GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Thou shall not suffer a witch to live

POSTED BY: SIMONWHO
UPDATED: Monday, December 5, 2022 09:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 19520
PAGE 2 of 3

Friday, July 24, 2009 8:09 AM

MIKEWILLIAMSON


I specifically said that Christianity is not inherently evil, but you made a false statement:

Quote:
"No one killed people over their Religious beliefs."


Utterly false.

There may or may not have been an overall plan that justified it, for right or wrong, as defending pilgrims. The publicly announced statement of purpose may or may not collate with the intended real world purpose.

This puts you in the position of proving such pilgrims had a right to be there. I agree they did, but the international relations at the time were different. Someone persecuting members of your faith half a world away, as a justification to go do likewise, is, in fact, killing over faith. Whether or not it's justified is a separate argument. I believe it was, but they were, in fact, killing over a matter of faith, on foreign soil.

And a good number of people did, in fact, kill or get killed over their religious beliefs.

Let's briefly mention the IRA, who were dedicated Marxist-Leninists, attempting to create their own state that was condemned by both the UK AND the Irish Republic, but I can assure you first hand that a LOT of people felt it was a religious war, Catholic vs Protestant, publicly stated so, and acted accordingly. BTDT

The Pi issue, I was simply pointing out that the Bible is not a scientific text. It's myth--part history (though a lot of dates don't quite synch, which is true of ANY historical document from the past), part philosophy, part theology. My intent is not to pick it apart. I'm just pointing out that it is far from inerrant.

The correct texts on locusts is:

http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/19/Q1/

Quote:
he only flying insects with four walking legs that you may eat are those which have knees extending above their feet, [using these longer legs] to hop on the ground.


But Christians have interpreted this as:
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. (KJV)

They're not fowls, for one.

20 All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you. (RSV)

20 Every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four shall be an abomination unto you. (Darby)

This repeated translation is IN ERROR in that it is insufficiently descriptive. If I read that, I can't eat a creature that doesn't exist--an insect with four legs. That's nice. I also wouldn't eat one with 2.5 legs. The translation, as written, can't be parsed without referential study. Bad translation! Bad, BAD translation! No dessert!

Especially as providing the correct fix is rather easy. See the Hebrew reference above.

The fact that issues like this are still under debate 2500 years later just shows how poorly written and sourced the material is.

Again, this is not an attack on faith. It's a rebuttal that Christianity did not engage in faith-based killing. It has. Far less than Islam, but far more than Buddhism. It's also a denial that any scripture is inerrant.

oh, yes:

Job 38:22, Items Stored- Hail & Snow

"Hast thou entered into the storehouses of the snow, and hast thou seen the treasuries of the hail,"

Osar is literally translated to mean: treasury, storehouse, storeroom, storage vault, treasures, treasuries, cellars, armory and garners. All of these definitions are interchangeable for the Hebrew word Osar when it is used in scripture. Another Hebrew word that is often used to describe storerooms in scripture is the Hebrew word : Liska. In Strong's Liska is translated to mean: chamber or chambers, storeroom and parlour.


Again, it's poetic, allegorical, and valid. But it sure as hell ain't literal.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 1:05 PM

SHADESIREN


I always kinda thought they were putting the empahasis on the wrong word.

If you think of it a little differently, maybe what it REALLY meant is as long as you let the witch live, you won't suffer.


You shall not suffer; a witch to live....


(ok, silly, but I had to mention it because it amuses me....)

You know you want it - http://www.shadesiren.com

You know you need it - http://www.oberonrpg.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 3:17 PM

ZAROVE


Shad- the word "Suffer" means allow. The King James teanslation is form 1611, and newer translaitosn do not use this word.

Mike-

I specifically said that Christianity is not inherently evil,

And yet procceeded to make idiotic arugment slike the Bible insists that Pi=3, when it never even says this, and the complaint comes from a description of a molten sea in a Kings Palace.

The point is, you do seem to want ot run it down. Worse, you useing Jewish texts to do it, and seem to approach the bible as a single book, and htink these thins even if valuid prive the enture Bible is mythology.

None of that is logical.



but you made a false statement:


Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No one killed people over their Religious beliefs."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Utterly false.

Not really. Especially since, in context, I was refering specifically tot wh Witch Trials, We may have sidetracked to the Crusades, which where also not killings over beleifs spexifically, but the actual context of what IO said was about the Witch Trials. No one ded in the Witch Trials over mere beleifs.

Well, except the beleif that the accused where Witches.

But it wasn't religious persecution.




There may or may not have been an overall plan that justified it, for right or wrong, as defending pilgrims. The publicly announced statement of purpose may or may not collate with the intended real world purpose.



Well all we have to go by are the Historical records. I also did mention that abuses did occure in the Crusades, however, unlike the myth that built around them after the Enlightenment, they wherne't just indiscriminate killing of people by Christians. They where done for reasons that make sense if you look at the world these people actulaly lived in.



This puts you in the position of proving such pilgrims had a right to be there. I agree they did, but the international relations at the time were different. Someone persecuting members of your faith half a world away, as a justification to go do likewise, is, in fact, killing over faith. Whether or not it's justified is a separate argument. I believe it was, but they were, in fact, killing over a matter of faith, on foreign soil.


Your actually assumign what my faith is. I never mentioen dit in these threads. For all you know I coudl be an Athiest. I've seen Athiest correct these sorts of bad aruments before.

That said, I've already explained the reasonign behind the Crusades. And it wanst killign over Faith, as much as killing over A faith. And actually it was no different than killing for patriotism today.


In our world we may try to seperate Religion form everyday life, politics, and the real world, but obviously this is imposisble. Peopel who beleiv ein Buddhism arent capable of just beign buddhisst at home or in their temples, as Buddhism informs them of bow to ive in the owlrd, and how to see it. The same is true of Islam or Christainity.

And in a world in which Christainity was seen as an unquesitoned truth by Europeans, and clealry was how they shaped their enture society, then the rights of Christains to make Pilgirmage to the holy land obviously woudl be equelly political.

Further, if you agree they had this right, then Im not sure what your actual comlaint is.




And a good number of people did, in fact, kill or get killed over their religious beliefs.


Not really. They where killed over the land rights. When you say "Over their religious beleifs" it implies to the reader at least that you mean the Crusades where about theology. But the Catholic Church did not instigate any of the Crusades over theological differences with the Muslim world, but land rights, which is why they all died, Crusader and Ottomon alike.



Let's briefly mention the IRA, who were dedicated Marxist-Leninists, attempting to create their own state that was condemned by both the UK AND the Irish Republic, but I can assure you first hand that a LOT of people felt it was a religious war, Catholic vs Protestant, publicly stated so, and acted accordingly. BTDT


No one said otherwise. But even thats not a good exampel of Religion causing confliuct, as the divide was mainly over ethnicity and politics, with the Protestants beign seen as decendance form, and loyalists to, the British, and the Catholics being Irish. The Religions whre more cultural markers than actual cause for the conflict.

How its viewed is not aa relevant as what it was, and no one was slaughtered by the IRA over differing theological opinion.



The Pi issue, I was simply pointing out that the Bible is not a scientific text.


No, you where beign uttelry unreasonable. The hwole thing rests on too many asusmptions.

1: It assumes the Molten Sea was an exact Circle.

2: It assumes a Cubit is actulaly 18 inches. It snot, a Cubit is approximatley 18 inches but vaires. A Cibit is form the elbow tot he tip of the longest finger. My Cubit is only 17 and 1/2 Inches, and others may have 18 and 1/3rd of an inch, or more, or less.

So even if the Molten Sea was a perfect Circle, the Archetect who built its arm may have been such a lenght to make the reading measure perfeclty to Pi.

3: That approxiamations are the same as flaws.

This one is the really importsnt one. EVen a Sicnetific text will offer approximations rather htan large, compelxe bnumbers where htye ar eunnessisary.


So what you where pointign out was just ridiculously overanylising the text in orer to find fault.

It doesnt prove anythign about ht etext other than your willignness to use pointless arugments.

After all, you said that the Bible insisted that pi=3, when it never even says Pi=3, much less insisted upon it.




It's myth--part history (though a lot of dates don't quite synch, which is true of ANY historical document from the past), part philosophy, part theology. My intent is not to pick it apart. I'm just pointing out that it is far from inerrant.


But, did you prove that it was far form Innerent?

No, you proved that in this instance the Scribe who described th eMolten Sea built by King Hiram in Solomons Palace was likly an estimation, rather than an esact figure.

How does that prove this passage is mythological, or even wrong?

If you want to argue that the Bibel is not innerant, don't you htink a betterplace to start form in that end woudl be something honest people woudl actulaly buy that arne't interested in that agenda agenda?

IE, like real Shcolarhsip and issues such as the Documentary Hypothesis, or the claim that John 7:53-8:11 was a later addition tot he text of John?

Because quiet frankly the idea that the Bible is all myth because the Bible says Pi is equel to 3 is just a stupid claim.



The correct texts on locusts is:

http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/19/Q1/>

I didnt ask what the text on Locuts was, I simply noted that it was a Hebrew Aphorism.

Again, these people ate Locusts, and wher eintimitely aqianted with their bodies. It smuch less logical to think the Bible was wrong about how many legs a Lpcust had than to see his as a figure of speech, which is supported by other ancient texts usign the same sort of language.

Besides, Locusts could be said to be four legged, if you really want to stretch it. Locusts do not actulaly use their hind legs for walkign that much. THey are mainly used for leaping into the air, or else steerign while in flight.

So, one coudl argue that they are, in fact, four legged, just as Preying Mantis's coudl be said to be as their forelimbs are not used to wlak. In fact, this is a pretty standard argument for why they say four legged to begin with.

If you claim this is a stretch, consider that its much more plausable than proving hte bIble to be flawed, and htus filled with mythology, because of Pi.




Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
he only flying insects with four walking legs that you may eat are those which have knees extending above their feet, [using these longer legs] to hop on the ground.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But Christians have interpreted this as:
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. (KJV)

They're not fowls, for one.


According to whom?

The KJV was translated before there was a Lemarchian categorisation system, and used language contmporary to its day. Its like Shad's comment baitu Suffer. Suffer meant to allow, or permit. Now it doesn't. Fowl meant a flying creature. Only later (Anddurign the perid to some extent) did it cfind its use restricted to Birds, both flighted and flightless.

If you think "Christians translated this to mean fowl' and this is th eonly word ever used, you haven't read modern Bible translations too long.

The Hebrew doens't even use the word Fowl.

The Hebrew word is Ofe. This means Bired, or feathered, usually, but can be extended to other flying animals.

Hebrew is a much less precice lanfiage than English, and many words have a certain flexability not found in English.





20 All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you. (RSV)

20 Every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four shall be an abomination unto you. (Darby)

This repeated translation is IN ERROR in that it is insufficiently descriptive.

So is the Hebrew, whats your point?


If I read that, I can't eat a creature that doesn't exist--an insect with four legs. That's nice.

I've ALREADY explained that the reference to four legs was a figure of speech. I don't really know why you have a problem with this.

Well, actually I do. You want he Bible ot be flawed, and thus not innerant, to show up Christyians that their holy book just sint all its cracked up to be.

But really, your just repeating rather old, and themselves erroneous, claims.

These peopel ate Locusts, as well as other insects, and knew how many legs they had. Using reason you should at least consider that the Authors of the Bible, even if fully Human and with no divine guidance, woudl know this.

This would lead you to ask why they put "Four legged" down.

Instead you take it at face and deride it as innaccurate.

Its not. It was an expression talking abot how they walked, not the actual number of legs.




I also wouldn't eat one with 2.5 legs. The translation, as written, can't be parsed without referential study. Bad translation! Bad, BAD translation! No dessert!


None of them aree bad translations, your just not listenign to why the text says "four" instead of "Six".

Because you want to find fault.




Especially as providing the correct fix is rather easy. See the Hebrew reference above.

The fact that issues like this are still under debate 2500 years later just shows how poorly written and sourced the material is.


So I guess the Constitution of the US is poorly written and soruced,as it too is under debate. So is Plato, and so is Homer. The Tao is debated, as ae Buddhist texts. So is the Koran. So is literally every work from antiquity we actually possess.

It dosnt prove its poorly sourced or poorly written, it only shows how Humans tend to debate things.


Again, this is not an attack on faith. It's a rebuttal that Christianity did not engage in faith-based killing.

No its not.

You don't prove that Christianity didnt engage in Fasith Based killing by claiming that Jewish scriptures have problems and ane't innerant, and tryign to sell this by saying the description of a molten pool wasnt 100% in line iwht Pi so thus the Bible was wrong.

That is ismply not a logical way to show Christains engaged in Faith Based killing.

And, your cliam now contradicts yoru earlier claim of tying to prove that the Bible was not a scienece text (no one even claimed it wqas, but still your proof was shallow) or thayt it was no innerant.

So I suspect you just wan ot brign up thesde arguments to detract form Chrisainity, while still having an air abotu you of soem tolerance and open mindedness provided the Christain agrees that thebible is mythological, at leats in part, and filled with wrrors.

Its especially torubign since all I was really sayign was that Witches whren't kille don account of thir religious beelifs.

Ao your ultimatley making no rebuttle to what I actulaly said, or what anyone else argued.





It has. Far less than Islam, but far more than Buddhism. It's also a denial that any scripture is inerrant.


Less than Buddhism? I'm sorry that you buy into the PC myth of Buddhism beign the most peaceful relgiion ever, but Buddhist kill and torture people today in naitons where Buddhism is domenant, and if you read Asian History you will see many instances of people killing over Buddhist Philosophy.

Saying CHristianity has killed far more often than Buddhism is debatable.


And again, you didnt prove the Bible wasnt innerant, you quoted ridiculous arugments that prove that you will nitpick and find nonexistant errors or refuse to even see the answers to them.



oh, yes:

Job 38:22, Items Stored- Hail & Snow

"Hast thou entered into the storehouses of the snow, and hast thou seen the treasuries of the hail,"

Osar is literally translated to mean: treasury, storehouse, storeroom, storage vault, treasures, treasuries, cellars, armory and garners. All of these definitions are interchangeable for the Hebrew word Osar when it is used in scripture. Another Hebrew word that is often used to describe storerooms in scripture is the Hebrew word : Liska. In Strong's Liska is translated to mean: chamber or chambers, storeroom and parlour.


Again, it's poetic, allegorical, and valid. But it sure as hell ain't literal.


But no one ever said that Poetic language wasnt used in the Bible. However, this line doens't prove that the author of Job beleived that Hail and Rain where literally stored in those palces, not doe sit indicate that the bible actually teaches this.

Just because poetic language was employed doesn't mean that the authors thoguth their poetic language was literal.

And thats what you'd have to show, that the Ancient Hebrews ( Or at least the author of Job) actually thoguth Rain and Hail where kept in Storehouses in Heaven.

Instead you showed a line with a poetic reference.

This proves the bible is not innerant how?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 3:29 PM

BYTEMITE


What do you consider the fighting that occurred between Protestants and Catholics?

And were witches considered heretics?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 3:40 PM

ZAROVE


WELL, unlike the detractors here, I never said that no violence ever occured. I simply wantes it in proper context. The Reformation did spark actuual conflicts over beleifs, though you have to understand it from a certain historical vantage as well.

The enturety of European culture weas Catholic, and the new ideas posed a hreat not only to the power of the Catholic Church, but to society as well. Just like any other great change in society, people feared it woudl unravel the enturty of culture, ans in some ways it did.

Those who where Catholic feared the new theology, both because they feared the consewuences of damnation to their fllow men, and because they feared what a society that belived such would do.

Protestants beleived in the new theology and thought the Catholic Church was corrupt, and also feared what would happen if they returned to it.

And of coruse there where political motives involved too. Henry the 8ths motivation for joining the reformation was inherantly political and selfish. The German Princes saw his as a way to gain control over CHurch land and to regulat he Churches themselves, thus givving them pwoer over what the people beleived.

It wasn't all about theology but society, consequences, and grabs for power.

But yes the Reformaiton lead to killing over beleifs.

However, my original comment was only meant to be aimed at the Witch Trials.

Also, no, Witches wheren't typically seen as Heretics. To be a Heretic you have to hold a beleif that conflicts with official Church teachign whilst being a member. Thisis why the Protestants of the Reformation where seen as Heretical.

A Witch practiced the occult to harm others or for mersonal gain using sinister methods.

That woudl be about the same as murder or theft, in that it doens't invovle ones beleifs abouttheology, only oens actions. ANd osmetiems allegience as they where aid to side witht he devil. But even givin yourself to the devil doens't make you a Heretic if you beleive all the right doctrines.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 4:03 PM

SHADESIREN


Wow. I think that joke mussed up your hair flying over your head.

Now I remember why I don't post here very often.

(just because you say something simple doesn't mean you're 'simpleminded'.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 4:57 PM

BYTEMITE


But... I believe all that occult stuff was superstition, how could it hurt anyone?

Were witches poisoners, did they brew dangerous potions?

Or were innocent people being accused of the physically impossible out of fear and ignorance?

And if there were no basis for the charges, what were they charged with to warrant punishment? Witchery? What is that? How did they define it?

Did they believe that witches had congress with the devil, or not?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 7:01 PM

ZAROVE


AS to if Witches where real or not, I leave that up to each to decide. I have a policy to stick to confirmed facts and logicsal proccesses, and given that its impossible to actually know if Witches where or are real, I'll just leave it as a matter for private consideration.


But regarding beleifs, it depends. Giventhat Witches where part of Lore for many thousands of years, and veen in Christain Europe for 2000 years, beleifs regardign them had been rather broad and sweeping.

Some thought that some witches had sexual relations withthe Devil, but not all, noting the Devil was a spiritual being, for one. Others simply thought they had promoscuous sexual tendancies.

All where thought to work evil by means of occult powers, and usually this measnt they would often employ the aid of Demons. Such ideas as Witches having Familiars, Demons which coudl asusme a Physical form and did the witches bidding, became commonplace, as did the idea of the Withc makign a pact with the Devil.

But beleifs regardign them where diverse, and typiclaly depended on region and time period.

As to brewing potions, his is one of the few aspects of the witch that is constant. Witches where suppose to brew potions, as well as whisper spells and icantations. This is true in all Withccraft lore, including those before Christianity began.

In fact, the Pharmecea, or Greek Sorcerers, where really just Drug peddlers who knew what drugs woudl make you high or cause hallucinations.

Those Witches where clealry real, though their abilities may have been exagerated, or the result ofpeopels expeirnces with their wares leading them to fail to distinguish reality form a drug induced hallucination.

Also, more than liekly most of the witches tried durign the midaevel and early modern period where innocent, and the vast majority actually protested their innocence until death.

That said, it shoudl be noted that, again, contrary tot he image, Christainity did not prosecute witches early on, and durign the years between the 4th century and about 1100 AD, most in the Church actulaly argued that Witches did not exist.

It was only after the 1200's or 1300's that Withc Trials really began to pick up, and techniclaly it was the Early Modern period which saw the upsweep of Witch trials.

The Church also outlawed Torture in as earlu as the 300's.

It was, of ocruse, revived, but not until the 1300's.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 24, 2009 7:31 PM

BYTEMITE


Was the pick up in witch hunting associated with the inquisition?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 25, 2009 5:52 AM

ZAROVE


No.

The Inquisition is another of those often toted "Atrocities committed by the Christian Church" that few people actually take the time to understand, and itself has a lot of myths associated with it in peoples minds.


The Holy Office of the Inquisition was actually not a Universally Christian Court, but was founded in 1233 by the Western Catholic Church. The Orthodox, along with not fighting the Crusades, yet still being accused of the blood being on their hands, didn't have an equivalent.

The Inquisition was also originally praised for being an extremely fair court, to a much greater extent than the Secular courts.

The Inquisition also came and went with the times, and was never a constant presence in Europe, which is another common myth. It never played as large a role in society either.

Mainly, its prominence occurred a few times throughout its history, and the Inquisition ended in 1800 AD.

The worst Inquisition, and one that won it its dark reputation (Well, along with it being an easy target for the Enlightenment propaganda, which also gave us the Myth of the Dark Ages and myth of Christians causing Rome to fall) was the Spanish Inquisition, which was actually controlled by the Spanish Government rather than the Church, and used to root out political dissent in the ruse of Ecclesiastical purity.

PBS actually did an excellent series on the Inquisition you can order on Amazon, which is a multi-episode series, which I recommend if you wan tot learn the history in any sort of depth.

Anyway, the Inquisition was an internal affairs court. The reason the Inquisitional court existed was to ensure the purity of the faith by trying Heretics. As I noted, Witches where seen as Criminals, not Heretics, and most of the time they where tried by Civil authorities, not Ecclesiastical ones.

When they where tried by Ecclesiastical courts, it was still not under the auspices of the Inquisition, but the general clerical courts which existed separately, and since before the Inquisition was founded.

However, mist Witch Trials where conducted by Civil, Secular Courts, not the Church, and on occasion the Church actually opposed Witch Trials done by the State.


The Witch trials tended to spark up whenever there was civil unrest, or political upheaval, and are actually part of a Phenomenon that still occurs today. When a society suffers mass hysteria, or else has a lot of anxiety over the future and a nebulous since of doom, combined with a growing uncertainty over how affairs will play out or how secure you are, people want to express those feelings, and often turn to projecting these fears onto an external target.

Culture provides the context of what that target will be, and in the Early Modern period (contrary to common myth, most Witch trials where early modern, not Medieval) it was easy to blame maladies on Witches.

Usually it was a time of Famine, or a time when Kings tried to usurp other kings thrones, or the Nation was at risk of invasion, or there was a sharp cultural struggle which threatened how society operates.

This is why one of the Witch Trial spurts occurred during the Protestant Reformation, along with the aforementioned Violence. The idea of having a plethora of Religious beliefs in a society was foreign to them, and they assumed one or there other would prevail, and need to. The overall belief was that you needed society to have a single, consistent and shared belief system for society to operate smoothly, and these people, after 1500 years of that being Catholic, where confronted with he new ideas of the Protestants. Many feared that the conflict, or rapid Change, would cause society to disintegrate and there was massive uncertainty regarding the future.

Add to this the fact that a lot of people became politically motivated in this struggle, from Henry the 8th, whose sole interest was getting a divorce and later ensuring his own private control over the Church, to the German Princes who saw this as an opportunity to possess Church lands and regulate the churches themselves, with no need to go to the Pope or outside clergy, and you have a society that looks like it will fly apart any moment.

Much like America in the 1960's, or America now, during the Culture Wars.

And, it was in this time that people had a vauge sense of evil and dread, and wanted to embody those feelings into something to give them a clear target.

Witches worked for them.

In 1920's and 1930's Germany, Hitler used the same social forces to convince the German people that the Jews had conspired to destroy the Aryan Race and subject them to delusion of their proud blood so to control them.

Even though you may not think of Hitlers Anti-Semitic programmes as the same as Witch Trials, they actually where. You had a defeated Germany broken against the rocks of the verses treaty, feeling powerless and humiliated, with an overarching sense that society was spiraling out of control.

All Hitler had to do was pick a target, and the people naturally externalised their feelings onto them. As the Jews where already hated, they where an easy target, and where the Witches of their time.

The Jews represented all that was wrong in Society after World War 1 and where somehow to blame, and if we could just get rid of the Jews, we'd have a much better world.

Replace Jew with Witch and you see how this is the same thing. The only difference is that the Jews where actually Jews, whereas the witches where by and large not really witches at all.

Which is the same as America, and the American Witch trials of the 20th century. For you see, The same occurred in America, though with a less deadly impact, during the McCarthy hearings, in which lives where ruined and a nation turned upside down because of the obsession over Communists.

Communists where to blame for all the worlds ills, and of course we had to keep America Ideologically pure by ensuring that those Reds don't subvert our culture.

And, like the Medieval Witch Trials, most of the accused Communists weren't actually Communists. (Though to be fair, a good number where. I doubt the Witch Trial had about 25-30% accuracy, as did the McCarthy's hearings.)


As the Witch Crazes usually happened because of social pressures and fears as a way to externalise anxiety, as did the Third Reichs Programmes against the Jews, and the House Unamerican Commission's seeking anything that wasn't flying old Glory in the right manner while eating Apple Pie, one can simply note them as the product of social unrest and hysteria.

Now, there where witch trials that occurred besides in Witch Crazes, so its not accurate to think all Witch Trials where the product of hysteria, but most Witch Trials weren't as sensational as the Crazes, and there where far fewer. You may have a witch every year, or every five years, tried on average, or years go by before another is tried. The trials also sometimes acquitted the accused.

Those trials, run by much more level headed people ( And I realise that a trial over witchcraft may be seen in itself as not level headed, but take into account the times and beleifs of the people) where, however, not respncible for the infamy of Witch Trials.

Witch Trials tend to be famous for the Witch Crazes. They saw many more deaths in shorter times, though usually lasted only two or three months, and tended to be much more about convicting Witches than finding facts, and it is this image that people think of when they think of any Witch Trial. Unjust Trials lead by maniacs who had utterly ridiculous evidence brought against perfectly innocent people.

Its not what all Witch Trials where like, but the famous ones pretty well set up how they are seen.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 25, 2009 6:42 AM

ZAROVE


OH and I should note:

The Protestant Churches never had an inquisition either, and yet they also had witch trials occur in Protestant nations. Sometime sin the Church but, as per usual, mainly held by Secular Courts.

Also, most of the Witch Crazes where in Protestant Nations after the 1500's, so its not really logical to think of the Inquisition as having a significant role in them, as it was an exclusively Catholic institution.

So, the Inquisition was not to blame for the Witch Trials, and didn't really play a vital role in them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 25, 2009 8:19 AM

ZAROVE


One thing.

While making sure all facts where accurate, I learned I made a small error. The Inquisition did hear some witch trials, just not many.

However, in contrast to the myth (which, again, began in the Enlightenment), the Inquisitional courts where not the most ruthless and merciless courts about, which found you guilty before you proved your innocence, and who frequently put people to death.

Instead, the Inquisitional courts where far more lenient than Secular Courts, and much more likely to Acquit an accused witch. The Inquisitional courts also lacked the power of sentence, but requested, and often got, light sentences in areas cooperative to them.

The death total in Italy or Spain for convicted witches was 1%. In order to warrant the Death Penalty, you had to have proven to be harmful to society in a grave way.

Most where simply sentenced to fines, brief imprisonment, and penance.

The Inquisition also had a much higher standard of evidence for the accused and gave them much greater right sin court and ability to defend themselves than did the Civil Courts of the Secular Governments.

I know this goes against everything we hear about how absolutely dreadful the Inquisition is, and how we imagine it to be the most cruel and oppressive court ever created, but the truth is, it wasn’t. Even when they tried witches, the had the highest acquittal rating, and lowest execution rating. When compared to Civil Authorities, who nearly always convicted an accused witch, and who nearly always condemned said convicted to death, and who had a much lower standard of evidence, gave no benefit of a doubt against accusational testimony, and forbade the accused to defend themselves in most nations, the Inquisition was simply not that fearsome, and was seen as a light touch by the civil authorities of its time. Only in modern days do we find it to be oppressive and cruel.

Still, the Inquisition seldom heard Witch Trials, and the overwhelming majority where carried out by civil authorities, and happened in Protestant lands just as frequently as in Catholic lands.

So blaming the Inquisition is itself problematic, as it would not really fit into its mission, or the actual history of the Inquisition.
Though it does fit the myths we now have of it.

And of course the infamous Monty Python sketch.

I always did want to don a Cardinals robes, and exit a closet and explain, to the surprise of all there, “No one expects the Inquisition!”


But perhaps that’s just me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:22 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Also, where the Muslims killed because of their beliefs? No, they weren't.


Excuse me? You're claiming that during the Crusades, Muslims were NOT killed for their beliefs?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:39 AM

ZAROVE


Correct. Read History, they where killed in the first Crusade because they attacked the Eastern Roman Empire, and int he later Crusades either so Christyain Pilgrims could feel saf ein the Holy Land, or else because they where again invading Europe. (And eventually did COnquer Spain, holdign it for centuries.)

This, along with the general sentiment that the Crusades where an evil attrocity commited by the Christyain Church (A sif the hole of Christendom wa sinvovled, when it wa sonly the Catholic Churhc int he west) and ha dno justification, and where simply evidenc of how evol and corrupt Christianity is, are manly myths created to Tarnish Christianity's reputation, and got their start mostly in the Enlightenment.

They are repeated today because they have become ingrained in the culture, much like the Dark Ages when the Church reigned supreme and Science was forbidden is a popular myth, but also incorrect, or the idea of the Inquisition being the most ruthless court around and a continual, and dark, force.

The real history is far more involved than this, and takes a lot of the negative edge off Christianity.

Unless you think that defending Europe from invasion makes them evil.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:29 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Zarove,
In the interest of brevity, I fear I may have been too concise in my comments.
I had meant to connect the KJB's revelations to the commoners as the catalyst for the pilgrimage to escape persecution, the exodus from Yurp to the Colonies, which had many coastal towns founded in the first decade of the 1600's and continuing on from there - not merely in the mid-1700's.

You had said Henry VIII "joined the Reformers" but was it not Henry who effectively started the Reformers? Or perhaps he used the convenience of their work to lay claim as his excuse for denying the authority of the Papists (loyal to the Pope, whom are now known as Catholics), and thus giving them (Reformers) power and more by creating the Church of England? - the first of the "denominations" to branch away from the Christian Church of Rome?


Please correct the following if I am viewing chornology wrongly here:
Henry VIII needs a son, his wives do not produce. The Pope does not allow divorce, so any child from adultery is bastard and not lawful successor to the Throne. He creates the Church of England, wholly under his domain, answerable to nobody else.

Elizabeth (from subsequent wife, she is a bastard ruler, and therefore supporting the non-Papists/Catholics) and Mary (from the first wife, and thus by the rule of Papists/Catholics the true Royal Heir to the Throne) both attempt to gain the Throne, with Elizabeth kidnapping Mary and eventually executing her.
All of this rife caused by the Bible being unreadable by the masses, and therefore the followers believeing only what they are told by their local Priest (remember, only those selected for the Seminary become educated, and will be booted from the school if you disagree or question the Church).

Mary's son achieves the Scottish Throne as King James VI of Scotland and awaits the death of Elizabeth, for there are no more heirs in the bastard lines. As well, he has been trained in France not as a Papist/Catholic, so he is palatable to the followers of the Church of England.

Upon the death of Elizabeth, he achieves the British Throne as King James I of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
As retributuion for the horrors inflicted upon his mother, he exposes the deceits of the Church of England by having the KJB published, thus showing that the Papists who all along have proclaimed the bastard rulers as not of the Royal Line were in fact following the Bible, and the bastard supporters were all along lying about the contents of the Bible and the honest claims of the Papists.
This allows the common person to finally understand that they have been misled, lied to, persecuted, and worse in the name of religion for the benefit of the English Throne. Many different denominations begin to form and splinter off from their roots.

More than a century later, the Founders of the United States ensure that freedom from religion, the concept of separation of Church and State are included in the birth fo the new experiment in Representative government, the new Republic.
Many other countries follow the example of this experiment, including to some degree the British home from which it sprang.

American history refers to many early settlers as Pilgrims, as they were escaping religious persecution in the homelands they came from.

I hope I didn't drift too far off point there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 27, 2009 9:43 AM

ZAROVE


Mostlyt he Chronology is correct, but you overlook something.

Henry the 8th never liked the Reformation. That began on the OCntenent in 1517 under Martin Luther, and was mainly revolving aroudn loose ideas such as Sola Scriptura and Salvation by Faith Alone. While these Doctriens wherento well defined yet, and disagreement existed between Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, and other Reformers began to develop theologies of their own, they had a surprising commonality to them as well.

Henry the 8th wrote agaisn tthe new Doctirnes of the Protestanta and Condemend them as HEretical, and for htis the Pope awarded him the title "Defender of the Faith", a title that was hereditary and applied to all Monarchs on the English (and LAter British) Throne.

It wans't until he sought divorce from his wife, Cathrine of Aragon, that he split fom the CHurch. There where mroe factor sinvovled, such as the extent of control over English Churhc proterty, and the ability of the Kign to help in selectign Bishops, but this was the Ctylist.

However, in the 1530's, when Henry broke form the Church of ROme, he was actually fearful of the Reformation and the new ideas gainign a foothold in the newly minted Church of England.

He won massive support for the seperaiton because many of his mInisters had wanted ot jojn the reformation that had started ont eh cotnenent ( And others had simply wanted to go alogn wihthte King, or gain power).

Men like Thomas Cranmer, who became the Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry the 8th, had already long associated with Protestant doctirnes.(He'd even secretly married the Daughter of a Lutheran Minister he'd met while studyign in Germany.)

Given that many of hte new clergy who supported Henry, and thus where given positions of Prmenance in his new Church, had also been given to reform, and those not givento reform where also mainly of the opinion that a split from Rome was not a welcome CHange (SUch as Sir THimas Moore, who was beheaded for oposing htis) the Church began to drift toward Protestantism.

Henry was appauled by this, and enacted a list of rules fo the Church that said that the Doctriens of the CHurhc woudl remain the same as they had under Rome.

Henry wanted to remain Cahtolic, and wanted the Church of England ot remain a Cahtolic Church. He wanted all the same teachings preserved, and for everyhtignt o go on as usual, except he was not supreme Head of the eccleseastical affair sin his own Realm.

He dint join the reformers except in hsi revolt agaisnt Rome, and later in his publisign of the Coverdale Bible. (WHich was mainly a big "Screw you" to the Pope.)


Only in later lfe, drained and apathetic, did he allow the Church to drift mor eopenly toward Protestantism, and only under his son Edward did it fully embrace Protestant teahcings.

This was ended when Mary took over, and restored the Churhc to Catholisism.

When Elizabeht took over, she comprimised between the three groups. Those who wanted ot rwmain Cahtolic, those who where Calvinist Protestants, and those hwow antes soemthign in between.

The gave them all soemhtign in between and thus gave us the modern CofE.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 27, 2009 2:00 PM

BIGWOLF18


don't wave away the similaritys between Jesus and Horus, christianity is mostly made up of various scraps of old pagan tradition cobbled together around a gifted Doctor/Philosopher.
add years of hype, misinturpretation and the "chinese whispers" effect of tales told from person to person and you've got Christianity there buddy! Plus lets not forget the various Upper-class and aristocracy who altered storys and built structured religion around someone who was simply a very intelligent man in order to cntrol the peasant masses.

-------------------------------------------------
"of course i've gone mad with power, ya ever tried going mad without power? its no fun, nobody listens to you!" The Simpsons Movie

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 27, 2009 2:21 PM

BIGWOLF18


Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Zarove,
I had thought James Stewart was Half Scot by his King and half pure English Royalty by Mary, and raised and educated in France to protect his life from Elizabeth, ruling Scotland in absentia - am I incorrect?

I did not mean that nowhere in the world is freedom currently cherished as in the U. S., but the Colonial revolt and Independence was the biggest blow to the Empire and started the fad. This resulted directly from the widespread publishing of the KJB, which resulted from Liz eliminating Mary - of course the result from Henry VIII's shenanigans.



Yeah, bloody colonials.

-------------------------------------------------
"of course i've gone mad with power, ya ever tried going mad without power? its no fun, nobody listens to you!" The Simpsons Movie

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 27, 2009 6:23 PM

ZAROVE


don't wave away the similaritys between Jesus and Horus, christianity is mostly made up of various scraps of old pagan tradition cobbled together around a gifted Doctor/Philosopher.
add years of hype, misinturpretation and the "chinese whispers" effect of tales told from person to person and you've got Christianity there buddy! Plus lets not forget the various Upper-class and aristocracy who altered storys and built structured religion around someone who was simply a very intelligent man in order to cntrol the peasant masses.


Actually, noen of this is true. Christianity idnt develop form Paganism, nor did it incorporate Pagan stories and infuse them with Jesus. Christianity emerged form a Jewish Background, and everyhtign in Christianity can be traced back to either the Socio-political times or Jewish relgiiosu faith, if not to Jesus himself.

There ar eno similarities between Jesus and Horus. This theory, which abounds on the Internet, has been roudnly debuked for years now. Its part of the History of Religions school of thoguth that develope dint he 19th century, but which has been compleltey discarded these days.

If you don't beelive me, just look around. Try to find nay credible soruce for the similarities between jeus and Horus. Or for that matter, Jesus and Mithras. Or Jeuss and anybody pagan.

Try to actually shpw those pagan roots, and present them with credible evidence form real scholars.

Nothign in Christianity developed out of Pagan thinking.

That said, the idea that rich and pwoerful aristocrats moulded the sotry to cptrol peasants is a nice myth for Anti-Religiosu Athiests (WHo Ironiclaly peddle a religion themselves) as it demonises themuch hated Christianity, but considerign that all Christian major doctrines and the enture life of Jesus was codified by the end of the Firts Century, and expounded by the Apostolic Fathers of the Church and alL CHurhc fathers sinc elong before Christianity had any power or infleunce in the ROman EWmopire, and when it was subject to active persecution from Roman Government officials, don't yu think this claim is a little hard to beleive?

I mean, it was a slave religion for cryign out loud!


Christiantiy didnt develop to control the masses, and has no Pagan roots. Only soemone who is ignorant of the history and is manipulated by a cultural animosity towards Christianity woudl buy into that sort of rot.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:55 AM

IREMISST


Ok, I don't have all day, are we suffering witches or not?


By the way, I was raised in a non-traditional religion and I can tell you ALL that persecution from so-called Christians -in this country, at least, is very much alive and well, so do what thy will with that...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:11 AM

ZAROVE


Its do what Thou wilt. Thy is used in terms of possession.

Such as "Thy staff and thy cloak sit by the door" or "Thy car is ready" if you want modern items.

Thou would be used for verb tenses. Thee for if the word is after the verb.

"THou wilt go" or "Go thee".

Also, the "Persecution' of today is nothing. Some ignorant people make fun of that which is different, and it snot really all Christianity's fault.

Hell, I've met Militant Atheists who hurled abuse at me for being a Christian. (And this is the first time on this thread I said I was. I know, its obvious since I'm, defending Christianity, but everything Ive said Ive seen more enlightened Atheists say.)

Lets not forget how Atheists, pagans, and others tend to shout about the Crusades and inquisition and act like I'm somehow at fault.

Not that either Atheists nor Pagans ever persecuted anyone.

If Wicca ever became the dominant religion Christians would suffer routine persecution, because Wiccans get a kick out of mocking Christianity.

And, it would be different.

If Atheists ever took over and dominated, they'd mock and ridicule everyone of a different religion too. (The idea that Atheists aren't religious is daft. A Religion is a belief system about the world, and they have this. Religion is not theism.)


And, thanks to the Enlightenment and the trend towards Anti-Christian arguments, Christianity, which is seen as the most bloody and oppressive force in human history, would get far worse treatment in any case.

But what your describing is Human nature, and not really the result of the Religion and its teachings, and would happen irrespective of which Religion does the attacking.

Its not like Christianity mandates persecution of those who disagree, or that Christians always persecute others, or all Christians are intolerant ( Or even most.) Nor is it like no one has ever persecuted Christians, or others.


I just think the whole "Blame Christianity" nonsense has grown to such proportions people are willing to just buy into any argument that is presented as fact that undermines its credibility and are willing to see it in the worst possible light without looking at actual evidence.

People do the same with Islam, in thinking all Muslims are Terrorist who want to impose sharia Law and destroyed Western Civilization. Of course, not all Muslims are like that, but many, many people (Christians, atheists, even Neo-Pagans) tend to think they are nowadays.

And they are subject tot he same shoddy history. I can't tell you the times I've had to tell people Allah is not the name of a Pre-Islamic moon god, and the crescent symbol wasn't used by Muhammad.

Christians mainly believe this one. (And again not all Christians.)

They don't want to believe Muslims worship the same god so invent a reason to say they don't.

But I've seen the same argument on Atheist websites, like on Richard Dawkins site.


And its all for the same cause. it snot that Religion makes people do evil things, as those who claim to have no religion do the same things. ( And everyone has a Religion, as I said religion is just how you think about the world and relate to it.)

People want simple answers and think in simplistic terms, and often segregate along tribal lines, and create sterotypes f other not part of the group or hey perceive as a threat.

We also tend to lump everything together into a single pot.

people acting As if Methodists or Presbyterians should somehow be guilty of the Catholic Pedophile Priets Scandal is a good example. They are all Christian so they belogn to the Christian Church so are all culpable. Never mind that Presbyterians and Methodists don't have the same CHurhc structure and divdrge in doctrine, and aren't governed by the same bodies, they are Christian so guilty.

For that matter the idea that all Catholic Priests are Pedophiles is itself a gross generalisation I hear too often, or that the Church as an institution is Guilty. ( As opposed to a handful within it. It snot like this as well known tot he Vatican.)

Or look at the Crusades. The Christian Church is found guilty of this, even though few people even realise what the Crusades where really about. They just know they where evil and the Christian Church clearly in the wrong.


Then they blame the Christians for this.

Even IF the Church was clearly wrong, it was still only the Catholic Church and not the Eastern Orthodox, who took no part on the Crusades. Modern Protestants should also be exempted form blame. They aren't, because we lump them all together.

We also don't examine the Crusades and just assume that a bunch of mean evil Christians went down to attack a bunch of Innocent and peaceful Muslims and killed them over their beliefs to steal land they live don.

Thats not true, but its the common misperception.


And hey, it helps us see Christians as evil, so its good.

The same thing happens with literally everything else.

Hell, look at Politics.

Read World Net Daily. Read Commentary by Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. The Democrats and anyone liberal hate America, want to wreck the economy, and only care about enslaving people to their will.

Then go over to the Huffington Post, read Bill Press, and read Moveon.Orgs site.

Republicans don't care about the common man, and only care about the rich and business. They want the common man to suffer and die to lien their own pockets and those of their contributors. those evil Right wingers want to control out lives and tell us what to do. They also want to prevent Health care because they hate poor people.


Its all the same. Instead of being mature and accepting that people see things differently and understanding their arguments or the real history, or what they believe and why, we just label them and attack them.

This won't change no matter what Religious label you slap onto a large group, or political brand.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:49 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Zarove, for the love of your god, could you PLEASE slow down and mix in a proof-reading once in a while? Your posts actually give me headaches, trying to figure out what you're "saynig".

It does your point no good at all if no one can read it without consulting an English-to-gibberish dictionary.

By the way, I can as easily say that nothing you've said about christianity is true. It's all made up with the full intent of demonizing other religions, or lack of religions.


Quote:
...and it snot really all Christianity's fault.


It snot?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:09 PM

ZAROVE


Zarove, for the love of your god, could you PLEASE slow down and mix in a proof-reading once in a while? Your posts actually give me headaches, trying to figure out what you're "saynig".

It does your point no good at all if no one can read it without consulting an English-to-gibberish dictionary.


My posts aren't that difficult to understand. And I am dyslexic, as Ive said. Slowing down will not help that.





By the way, I can as easily say that nothing you've said about christianity is true. It's all made up with the full intent of demonizing other religions, or lack of religions.

You could, but since I've not demonised any religion (And in fact just defended Islam) it'd be pretty stupid for you to make this claim as its fairly obvious that its not true.

I merely present the facts of History.

Also, the people who "Lack religion" sure do agree on a lot of things. Its like they have doctrines and a cultural context that shaped a common belief system.


I'm sorry but there are no people who lack religion. Everyone has a Religion. Religion is simply a system of beleifs regarding the nature of our world, and which provides the context from which we understand our existance. Its basiclaly a framework built from established beleifs thattell us how to interpet the Data we get and how to proccess it, and form which we understand the events in ur lives and the world we occupy.

Even Atheists who hate religion have a Religion. If you don't beleive me, visit the Cousil for Secular Humanism or Richard Dawkins.Net. They will deny they have a Religion, bt will then procceed to explain how th world works and what you shoudl beelive to be a rational, free thinking individual.


There really is no difference between their "Non-religious beleifs" and religious ones.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:57 PM

ZAROVE


One last.

About the Chinese Whisapers effect comment. That really doens't work here.

For one thing, w're dealing with texts that where actually written down within the living memory of the man they wrote of. The ealriest of those texts shere possibley only 5 or so years later, with Pausl Epistle sbeign from only ten years after, and all New Testament matwrials beign complet eby the close of the Firts Century.

Of coure you may still cite the years between, and assert thta over time the stories woudl have been embellished, but two problems emerge.


1: You cannot show that th elife of a real man, Jeuss, was mered with stories of Pagan deities. No evidence suggests it was. Liekise, Jewish culture was rather isolationist and refused such mergers, and Christianity is an offshoot of Hudaism.

2: The "CHiense Whispers' effect doens't actually occure in an oral society. Oral traditions can actulalybe accuratley rpeserved and passed laogn if the osicety is base dupon them, and peopel tend to do much better at rememberign them in societies run off them.

Studyign Oral transmission in modern tribes, we have learend that the previous expeditions where otld identical stories by their stodrytellers as those today.

Oral culture emphasises accuracy in the retelling, and Firts Century palistine woudl have been such an oral culture, since paper and ink where scarce and expensive.

Only they didnt preserve everyhtign orlaly indefinitely, only when peopel began to die that recalled the events woudl they commit them to paper, but they still possessed the original witnesses and those who heard it firts hand, and there is no reaosn tot hink this needed to include changes to the narrative.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:41 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Zarove, please ignore kwickie's complaints. He just wishes normal people abided his delusionally high standards for casual discussion.

Side note regarding your comments about atheism and wiccans. I spent some time around Madison, WI. Not only did it achieve the Gay & Lesbian Capital of the World, but it also has a large base of atheists (Freedom from Religion, for instance) and is the largest and most active area of Wiccan activity in the midwest. I've sometimes wondered how interconnected those things were.

Oh, and thanks for your posts and the information therein.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:59 AM

ZAROVE


Jewel, if you will notice, the Neo-Atheists, such as Dan barker, don't really hate all religions equelly. of course, they don't hate their own religion, they simply claim their Humanism is not a religion then procceed to tell others how to think and how society should be run aling their beleifs.

But to answer yoru question in breif ( I've little time, I can address it in greater detail later) Wicca is actually tied to the new Atheist movement we see.

Wicca began in the 1950's based mainly n a badly researched book by Margeret Murray, whose name evades me for now. Gerald gardner took that information and embellished it wih Masonic rites, Christian occult soruces, and a hodgpodge of varios myths, legends, and things he simply made up.

But his cheif motivation was to get laid by much younger women, and to get attention.

However, he capitolised on the Western Worlds newfound contempt for Christianity, which, agin, began in the Enlightenment, and develkped through the Humanist philosophy of thw 19th century.

Wicca was created in a context of Antipathy towards Christianity, that started in the 18th century, when the Enlightenment viewed Christianity (SPecifically Cahtolisism) as a part of the old order thatneeded to be replaced by the new, in faovur of what they saw as reason and nature. Much of the language used in describing Modern Humanism, as well as the arguments used agaisnt Christainity being a force of evil and superstition, came form the Enlightenment as it tried to discredit Christianity in order to get peopel to accept the principles it laid out.

This is also where the concept pf the Dark Ages took hold. The time when the Churhc rienged supreme over nations, and everyone obeyed unquestionignly. This wa a time of oppression when no one had any freedom, and Sicence was not advancing. They are a Historical myth, but have become engrined in our society as truth. In fact, so has the idea that the Crusades where an evil set of attrocities commited by CHristendom. The truth is, without the Crusades the Muslim world woudl have forceby taken CHristain lands, Raping and pillaginge all the way. But peopel don't realise this and just think it was mean, nasty Christains who slaughtered peopel over their beleifs.

The Inquesitional courts had a much higher standard of evidence and higher aqyuittal rating than the Secular COurts, and actually gave less severe sentences. In todays mind thugh, we see them as the worst, most vicious court system ever, and inherantly unjust, and cruel.

Our whole idea that Christinity spread by the sword usign violence is also a myth.

Byt they where needed because the Enlightenment, which also linked the Churhc ot the Crown, wanted people to see the CHurhc as oppressive and cruel. The Enlightenments principle claim was hat they sought freedom for the common man, and an open, just society. Thus, the CHurhc had ot be both oppresive and unjust in order for it to be an actual enemy of the Enlightenment. It alo had to be irrational, so as to make it an enemy of reason.

( We've seen example so fhow irrational some Atheists are. For example, the Pi thing. No one in their right mind woudl think that this is a flaw in the bIble. Only those hwo want to prove its wrong woudl buy it.)

This set the stage for the general sentiment of antipathy and seeing the Catholoic Churhc as a cruel and oprpessive force, though to be fair the Enlightenmetns myths where buklt ont he backs of the Protestant claims about Catholisism. Most of the Enlightenments claims originated with Protestants int he Reformation tht they used ot justufy breaign away and depicting the Cahtolci Church as evil.

The ENljghtenemtn simply extended it, and impose dit on all of CHristendom indiscremenately. (Just as modern Militant Atheists do. As if you can blame a Lutheran for the Inquisition.)

Later, after the "Age of Reason" ende din disaster, with milliosn dead in the name of Liberty, Atheism, reason, and whatever else they coudl kill for, and the promise of freedom dashed by the Republicans, people began to think of reason alone as not having all the answers, but because of the emotive antipathy towards Christendom it was still lock eodut. The Transcendnetalist movement sought to reconnect huamnity wiht nature, and focused a lot on the unspoiled beuty of virign wildernesses and the vast landscape of the natural world. With an Emphasis on emotion and nature, the Transcendentalist movement saw the rise of the early nature worhsip as well, thoguh it wasnt seen as full blown paganism.

Soon though, some thinkers began to link Christianity as beign opposed to Transcendentalist values. The culture already had a concept pof hatred Christianity, so it was an easy sell.

THen came Darwin, and the Naturalists who built a lot ofrom combinign the Enlightenemtns ideals (Well, soem of them) with transcendnetalist ideas about nature, and began forming the Proto-Humanist ideals.

Philosophers like Neitche came alogn too, as did men like Thomas Huxley.

They lay the groundwork for the later humanism by creating new ideas. Neitche, Freud, and Huxley all saw Christainity as a form of mental trap or illness (Soudn familiar) that needed ot be overcome. Though Neitche didn't actulaly fit the hUmanist pattern, many of his ideas wher epilfered for their use ( If altered.)

Using Freud and Huxley (Moreso than Darwin who generlaly staye dout of Religiosu debates) people revitilised the Science VS Rligion debate which remaisn in our culture, even though its actually a cultural construct and no such conflict really exists.

They began to form the basis for seeing Religion as some seperate forc ein Human minds. ( And later that peopel coidl lack religion.)

Freud created the idea that God was made as a sort of perfect Father figure because we see flaws inour earthly father and want osmeone to provide for ius,a nd o help nature makse sence. ( He also linked it to secual desire for one smother, but let snto go into that shall we?)

Freud saw Religion as a Nweurosis, which cna be overcome, and htis became promenant in the htinkign of Militant Atheists.

Still, others knew that Religionw as a set of beelifs that coudl only be xchanged, and so the Ealry Humanists began to merge their ideas of a reverence for nature, faith in Humanity, and striving for human perfection and development by placing human needs first, in the late 19th and early 20th century.

These ideas permeated the culture in Victorian times, and where codified late rin the Humanist Manifesto. (Which, Ironically, calls Humanism a Religion. Humanists now eschew the term Relgiion, sing it only for that which they oppose, and applyign only negative connotatiosn to it.)


Margaret Murray then began to see Witches as beign persecuted Pagans, because, well, we all know the Eeeeeeeeeeeevil Christain Chrhc killed its way to supremacy in Europe and the Pagans where slaughtered.

Its again not true but it was commonlt accepted hisotry then.

SHe used the reverence for nature and the idea of Withces beign pagan and beign persecuted as the basis of her book, and treated the witch trials as if they wheee an attmeot to olitorate Paganism.


Wicca developed form this cultural context, and while Gardner wa sno Philosopher nor was he a Humanist, he did know the general ideas vaugley because they permeated the culture so much. He took th strands of commonly beleived history and tweaked them to suit hsi needs, even inventign some hisotry, and the overall sentiment of anti-Christainity and how rotten and opressiv eit was, a newfoudn reverence for nature, and merged it wiht the idea of focsing mor eon the Human Animal.

He then blended this all togather with bits and epices of myth and legend and created Wicca.

Wicca has many of the same intellectual roots as do Modern Ahtiests and often share the same mroal and ethical outlook as a result.

They also tend ot vie naturein retty much the same way, except Wiccans beeliv ein Magic.

Dan BArker woudl feel comfortable aroudn a Wiccan, but he hates Christainity so much that he just can't stand to be aroudn a CHristain.

Its an irrational, illogical hatred really. (Despite the claim of beign roote din logic and reaosn, ti smainly an emotive orce. )

Its all rooted though int he samd basic history.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:14 AM

BYTEMITE


Being both humanist and atheist (And I imagine you're going to say "ah ha! *points points*"), I have to ask: doesn't religion require organization, ritual, and worship?

I consider humanism a form of spiritualism, but a religion? Where's all the frills and perks? It's been called as such by some of the early humanists, but functionally, about all I'm familiar with is that there's been legal recognition that it can function in place of a religion for the purposes of surveys and in the workplace, and that some humanists have been granted the power to perform legal ceremonies like some religious officials.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:30 AM

ZAROVE


Religion is simply a set of beleifs and principles one holds to that acts as a framework for how he views existance.

It doens't require orginisation or ritual or worship. Which doesn't matter since Humanists have all three nowadays. Just look at the counsil for Secular Humanism or any number of Secular Societies that exist. or the Aforementioned "Freedom From religion Foundation" .They clearly are set up in a way that is orginised. They have a heirarchy consosting of officers, and ground workers, and regular adherants.

They just dont call them clergy.

They also ruituals, in the form of Humanist weddings, Funerals, and even Sunday Services in some areas.

Lets not forget retreats, pilgirmages to Darwins House or the rhis or thta Humanist Martyrs grave.

That said, many Religions lack orginisation. Wicca is a religion that often has solitary practicioners or those who meet informally. Some forms of Budhism doesn't reqire weekly worship or ritual, either. Evwn some forms of Islam, Judaism, r Christianity lack specific structure.

So, I'd argue no, they dont.

A religion is undertsood psycologically and socially as simply a foundational beleif system that acts as a framework from which you understand the world aroudn you, but requires nothign aside from beleifs about the world you live in.

Everyone has a Religion.

The only reason some say they have no rekigion now is because of how we've redefined Religion, which was don by th emilitant Atheists so they could make Religion to be the enemy of Reason and Science, as well as the survival of Humanity, whilst actin as if they are the Alternative. It never dawns on them that not all Ahtiests share their values or arrive at their conclusion, as they see their share dconclusiosn as the result of reason leadign them to obvious truth, not as the reult of cultural development and beign taught how tot hink as htey do.

Well, that and they don't wantot spudn like Hypocrites when they impose their beleif sonto society. They advocate for seperaiton of Churhc and Stte, an dinteprrt this to mean no relgiion shoudl be allowed in the Public Square. Thwyr OK with people beign CHristaisn in their homes or their HCurhces,btu must leave it beside and emrbace SAecularism when they ar eint he world.

They then want to teach their Humanist value sin school, set Govenrment policies on it, make laws base odn it, and impose it as the only allowable beleif system in pubic discourse.

If I advocated doign the same with Chrisyainity, I'd be trold how I wated to make a THeocrayc and was forcign my relgiion down their throats. Btu tis OK for htem to do it, because hey, their sient a relgiion, and is secular, so its not foricng relgiion onto others. Its no different though, is it? Im still forced to accept their beleifs on their terms and not acknolede mine or use them.

Which is why as a Libertarian I find it bad. I dont have a problem with Humanists in general, just the militant ones who want to impose the rbeleif sonto all of society and act as if popel shodl think exalcty liek them in heir daily business or in Govenrment.

But I do with they'd admit their is nothgin speraitgn their beleif system form others aside form specific doctirnes, and woudl elarn the hisotry a bit better, and why they beelive as they do.

Well, that and to stop slagign off agaisnt Christainity and mutteirng how evil and corrupt it is. It gets old, and its clealry their only real target. (Except some now slag off on ISlam too, which is also disturbing.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:42 AM

BYTEMITE


Also, what about some of the adoptions of pagan holidays for Christian observances?

Christ was born in the spring and resurrected in the spring, I recall, but Christmas is celebrated around the winter solstice. Or what about All Saint's Day overlapping common harvest festivals, but never quite removing all of the symbolism of autumn being a transition towards winter, paralleling life moving towards death and an uncertain afterlife?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:42 AM

BYTEMITE


EDIT: Oops, double post.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:54 AM

ZAROVE


Quote:
Also, what about some of the adoptions of pagan holidays for Christian observances?



None of those matter do they? When peopel claim that Jesus was wither a myth base don earlier pagan myths, or, to his credit, accept he was real but htink hsi life was embellished with stories of pagan gods, they arne't talkign abiut later appelations to the Christyain Faith, but Jeuss of Nazareth and the core narrative of Christendom.

Even if 100% of all later Holidays where taken form Paganism (Thwy wheren't) this doens't mean that Christianity itself emerged from Paganism, as it is claimed, or that the Doctirnes of Christianity are Inherantly Pagan.




Christ was born in the spring and resurrected in the spring, I recall, but Christmas is celebrated around the winter solstice.

Not exaclty. The Winter SOlsctice is the 21st of December, not the 22nd. (Many claim the sun god died and was ressurected three days later hence CHistmas, Im covvering bases here.)

CHrustmas was, indeed, a Pagan Holiday originally, but the reason for it beign changed is not what you commonly fidn on the old Internet. CHristaisn didnt steal a Pagan Holiday to lure pagans into the fold, and it had nothign to do with sun gods or Mithras.

CHristians where mainly slaves in the ROman Empire. Those not enslaved where generlaly poor. But, durign the great festival of Saternalia held in midwinter, Slaves where temproarily freed and all persecutiosn ceased, so all citexens of the Empire codl honour and worhsip Saturn, the god who brogt Civilisaiton to mankind!

Of coruse, Christians did not want to worhsip Saturn, but had the itme off. THey created, for their own community, an alternative Holiday.

Christmas wa snot Celibated durign the firts three centuries of CHristendom though, and doesn't pove that Christainity grew out of a hodgpodge of Pagan thought.




Or what about All Saint's Day overlapping common harvest festivals, but never quite removing all of the symbolism of autumn being a transition towards winter, paralleling life moving towards death and an uncertain afterlife?


Actually, All Saitns Days Hisotry is not qhat yo htink. It falls after Halloween. It was a pure creation fo the CHurhc to follow the Pagan Holiday, which the Pagans htoguht evil spirits roamed the Earth. The Christaisn in Celtic Britain ( Really the only palce Haloween was celebrated) just asusmed these where Demons, and sanctified the day after it.


By the way, before it smentioend, EWaster was not a Pagan Holiday at all, and was actulaly celibrated by the Early Church.

The old story that it develope doput of Oestera and her fertility rites, compellte with Hare and Eggs, is not true.

It develope doff the Chruch commemorating the Ressurection, which happened to coincide with Passover. Hence why Easter always falls on the First Sunday after the First Full moon after the Vernal Equinox. The Firts Full Moon after the Vernam Equinox is Passover.

I soemhow doubt he Pagans who worhsipped Oestera where interested in Jewish Calendric celebrations.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:58 AM

BYTEMITE


My main issue here is the possible liability schools might face if minorities felt that a religion was being supported over another religion. Or a religious sect over another religious sect, as it may be. I think some separation and secularism is necessary for diverse groups to remain functional when thrown together.

However, if a particular community were are all in agreement and all members had one similar religion, I think then there are absolutely some benefits to being less secular. I believe that culture, local flavour, and regional differences are something to be respected and appreciated. In a community where everyone is Christian, by all means PUT IN creationism into the science classroom, or heck, teach directly out of genesis for all I care. I've also come to understand that I have no jurisdiction over homeschooling and private schools, and not to look down on those forms of education. Unless it's a private school reinforcing the privilege of upper class brats. Then screw 'em.

Unlike most humanists, the last thing I want is some bland autocratic world government turning us all into identical machines while blaring some hokey message about us being beautiful unique snowflakes. 9_9 Yeah, right.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:14 AM

BYTEMITE


You jumped to a lot of conclusions about what I'm asking here. I never once did claim that Christianity is pagan, or has pagan roots. Clearly, Christianity comes from Judaism.

There are sometimes archetypes, and creatures, and things that may have been borrowed from one religion to another all around the world, but I think that is more because the human mind works in symbols, and that symbols and memes can spread, more than any intentional effort.

I asked about the root of each holiday, because my understanding was that the Christian holidays were created to give alternatives to the pagan holidays occurring around the same time. And because Christianity eventually won out, so to did the Christian holidays, but Christian holidays came to include some of the more popular festive practices of the associated pagan holiday. I was seeing if what you thought roughly meshed with what I thought. It mostly does, like your comments about Christmas and Saturnalia. I see Easter and the rabbit and eggs thing being similar. I guess I forgot about All Saint's falling the day after Halloween. Although I think you may be mistaken about that only being a Britain and colonies thing, I know that Spanish speaking countries all have a version of All Saint's Day. Think it might be because there were Gauls in Spain. :)

I made no arguments about dates, or deaths of Sun Gods, or anything like that. I wasn't even AWARE of those arguments.

Although, I am aware of arguments about Satan, and the adaption of certain pagan Gods as demons or Satan himself within the mythology of Judaism and Christianity. Any insights on that?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:21 AM

MSA


Zarove- I have been a teacher of students with disabilities for over a decade.
Yes slowing down will help you produce a more legible work despite dyslexia. Also it might help you to use a different color when posting that provides a lower contrast ratio to help your focal adjustment. Adaptive spell check specifically for dyslexia and dysgraphia is available on most microsoft products and if you contact them with some record of your diagnosis they can provide that to you at a lower cost.

To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:30 AM

ZAROVE


My main issue here is the possible liability schools might face if minorities felt that a religion was being supported over another religion. Or a religious sect over another religious sect, as it may be. I think some separation and secularism is necessary for diverse groups to remain functional when thrown together.



I dont mind Secularism, so long as its actually the old definition.

But as I said, this isnt what is happening wiht Secular Humanism. Instead of beign Religiously neutral, the schools teahc rather blatantly the ideals as found in the Humanist Manifestos. ( they dont mention the Manifestos, but do teach the same principles and ideals.)

So, the schools aren't being neutral, they are imposing one religious viewppoint onto their students, and refusing to allow any other.

This is what I've complained about. (An dmroe about the attempt by Secular Humanists, they havent gotten it in all the way.They just want it in, as for the militant sects anyway.)

it is just as wrong to promote Secular Humanism as it woudl be to promote aby others. They get by with it by claimign its not a Religion, so they can create a monopoly.

It slike listening to that idiot Dawkisn say we should make religious insturction illegal for those uner 16, then tellign us we shoudl teach them "Science". (By which he means his own Humanist Philosophy. He goes on to describe it.)

Its essentially a way of preventing other ideas in for consideration.

As for me, Id just teach them all, neutrlaly, rather than try to remove them. Broaden education dont truncate it. Better to expose young minds to the diverse religions and hwo they think rather than to shunt them off.




However, if a particular community were are all in agreement and all members had one similar religion, I think then there are absolutely some benefits to being less secular. I believe that culture, local flavour, and regional differences are something to be respected and appreciated. In a community where everyone is Christian, by all means PUT IN creationism into the science classroom, of heck, teach directly out of genesis for all I care.


Don't tell me you think all Christians beleive in Creationism. I dislike Sterotypes, and this one is rather overused. I mean, the first sxhools to teach Evolution where Catholic Schools, well before Secular Schools did, yet Christianity is all about creationism?



I've also come to understand that I have no jurisdiction over homeschooling and private schools, and not to look down on those forms of education. Unless it's a private school reinforcing the privilege of upper class brats. Then screw 'em.


This atitude is why this dorum has been better to me than most. Too many just dismiss me as a crackpot lune as soon as I tell them that their hisory is off. Few bother to look at the evidence and see if Im right, because they know Im wrong.

Open and tolerant societty shoudl always weigh the evidence.

I also think Local flaviur shoudl exist, I just wish you;d not lunp all Christains togather, or think Secular means teaching Humanist values and no other.

( I realise you didnt say this but you get my meaning.)



Unlike most humanists, the last thing I want is some bland autocratic world government turning us all into identical machines while blaring some hokey message about us being beautiful unique snowflakes. 9_9 Yeah, right.

Well that also comes from Humanisms history. Humanism is linked o Socialism, because most of the Early Humanists, such as H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russel, and W. Frank Swift where all Socialists. THey linked Socialism to Humanism in the same way that they linked Science to Atheism, and the cultural trend previaled.

They all saw Socialism as the next step in Human Evolution, and sw a massive state carign for all and redistirbutign the wealth as a step towards the ideal of COmmunism.

Since the Early Humanists tended to also think that Human perfection was attainable throguh select breeding, Eugenics was also big with them, until WW2.

But they wher ehtinkign of a perfect spciety in which people operaed for the Greater Good, and with all their Emphasis on Humanity as a speicies, and helougnthe Hman race, they saw a corpirate, centralised style of Govnerment as logical, and beleived it wpidl allow individuals to flourish whilt carign for the whole of huan needs. It didnt work but ah well.


Of course you need not be a Communistor SOcialist to hodl tot he general ideals of Humanism, but he overridding thread inHumanism does tend toward Socialism, becaue the ealry framers where mainly Socialists.

Then again, a good part of Christains where bakc in the 19th century. They thoguth it was a way to acheive the ChristaiN Idea of helpign the poor and needy, and ensurign all have the htigns htey need. This is befofe peopel elarned how stuid an idea Socialism was, so they can't all be faulted for it.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:58 AM

BYTEMITE


Uh... Christians DON'T believe in Creationism?

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

All creationism says is that a person believes the word and everything living on it was created by a creator. In western creationism, this specifically refers to Genesis.

Christians don't believe in Genesis? Or if not straight out of the bible creationism, then at least an interpretation of it that allows for God creating the world and laws, and allowing things to then evolve?

On a different topic, what would you envision as a neutral school?

Also, I think you need to be careful about lumping socialists all together. I consider myself socialist, but I do NOT support a giant government to enforce socialist policies. You also need to be careful about making the leap making the Communist manifesto equivalent to the Humanist manifesto, because I would argue that communists aren't necessarily all humanists, and vice versa. And neither are all socialists communists!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:09 AM

ZAROVE


Uh... Christians DON'T believe in Creationism?

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

All creationism says is that a person believes the word and everything living on it was created by a creator. In western creationism, this specifically refers to Genesis.


This is a misunderstanding of what I said. I said not all Christians are creationists. I di dnot say that htere are none that are.

But if you think that all Christians are creationists, you are in error, as many accept Evolutionary theory, including the Catholic Church.




Christians don't believe in Genesis? Or if not straight out of the bible creationism, then at least an interpretation of it that allows for God creating the world and laws, and allowing things to then evolve?

Theistic Evolution is not considered "Creationism".

That said, Genesis is a long book, and only the firts two Chapters specifically deal with Creation. Three at th emost debending on what you count.

The rest doesn't.

Still, my point remains. Christians do not universally oppose Evolutionary theory.



On a different topic, what would you envision as a neutral school?


Well as i said, I'd prefer them to teach all religions and why they beelive as they do, not favouring one over the other, rather than try to remove them all, and end up teaching a single point of view.



Also, I think you need to be careful about lumping socialists all together. I consider myself socialist, but I do NOT support a giant government to enforce socialist policies.

You'll have to forgive me on thta point, becaue socialism has only ever been used in the soruces I use or peopel I speak to as a centrally planned society. That woudl rewuire some form of massive Government.




You also need to be careful about making the leap making the Communist manifesto equivalent to the Humanist manifesto, because I would argue that communists aren't necessarily all humanists, and vice versa. And neither are all socialists communists!


While not all Humanists are Communists, and marxist Communists are Humanists. They classified themselves as such. The Enturety of Soviet Philosophy rests on the same premise as foudn in the Humanist Manifesto. This was not coincidental, as many of the Foudners of Soviet Philosophy signed the Manifesto, and worked with develioping Humanism.

Soviet Philosophy is overall a Subset of Humanism.

And Marxism in general emerged as a conglomerate of the ideas in Ealry Humanism.

Now, again, nt all Humanists are Communists, but if we are usign he word COmmunist to describe thigns liek the Soviet Union, and MArxism, then yes, all fo them where Humanists and said so themselves.

That was the great unifyign ideal to begin with.

Also, I ddnt lump all Socialists in with COmmunists, but told you of a general trend. The Ealry Humanists where Socialists, and tended to favour a Communist outcome. They saw Socialism as a step towards Communism, not as the end result.

Bertrand Russel wrote extensively on this, as did Wells.

The whole Utopian Vision was a aprt of their beleif system to begin with.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:22 AM

BYTEMITE


True enough. But just remember that the founders of humanism weren't all the same, neither were the founders of socialism and/or communism, and probably not all of them necessarily supported the other ideology in tangent with theirs.

That's the same logical problem as saying that in the United States, all of the venerated founding fathers were precisely the same in idealogy, and method, and where they wanted to go with everything. They might have all been liberal and products of the enlightenment, but their ideas on how they might put those principles into effect and how best to build a society were very different.

It's one of my pet peeves, when someone starts talking about the Constitution and the Forefathers as almost divinely inspired and their work as a collaborative group never to be questioned or altered. They weren't all the same, they were human, and they produced a document with flaws.

The same is true of the early supporters of a number of ideologies. Socialism AND Humanism AND Feminism among them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:37 AM

ZAROVE


True enough. But just remember that the founders of humanism weren't all the same, neither were the founders of socialism and/or communism, and probably not all of them necessarily supported the other ideology in tangent with theirs.


No one said they where all the same. However, they did all tend to share basic views on things. That said, I'm posting a breif history in an internet message box for a thread on a message baord. I dont think you'd want me to write a book and post it in this same box.

Obviously Im going to shorten it an dleave out some details.



That's the same logical problem as saying that in the United States, all of the venerated founding fathers were precisely the same in idealogy, and method, and where they wanted to go with everything. They might have all been liberal and products of the enlightenment, but their ideas on how they might put those principles into effect and how best to build a society were very different.

They wheren't all Liberal and none of htem where the products of the Enlighenment.

The Enlightnment began intellectually a decade after the American Revolution, and the French Revolution follwoed suit.

I know it sppular o think of Americas foudners as Enlightement thinkers, but they wheren't. THey simply got their ideas form the same palces as the Enlightenment, but wth the exception fo Thomas Paine, and ot some minor extent THomas Hefferson, none of them actually ascribed to the principles of the Enlightenment regarding Religion, human reason, and Fraternity. If you read Jeffersons vision, you'd see that, liek yours he wante dsmall local Tribes. The difference is they'd all be subject to a generally agreed upon set of rules, which wher eintentionally vauge. This was shared by all other US FOudners, and diverged form the Enlightenment which wante dot impose a Universal standar don all areas.

They also had no antipathy towards Christianity. yes I know, internet quotes, but with the exception fo Paine they all counted themselves as Christians. (Even Jefferson, who never claiemd ot be a Deist, though thats his reputaiton. In fact he declare dhimself Christian.)

I also dont think Washington codl be seen a s"Liberal" in any sense, and neither could Franklin in most of his policies.

Madison and Adams definitley wheren't. Adams wa sa Monarhcis who regreted the revoltion but saw it as "The will of Heaven" and inevitable, and Madison wanted ot preserve as much of British Common law as possible. Liberal? How?




It's one of my pet peeves, when someone starts talking about the Constitution and the Forefathers as almost divinely inspired and their work as a collaborative group never to be questioned or altered. They weren't all the same, they were human, and they produced a document with flaws.


Yes. Agreed.


But then again, I am a Loyalist, so...




The same is true of the early supporters of a number of ideologies. Socialism AND Humanism AND Feminism among them.

And Christainity, and Judaism, and ISlam, and Buddhisam, and everything else.

Which is why when I hear how bad Christausn are then the usual list of "The Inquesition and Crusades" blathere don endlessly, I wonder why the speakers think all Christains are repsoncinbel for what Cahtolisism did 1000 years ago.

As I asked before, why shoudl the Orthodox be blamed when thy didnt participate? Or the Lutherans when they didnt even exist?

Perhaps we can blame the Anglicans. I'm sure Rowan woudl apologise, and offer to run the Church according to Shariah Law.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:01 PM

BYTEMITE


Oops. Well, then, I guess they were even more different than I originally thought.

I think I can agree to try not to generalize Christians, or any group, in the modern times, at least so much as I am able to. As this conversation has shown, there's a lot I don't know about the ideas and history of the groups.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:44 PM

ZAROVE


History is a long and fascinating thing, though, and I would certainly recommend a study in it, as well as the Humanities.

Thus you'd see the ties that bind us to our past, and the interlocking threads of ideas into our present, and get a glimpse of where they will lead us in our future.

Its all a very fascinating journey, that Humanity has passed through, and finding the origin of he ideas certainly helps put them into context.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:59 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I am beginning to wonder why Dan Brown and his propositions on Christian history have not come up in this thread.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:46 PM

ZAROVE


Well, I'm hopeful that, since everyone and his mother noted the flaws, others realise his tosh is not worth considering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:39 PM

DMAANLILEILTT


well, i've come late to the party so ill try to make up for it now...

one. the claim that everyone has a religion because religion is just a persons beliefs goes against the acepted definition that religious academics agree on. which is "A religion is an organised approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendant quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth." atheism (or agnosticism) is not organised, it does not have supernatural qualities and it rejects all reverences to a higher power.

two. people killed over religion. the crusades may have not been about religion but the conquistadors in south and central america definately killed, raped and pillaged villages over religion. and the recent terror attacks in new york, bali and mumbai were about religion, people on both sides agree about that.

and three. the whole basis of monarchy is that the monarch is granted power by divine right. now, i know some people are better leaders than others, thats obvious; however, to believe that one family will automatically have the people that should lead a country is naive. also, the royal families of europe have a record of inbreeding and that never ends well.

i like arguing about religion, it makes me think

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:31 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by ZAROVE:
The Enlightnment began intellectually a decade after the American Revolution, and the French Revolution follwoed suit.


Is that really true?

What about figures like Leibnitz, Kant, Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire, etc. whose works were created and read much earlier than that? I don't think that saying the Enlightenment began intellectually so late in the 18th century is accurate.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Zarove, have you seen the film "Expelled" by Ben Stein?

I also thought much of the discussion before the American Revolution was based upon Rosseau's works.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:26 AM

ZAROVE


Rouka, your right, those writers did eork earlier. I was refering mainly to the idea of enacting revolution to produce a new world, and forming it into a codified movement.

If you want ot extend the Enlighenment to before it was called "The Enlightenment" and focus on the general philosophers hwo lay the grounding for it, then you could argue it started earlier. However, Americas Founders did not share in the Enlightenments ideals fully, and their vision for America was always divergent in that they dd not seek to replace Christianity with what they sqw as "Reason" an did nto seek to reinvent society. Most of their work was based on their understanding of the Bible ( despite modern Atheist claims, this is the work they cited the most) and John Locke, as well as Kant. They got their ideas frm the same place as the Enlightenment ( except the Bible) but did not use all fo the Enlighenmen thinkers, and certainly didn't develop the am sort of menrality as the Enligthenment, aside from Thomas Paine.

Jewel- I do not know. I'll have to look into it. Perhaps Rousseu did. I never liked Rouseu, but then, I never liked Jefferson either.

I also have not seen Expelled.


DMann-

well, i've come late to the party so ill try to make up for it now...

Better late than never. (But better never late.)


one. the claim that everyone has a religion because religion is just a persons beliefs goes against the acepted definition that religious academics agree on.

No, it doesn't. In fact, the definition of Religion I use is the one that is standard in Sociology and axcceptd in Psycology. read Lindbecks "Nature of Dpctrine". Since your using Wikipedia to discern the "Religious academic" definition, you should scroll down, as it gives a summery of what Lindbeck and others say Religion is.





which is "A religion is an organised approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendant quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth." atheism (or agnosticism) is not organised, it does not have supernatural qualities and it rejects all reverences to a higher power.

Theism also lacks any ritual, and doesn't require worhsip of a higher power. But no one is ever just sa Theist, and rhey have other beleifs that eventually form a worldvie. Atheists are no different, and no one is just an Atheist.

I never said Atheism was a religion, I said evertyone has a Religion, which will include Atheists. Most Athists in the Western World idenrify themselves as Humanists, and Humanism is a religion. Humanism encompasses a set of beleifs, practices, and rituals, and gives meanign to the adherants live and expernces by referencing an ultimate truth and a reverence for nature and the Human potential.

( Even your brienf paragrpah dons't make theism or supernatural belefs a prerequisite.)

I'd say also that, even if you areno a Humanist, you will eventually find some sort of workable system that will inform you about how the world works and tells youhow best to live. Even a Nihilist has some fundational idea abouut the world and its meaning. ( Saying life is meaningless is asserting a meaning for life.)

So, I'm afraid that even your own definition found on Wikipedia backs me up. Further, if you scroll down you will see Lindbeck and others assert that Relkigion need not beleive in a god, and is simply a communally shared beleif system.





two. people killed over religion. the crusades may have not been about religion but the conquistadors in south and central america definately killed, raped and pillaged villages over religion. and the recent terror attacks in new york, bali and mumbai were about religion, people on both sides agree about that.


And people have killed ocer money. So money is evil. People have killed over Government. People have killed over sneakers.


maybe you shoudl read the thread.

By the way, contrary to the claim,. peopel have killed int he name of Ahtiems too. La Mattre's "Cult of Reason" went abotu France killing practicing Cahtolcis to purge the land of auperstition and institute an atiestic society dedicated to reason. The Soviets killed "Religious disscenters" who ollowed "SUperstition".

No one said that no one ever killed over Religion, but the actual motives where usually not theological.

The COnquistidors didn't kill over mere theological disagreement, btu because they wantesd the wealth of South America and to expand the Spanish Empire.

Spreading Catholisism was secondary, and seen mainly as a way of makign the Indians compliant to the Spanish Culture so they'd not rebel.

I;d harldy think that qualifies as the samehting as the Soviets killing Christains, Muslims, and Jews because they wheren't Atheists, which wa sourely Ideological.

Also, 9-11, 7-7, and othe rmodern Terro attacks are themselves far mroe complecated than you let on. They arne't don simply over Religion, but because the Middle East felt oppressed and mistreated after WW2, and the humilitaiton fo defeat and subordination, and eventual economic decline, as well as an influx of western influence that hey felt was destoryign thir culture, lead to 9-11.

The 9-11 Hujackers wheren't even dvout Muslims. They drank alcahol, and slept with loose women.

So those are actually bad examples.



and three. the whole basis of monarchy is that the monarch is granted power by divine right.

Not really. The Divine Right of Kings was formulated in the 1300's. I'm pretty sure Monarchy existed since before then.



now, i know some people are better leaders than others, thats obvious; however, to believe that one family will automatically have the people that should lead a country is naive.


Any more Nieve than thinkign a Popularity contest is the best way to select leaders? Because htats ll electiosn are.

Also, not all Monarchs are or where hereditary. The Vatican city-state and Cahtolic Churhc ar emonarchies, but the Pope is an appointed Monarch. The same held true to a great extend for the Holy ROman Empire, and before hten for the original seven Kings of ROme.

Monarchs in Early England where actually appointees, and only gradually did th emonarchy beome a Hereditary institution.

Even so, Hereditary Monarchy is rooted in a different mentality than is Elected Republics. Sicne its usually tied to a land-based and feilty based culture, then the idea is that te King has principle ownership of the realm, and like most land rights this is subject to inheritance. If I have CHildren, and die, my CHildren get my land. The same principle applies.

It also is not roote din the ideas of representation.

Its not based on the idea that the King somehow represents the people. The peopel are SUbject to the King.

Incidentally, one benfit to Hereditary Monarhcy is that the CHildren of the ORyal Line, knowign tey may have to take the Thrne, and beign assumed to take the hrone if Firstborn, will be ediucated in how to lead. Politicians toxay revel in their common background as a mark of Honour,for they where of the comon man, but I dout thwir life as common men prepares them for political life to any great extent.

And sinc emost simply get into power by wnnign an election, all they ave to do is be good at running a campaign, and gettign votes, not nessisarily good at actually leading.



also, the royal families of europe have a record of inbreeding and that never ends well.

But, not all Royal lines have to be inbred so this is a moot point.



i like arguing about religion, it makes me think

THen think about this. Accordign tot he opening paragrpah on the Wikipeida artilce on Religionyou cited, I can argue that Humanism and other Ahtiestic Philosophies are Religions.

And if you scroll down my case gets stornger.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:35 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by ZAROVE:
Rouka, your right, those writers did eork earlier. I was refering mainly to the idea of enacting revolution to produce a new world, and forming it into a codified movement.

If you want ot extend the Enlighenment to before it was called "The Enlightenment" and focus on the general philosophers hwo lay the grounding for it, then you could argue it started earlier. However, Americas Founders did not share in the Enlightenments ideals fully, and their vision for America was always divergent in that they dd not seek to replace Christianity with what they sqw as "Reason" an did nto seek to reinvent society. Most of their work was based on their understanding of the Bible ( despite modern Atheist claims, this is the work they cited the most) and John Locke, as well as Kant. They got their ideas frm the same place as the Enlightenment ( except the Bible) but did not use all fo the Enlighenmen thinkers, and certainly didn't develop the am sort of menrality as the Enligthenment, aside from Thomas Paine.



To be honest, your time frame for the Enlightenment is entirely new to me. I have never before seen it defined anywhere as the revolutionary period that in part fed off Enlightenment thought that came before it. Sure, it was a time when people were also busy broadly defining Enlightenment, but that already suggests a certain establishment of its philosophical content and distance enough to see an appreciable difference to what was there before.

Where do you take your time frame from?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:42 AM

ZAROVE


I simply place it in the period when it began to actively shape as a coherent, consistent movement with central, clearly defined doctrines and ideals.

Earlier than the 1780's, you had the Enlightenment era Philosophers, but no coherent movement, or unifying ideal. It also wasn't specifically named "The Enlightenment" yet. It was more complimentary Philosophers speaking on a new trend of thought, and a general attitude shift in some quarters of society, before then, and after it became a movement.

Similar to how the Great Awakening was preceded by one of the lowest points in adherents to Christianity. During that same period, many great theologians and thinkers wrote of what woudl be needed to revive the Faith, and others started to think of the Faith in new terms, and move away from the Strict Calvinism that had been popular but was dying. However, you cannot really place the move towards emotionally expressive Christendom and beginning of Evangelicalism until after the Great Awakening. People wrote of the same ideas, but there was no consistent movement until Edwards preached "Sinners In The Hands Of NA Angry God" in 1741.

I do the same with the Enlightenment. Basically, loose theories that somewhat agree and a general attitude formed the basis of the Enlightenment, but not until there was an actual movement was it truly under way.

In fact, had the American Revolution not succeeded, I doubt there would have been an Enlightenment. So the American Revolution can be seen as a Catalyst for the Enlightenment, and they as Proto-Enlightenment thinkers.

But they still diverged form the Enlightenment on several key factors, including an impositional standard rules for society under the new order, the need to repeal all Christian vestiges form society, and the idea of Libertine morality.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:03 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by ZAROVE:
I simply place it in the period when it began to actively shape as a coherent, consistent movement with central, clearly defined doctrines and ideals.


Hmm. I guess I never saw it as that, either. I saw certain political movements and perhaps a sum of attitude an policy changes that resulted from it, but by and large I consider the Enlightenment more a literary/philosophical phenomenon not directly connected to organized goals, let alone centralized doctrines. The reactions to the new types of thought are, to my mind, too heterogenic to pick out the French Revolution and its ideals - for example - and hold that up as The Political Phase of the Enlightenment.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Here's how it was.....Do you remember & even mourn the humble beginnings?
Mon, November 18, 2024 09:38 - 13 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Sat, November 16, 2024 20:08 - 54 posts
Serenity Rescued by Disney!
Fri, November 15, 2024 00:31 - 5 posts
What is your favourite historical or war film/television show???
Fri, November 8, 2024 07:18 - 37 posts
When did you join poll?
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:28 - 69 posts
Bad writers go on strike, late night talk is doomed
Mon, November 4, 2024 17:34 - 21 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Mon, November 4, 2024 09:19 - 34 posts
Best movie that only a few people know about
Mon, November 4, 2024 07:14 - 118 posts
Halloween
Sun, November 3, 2024 15:21 - 43 posts
Teri Garr, the offbeat comic actor of 'Young Frankenstein' has died
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:20 - 5 posts
Poetry in song
Sat, October 26, 2024 20:16 - 19 posts
WHY DID THEY CANCEL THIS??? *FIREFLY* Ep 14 Reaction Movie Night with Jacqui Episode -1-14 Reaction
Thu, October 24, 2024 00:04 - 14 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL