classes knew that the numbers of people who could read and write English was far greater than the numbers who could read Latin. A Century and a half later, Mary was burning people at the stake for reading English translations of The Bible (and on one occassion a blind woman who paid a schoolboy to read it to her). Thomas More was obsessed with tracking down and executing Tyndale, whose translation was both accurate and poetical (and comprised the majority of the King James Bible, as the scholars he employed simply could not find better words than Tyndale). So this all implies that the ability to read and write English was increasingly widespread amongst the “lower classes” to the point where them being able to read The Bible and decide things for themselves was seen as a major risk to society. But technically, English didn’t count as “literate”.
^ Which I would contend is also the situation with evangelism/preaching in any situation where the preacher may dazzle with their seemingly all-encompassing knowledge - while their target is hampered by a lack of instant access to knowledge. It’s a case of driving that God/guilt/fear-wedge into the soft material until the wedge is now the material. The newly discovered guilt and fear and reverence has now effectively become an information firewall.
To then open the firewall would be to let in ‘Satan/evil/temptation/liberals/false religions/perversion’ etc’
nickc
I think as each generation readjusts its political and cultural norms, institutions like the church adapt as well. I don’t think you can separate the two.
Of course.
Man created god.
Every single human action, decision and belief is a consequence of the state of human evolution at the time.
Faith, belief and the impact of those intrinsic aspects of human nature are merely reflections of ourselves.
As god does not exist, every action carried out in the name of faith is merely a consequence of human nature. 🙂
@SaxonRider - what a great idea.
As a paid up Agnostic I'd be really interested in hearing your thoughts and asking questions.
My MIL is a 'Christian Fundamentalist' (politest way I could phrase it...) and trying to have a measured conversation with her about ANY/ANYTHING religion(s) is like pulling teeth - Her religion is the only right one......
I like to think that I may have softened her a bit by showing that you can be a good person without being religious/attending church/praying but not happened so far.....
From the societies that are changing their views on right and wrong. Slavery is a good example of it, isn’t it?
Yes but not in a way which supports your claim.
The abolitionists were a mix with Quakers well represented but opposed to them were plenty of other Christians.
So you run into the problem. If Christianity was the driving force a)why did it take so long and b)why were so many Christians opposed?
This is undefinable, unprovable bunkum. all humans are idnividuals with their own needs thoughts and actions. Always have been
I think this shows the extent to which we think our western liberal 'christian' worldview is universal, when in fact it very much isn't. For example, in classical Greece there was no sense of individualism or of individual rights. People only existed within the 'polis' (city state) and their lives were defined as such. Your citizenship was what you were and they did not have a concept of the individual standing outside society. Instead the society you were in was integral to you as a person. Unless you understand that fact a lot of Greek history & belief becomes difficult to comprehend.
So you run into the problem. If Christianity was the driving force a)why did it take so long and b)why were so many Christians opposed?
This is identical issue to modern politics. Everyone thinks their system of using the tools available will get the best results for everyone. No one can agree on what that is. Christianity's philosophy in that sense is no different. It's Human society working out the best way to get shit done given the framework that they believe/have available at the time.
to answer your questions a) most societies don't change in a revolutionary fashion all that often. I think we're different in the 20/21st C in how fast our world changes. There's a theory that says the rate of change is compressing so fast that even people from 50-60years would struggle to keep up. I think if you dropped the 12th or 13thC peasant into a 15thC world, the difference wouldn't be anything like as pronounced. and b) vested interests, of course. I'd imagine that lots of Kings and the higher echelons of the Church found themselves in pretty comfy positions, why disturb that sweet gig?
The New Testament was written down between 50- 100 years after the events they talk about. In just ancient historic document research terms (what interests me) that’s pretty much as good as it gets.
My point is that the current version of the Bible isn’t that old and there have been various iterations through out time with the story changed to suit the authors of the day. I still find it amazing that if the resurrection did happen why there is no record of the date. Let’s face it the resurrection is at the very centre of Christianity and yet there are no references as to when it happened. As a result Easter floats around the calendar despite being the celebration of the key event of the faith
I still find it amazing that if the resurrection did happen why there is no record of the date
Which date? the one according to the Hebrew Calendar? the Gregorian?, the Julian? And you still need to line up the astronomy. weirdly it's that question that got me started reading about how the early church got itself established, It's genuinely fascinating stuff, it's really a close run thing. We could've all been Saturnalists, or Zoroastrians
Edit: sorry, early BCE Rome could've been those things, it of course doesn't follow that it would've necessarily lasted
There’s an argument that says that our (21st C Northern European) ethics/morals/values are Christian based regardless.
A very weak one. Much stronger is the concept that morals existed because of evolutionary pressure and religions co opted this.
The problem with these discussions is that if you are arguing from false postulates ( " god exists") then you can never reach any valid conclusions.
Much stronger is the concept that morals existed because of evolutionary pressure
You could argue that the evolutionary pressure of "personal survival at all costs" is somewhat antithetical to most religious beliefs. Most aren't full of passages saying "I'm alright, jack" I read a very interesting article that suggested that (in survival terms) having a psychopath in your tribe would be useful benefit. It'll be him that'll take risks to hunt large animals, it'll be him who decides that the tribe has to go to the winter grounds even though old man Ug clearly won't survive the journey. Eskimos even have a phrase for "getting rid of the weird angry man in the tribe quietly on the dodgy ice flow so no-one notices"
If anything, religion's place is to add a moral framework around keeping the more "violent" evolutionary instincts in check, How else you going to make sure the strong young men and the tribe's psycho don't kill everyone and just take over?
is that if you are arguing from false postulates
For clarity once again; Not bought up in the Christian tradition, don't believe in God. Fun discussing it though.
You could argue that the evolutionary pressure of “personal survival at all costs” is somewhat antithetical to most religious beliefs.
You cannot because thats not what happened. co operative groups survived better.
good point.
I'd still say though that the moral framework in 21st C Britain owes more to the centuries of Christian philosophy laid on top of t's society than it does to evolutionary pressure
Nope - christian morals are overlain on top of millennia of evolution of groups of people. christianity is a thin veneer over the top in parts of the world and encompasses so many creeds with such divergent views....................
You could argue that the evolutionary pressure of “personal survival at all costs” is somewhat antithetical to most religious beliefs.
This is a rather simplistic view of evolutionary pressure at least when its applied to a group animal such as ourselves rather than a solitary animal. Cooperation will often give better long term results than completely self centred behaviour. After all doesnt matter how hard you are when you are asleep.
There is some evidence for example in Chimpanzees where smaller males still become dominant by virtue of playing politics.
How else you going to make sure the strong young men and the tribe’s psycho don’t kill everyone and just take over?
Generally by outnumbering them as indeed you covered with your Eskimo example.
christianity is a thin veneer
Hardly. But as your here, I'll bow out of this discussion
Fair point, but people will still behave individually and ask questions if given the opportunity to do so without repercussions.
They did not need christianties permission to think and behave freely. It has been going on since year dot.
But people living in other societies accept limits on personal freedom and autonomy that we in the West would not. Why is that?
If Christianity was the driving force a)why did [abolotion] take so long and b)why were so many Christians opposed?
Because lots of people weren't very good Christians, I would expect.
There’s an argument that says that our (21st C Northern European) ethics/morals/values are Christian based regardless.
A very weak one.
I recommend the book I mentioned twice. It's a good read.
You cannot because thats not what happened. co operative groups survived better.
Indeed. You need to look after your own tribe, but compete against the neighbouring tribes. It's what we see in primate groups and it's what we see in modern human society all the time.
Hardly. But as your here, I’ll bow out of this discussion
FFS sake TJ has god like powers. That is so ****ing unfair.
This is like discussing Harry Potter alternative timelines. Its all bloody imaginary. At least Potter fans know it is imaginary.
RustySpanner has it down 100% .
Of course.
Man created god.
Every single human action, decision and belief is a consequence of the state of human evolution at the time.
Faith, belief and the impact of those intrinsic aspects of human nature are merely reflections of ourselves.
As god does not exist, every action carried out in the name of faith is merely a consequence of human nature. 🙂
Growing up (well, getting older) in the west of Scotland I was taught it was never clever to discuss religion, and I ended up shying away from it all ever since. Hence much respect to @SaxonRider and others for attempting to engage in meaningful discussion. It's not an area I can contribute anything to so it's not for me, but fair play for starting this off.
Hardly.
The image of Jesus as a nordic blond - thats Apollo - they just reused the pictures. Holly and ivy and mistletoe - all pre christian as is eater bunnies and eggs.
Why don't you join the group TJ? It might be better than discussing it here as the point if what @SaxonRider is doing is trying to overcome the mess that this usually turns into
Ten pages and the only "mess" I've seen is from people butting in to whine about what a mess it is before disappearing back under their rock without further contribution.
I’d still say though that the moral framework in 21st C Britain owes more to the centuries of Christian philosophy laid on top of t’s society than it does to evolutionary pressure
Nope – christian morals are overlain on top of millennia of evolution of groups of people. christianity is a thin veneer over the top in parts of the world and encompasses so many creeds with such divergent views………………..
Do either of you actually know or are you just speculating?
Did the spread of Christianity cause a paradigm shift in the morals and behaviours of the great unwashed, or did it just shore up what many people thought anyway? Or is it in fact a little from both columns?
wasn't going to bother contributing to this thread (although it's interesting) because this is (the) one subject you're never going to change anyone's mind on! However this has summed up my thoughts so succinctly & eloquently:
that I'll just +1 it and add, you can argue the minutiae until the cows come home, but that's the truth of it.Man created god.
tjagain
The image of Jesus as a nordic blond – thats Apollo – they just reused the pictures.
Woohoo. My favourite art/religion crossover factoid. And probably a big factor in my adult rejection of religion as opposed to spirituality or morality. At least Islam got round this issue by decreeing that images of god/prophets are forbidden (and created some bloody astonishing art as a result).
Which date? the one according to the Hebrew Calendar? the Gregorian?, the Julian?
I don't understand – if they don't know the exact day of Easter, how do they know that Santa Claus was born on 25th December?
Did the spread of Christianity cause a paradigm shift in the morals and behaviours of the great unwashed, or did it just shore up what many people thought anyway? Or is it in fact a little from both columns?
The god botherers took what people were doing and said "its gods way"
No citations but a fair amount of reading. Its also true that the pre christian influences are everywhere with christianity laid over them. Most cultures have a mid winter festival for example. Our christmas owes more to pre christian tradition than it does to the bible and those pre christian traditions have greater longevity than christian ones
Not to get sidetracked, but surely to God they didn't just overlay Easter on to older pre-christian celebrations that did move around a bit due to the phases of the moon and it's supposed effect on agriculture? Yule be saying Christmas isn't real next...
Which date? the one according to the Hebrew Calendar? the Gregorian?, the Julian?
i don’t care which calendar you use. If the resurrection took place it happened on a specific day. Why is that date on any calendar known. The gospels wax lyrically about it and no one thought to say what day it was?
Man created god.
Every single human action, decision and belief is a consequence of the state of human evolution at the time.
Faith, belief and the impact of those intrinsic aspects of human nature are merely reflections of ourselves.
As god does not exist, every action carried out in the name of faith is merely a consequence of human nature. 🙂
Equally you can say that man created love. Many things, good and bad are done in the name of love. Wars have started and peace has been forged because of love. Yet we can't see it, touch it, evidence its existence in the normal scientific ways. Are you telling me that love doesn't exist?
God might be a human construct, but doesn't mean s/he isn't real.
Yup - pre christian spring festival of fertility - hence bunnies and eggs. Its rumpy pumpy time!
Sorry TJ, I was being a bit facetious.
the first mention of Easter/ Eostre is Bede. 8thC, and he's writing from a purely Christian perspective, and is linking it with Paschal (Greek) and Passover (Hebrew) hence the confusion about the date (all three use different calendars). he links it to an Anglo Saxon celebration, but he's very careful to say that Jesus celebrations have replaced it. It's not clear if he's just making it up, or whether he's trying to add a varnish of history of Christian/Easter celebration going back to when Jesus was alive - type propoganda. (not unlike the sorts of family trees for Kings you see with history going back to Adam)
If there was spring fertility festival anywhere, celebrated before it's not been written down. (like much of pre-Christian records) I think it's highly likely there was one though, like Shortest day/longest day, I don't doubt the equinox's were also celebrated.
Xmas is thought probably to be Saturnalian in provenance
If there was spring fertility festival anywhere, celebrated before it’s not been written down. (like much of pre-Christian records)
This above is an example of most of the incorrect stuff that you have posted here. I think you know its incorrect.
1) Knowruz.
2) Passover, long before jesus.Came from Caananite festival of barley harvest.
3) Shemu the egyptians, recorded in heiroglyphics since 2700 BC. Some possibly earlier.
Also easter - timing of the rules were set by the first council of nicaea in 325. So Bede is 400 years late.
If the resurrection took place it happened on a specific day. Why is that date on any calendar known
Because the Hebrew calendar uses moon phases to start the year. The new year is fixed at Aviv (the Lunar new year) and is called Nisan, from there you can work out the Paschal Seder (Feast of Passover), where we get to be pissed as a Mitzvah (hoorah)
How come you don't know any of this stuff, I thought you all went to Sunday school?
Haven't linguists proposed earlier (pre-Bede) variations/antecedents of Eostre? To be fair though, I don't think anyone's found a prior link between those deities and any festival.
Did the spread of Christianity cause a paradigm shift in the morals and behaviours of the great unwashed, or did it just shore up what many people thought anyway?
It's more the small details that made a difference. I'm just citing what I've read from memory but women in Europe were afforded greater rights (e.g. the ability to own property) to a greater extent than in other parts of the world, and it is suggested that this is because Jesus teaches that everyone is equal before God.
Now I appreciate this is a massive topic so don't shoot me, that's just what I read.
Ten pages and the only “mess” I’ve seen is from people butting in to whine about what a mess it is before disappearing back under their rock without further contribution.
I don't think it's a mess yet but it's going the usual way of comments like 'god botherers'. I think @SaxonRiders idea was to have some sort of meeting rather than start a thread to cover the same ground as usual in the same way
This above is an example of most of the incorrect stuff that you have posted here
Nowruz is a new year celebration,
Passover isn't a spring fertility right.
Shemu is the other end of the year and it's a harvest festival.
Also easter – timing of the rules were set by the first council of nicaea in 325
My understanding is they tried and failed, no? Plus they would've referred to it as Pascha
I've said that I don't doubt spring fertility celebration that were pre-Christian took place. Lots of the northern European ones that were being celebrated in places where Christianity replaced the local religions in Europe weren't written down.
You seem to think I've an agenda, i haven't, I'm just shooting the shit like the rest of the people on this thread. This is just stuff I've read, listened to to and a couple of my close friends are medieval literature lecturers at Manchester uni, and we've often had this discussion -That's as close to expert as I am. (ie not very)
Any mistakes are my own.
Nowruz (Persian: نوروز, pronounced [nowˈɾuːz]; lit. 'new day') is the Persian-language term for the day of the Iranian New Year,[24] also known as the Persian New Year.[25] It begins on the spring equinox[26] and marks the beginning of Farvardin,
Passover if you read about it became merged with the resserrection.
Shemu is in spring as the barley grows during the winter in egypt. It starts in May.
I’m just citing what I’ve read from memory but women in Europe were afforded greater rights (e.g. the ability to own property) to a greater extent than in other parts of the world
You would need to compare Europe against the control groups in the Orthodox church areas to see if Christianity did have that impact.
I would say though womens rights were highly variable throughout Europe and at different periods of time so I doubt it would stand up to scrutiny.
I would say though womens rights were highly variable throughout Europe and at different periods of time so I doubt it would stand up to scrutiny.
Right but overall were women better off in Europe than elsewhere?
Shemu is the other end of the year and it’s a harvest festival.
I think I had that on the Dreamcast.