Thou shall not suffer a witch to live

POSTED BY: SimonWho
UPDATED: Monday, December 5, 2022 19:41
VIEWED: 25297
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIMONWHO

Monday, April 27, 2009 12:44 PM (P)

Just had this documentary brought to my attention after it was nominated for a BAFTA. It's strange to think that what looks like a throwback of two centuries in "Safe" when River is to be burnt at the stake for being a witch is still going on today:

CYBERSNARK

Monday, April 27, 2009 1:17 PM (P)

POISONER!

Thou shalt not suffer a POISONER to live!!

Stupid King James with his stupid thaumatophobia and his stupid mis-translated Bible.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

BYTEMITE

Monday, April 27, 2009 2:31 PM (P)

The thing that makes me confused about the changes in that version... Surely witches weren't that big a problem in those day, and I've never heard of curses actually effecting their targets (though social karma can be a bitch!).

Going by some of the themes in Shakespeare plays from the time, I'd say that the motivation was entirely superstition. Probably kind of an obvious observation, but yeah.

I don't think witches even brew potions, do they? I mean, if potions were considered poisons then that might establish a basis for the reinterpretation, but I'm pretty sure the potion brewing thing is a popular misconception, carried over from those times (see Macbeth).

FREELANCERTEX

Monday, April 27, 2009 3:11 PM (P)

See, this is why I hate religion. It makes people do fuckevil things. i know, its the people taking it to the extreme, and as the british dude (can't recall his name) said, any christian looking at this would be outraged, but still, how do you get so wrong that you can read a religious text and think something like this could EVER possibly be right?

CYBERSNARK

Monday, April 27, 2009 5:10 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The thing that makes me confused about the changes in that version... Surely witches weren't that big a problem in those day, and I've never heard of curses actually effecting their targets (though social karma can be a bitch!).

Going by some of the themes in Shakespeare plays from the time, I'd say that the motivation was entirely superstition.

Like I said, James was a thaumatophobe. He was terrified of magic, and witches were just the most obvious target (committing the twin "crimes" of being Outsiders and women, meaning they could be persecuted openly in those days). The Bible translation he commissioned simply pandered to his personal hatred (as did Shakey, who was writing specifically to suck up to James and his court [who were descendents of Duncan & Macduff]).

Shakespeare was far too cool to have a problem with witches (or, if he did, to let it get in the way of a good story). Check out "The Tempest," "A Midsummer Night's Dream," and even "The Winter's Tale" (it's subtle, but Paulina's almost certainly either a white witch or a full-blown necromancer) --The Wyrd Sisters were far from the only magic-uses in the canon.

Hell, if he was still alive, Shakespeare would be a Buffyfan (and a Browncoat, of course).

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:38 PM (P)

I hate to break it to you all but, just like the Similarities between Jesus and Horus, or the claim that the Creation account in Genesis is referring to a Plurality of gods, this is actually a hoax.

King James didn't intentionally mistranslate the Bible in order to persecute Witches, and the word used can't possibly be Poisoner.

For one thing, if this was all because James feared Magic, and he is the original reason why the word "Witch" is found in our Bibles, why is the same word used in the Coverdale Bible in the same place in 1535? This is 31 years before James Stuart was born.

Coverdale Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffre a witch to lyue.

Its also in the Geneva Bible, of 1587, and the bishops Bible of 1568.

Geneva-Exo 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to liue.

Bishops- Exo 22:18 (22:17) Thou shalt not suffer a witche to lyue.

Both of those Bibles where translated before James Ascended the Throne, and the Geneva Bible in the Reign of Queen Mary, who had begun a brutal purge of Protestants, causing several to flee to Geneva, Switzerland, where it was produced. (Hence the name)

The Bishops Bible was produced in England after the Ascension of Queen Elizabeth the First.

Even the Wycliffe Bible of 1395 says Witch! It just renders the word a plural.

Wycliffe 1395-Exodus 22:18 Thou schalt not suffre witchis to lyue.

The Latin Vulgate follows suit, and in fact Wycliffe's was translated from it.

Its hard to believe James Stuart was able to corrupt those Bibles long before he was Born, or those composed shortly after his Birth, or before his reign.

So, the claim that James was fearful of Magic and thus sought to Alter the Bible to reflect his fear of Witches, and to legitimise it, just doesn't stand up.

Then theres the Question of rather its even a Mistranslation.

For that, we look to the Hebrew.

The word in the Hebrew is Kashaph, which means "Witch" or "One who practices the black arts". It doesn't mean "Poisoner", and in fact it wouldn't make sense to think it did, since the same word is used in Daniel 2:2, and if it means Poisoner, and not "Witch" (Its actually translated as "Sorcerer" in this passage of Daniel in the KJV) how then do we explain the following?

From the KJV.

1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

If you modify it to make Kashaph mean "Poisoner" you get a strange reading.

1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the poisoners, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

Why would Nebuchadnezzar summon poisoners to discern the meaning of his dreams?

I'm sorry but, the idea that the King James Bible deliberatively mistranslated the Bible in order to give a basis for the persecution of women as Witches is just daft.

In fact, even the Sexism of the day is overstated, and women did have rights in Jacobean Britain.

Don't believe everything you hear about the "Real History of Christianity", much of it is simply a repetition of old Urban legends that lack any real credibility.

Be a little more Skeptical.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:56 PM (P)

Alchemists were considered sorcerers and witches, weren't they? And then, of course, there's the Hashashins, long considered enemies of the church and poisoners.

I'm trying to figure out where one or the other translation comes from. Doesn't much matter to me which is the right translation, because I'm not going to follow the bible anyway. Killing people by basis of their religious beliefs is rude.

If people in modern times have reinterpretted it as poisoner, or if some texts had poisoner concurrent with witch back in the medieval ages, I want to know why, as much as I'd want to know why poisoner would have been changed to witch.

Different sects/interpretations? Did Dominicans versus Franciscans have different versions?

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:03 PM (P)

Sigh...

No one killed people over their Religious beliefs. Only in the 20th century was Witchcraft thought of as a Religion, or specific to religious practices.

The Ancient world, and even most of the Modern world, didn't understand Witchcraft to be a Pre-Christian pagan religion, and in fact the Pagans themselves killed witches.

Rome, for example, had a lot of Anti-Witch laws from the two to three centuries before Christ, which rest on the assumption that Witches where Universally evil.

Despite what modern Wiccans and other Neo-Pagans prefer to believe, Witchcraft was not really a part of any Pre-Christan pagan Religion. The Pagan world largely feared Witches. Witchcraft was not considered itself a Religion, and if you read old Grimoures form the middle ages you soon realise that all the rot about the Goddess and the Horned God and such don't appear in any of them.

All of tat is a late modern interpolation to History.

Witchcraft was not a Religion.

Witches where understood as evil people (Not all of whom where women) who used Magic to inflict harm on society, or to manipulate things to gain certain ends. They where practitioners of the Black Arts. Thats why people wanted them dead, because they caused harm.

And the "Different Versions' bit is missing my point. No Version in Midaevel or early modern times ever said "Poisoner", nor did the Ancient Vulgate translation, the Septuagint, or even the original Hebrew.

No copy of the Bible said "Poisoner".
Also, this is Protestant Britain, not Catholic France or Spain.

Besides, the Catholics used either the Vulgate, or the Douay-Rheims in English, they had no conflicting Bible versions.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:09 PM (P)

Also, to your question.

"If people in modern times have reinterpretted it as poisoner, or if some texts had poisoner concurrent with witch back in the medieval ages, I want to know why, as much as I'd want to know why poisoner would have been changed to witch.

Different sects/interpretations? Did Dominicans versus Franciscans have different versions?"

The claim originated with someone finding, and misquoting, a book by Reginald Scot, written in the 1600's which describes the Septuagint and Latin versions, and notes the root of the word is Poisoner, or Witch, if you will.

They quote only part of his work, and use this to prove that the King James Bible was mistranslated, in order to render it flawed. Many simply do it to render all Bibles flawed (Even though few Modern Bibles really are based on the KJV)

Many believe it just because in their minds it shows how corrupt and evil Christians are.

As I said earlier, Basically, its like the claim that Elohimn is plural so the Creation should read "In the beginning the gods created the Heavens and the Earth", or the idea that Jesus didn't exist and was based on earlier, Pre-Christian pagan sun gods, and his life is near identical to them, such as Mithras or Horus.

Its basically believed and passed along by those who want, for whatever reason, there to be flaws to Christianity, either overall or "Mainstream", to validate their own private beliefs.

Its no different from 9-11 Conspiracy theorists or people who think NASA faked the moon landing. Its rooted in fake evidence and badly understood history.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:26 PM (P)

I didn't say they did, and am also familiar with the cult of Hecate. But Wiccan IS a religion NOW, hence my not killing them.

>_> Also, Muslims were killed. In the Crusades. Unless you're denying that. Be careful with blanket statements.

In any case, what are your sources? You're challenging widely accepted interpretations of history here, I'm going to need more than your word for it. I haven't read these biblical versions you speak of, and considering their age and probable value, they're probably in archives somewhere, so I doubt you've read them either.

You have not directly translated the Hebrew, only posted already translated lines where in replacing words are shown to make the line nonsense. That does not mean the line is representative of the original Hebrew.

So, again, where are your sources?

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:33 PM (P)

Wiccans aren't witches in the same sense the Bible speaks of, so your point is moot.

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

This is why the Enlightenment has done more harm than good, as all the same old Anti-Christian biases are carried on. Its not like the Crusades where fought by the entirety of Christendom unified against Islam, and that they took up arms to kill Muslims for no other reason than they where Muslim. Its also a misconception if you believe the Muslims where purely innocent. I realise you didn't say they where but, that is the implication here.

The First Crusade was called in the 1160's by Pope Urban the Second. Its original purpose was to defend the Eastern Empire (Now referred to as Byzantine, but then not known as that) from invasion.

This crusade proved largely successful in turning back the Muslim aggressors.

The remaining six Crusades where fought mainly over the right to make pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Muslims had occupied the Holy Land since the 700's, but in the 900's-1000's began to mistreat both Christians and Jews, escalating to the point that they where openly killed in the streets.

Now, the Crusades did feature abuse, such as the Sack of Constantinople later on, but they weren't originally the evil people tend to think of them as when the word is used.

And as I said, none of the Crusades killed Muslims on the basis of their beliefs, but rather over land rights.

So, its wrong to see this as people killing over beliefs.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:38 PM (P)

And so heathens living in the holy lands had nothing to do with it, just like they have nothing to do with it now.

Still waiting on those sources.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:44 PM (P)

Onto the usual doubt over the legitimacy of what I say.

In any case, what are your sources?

I've studied Religion and History for 7 years now. I'm working towards an advanced degree in it.

My sources are basic History books, Hebrew Lexicons, Dictionaries, and texts, and of coruse the actual Bibles that we still have around.

In fact, most of this is available online, such as Strong's Exhaustive concordances, or the Bibels I listed.

You're challenging widely accepted interpretations of history here, I'm going to need more than your word for it.

But, by whom is it widely accepted? Certainly not Historians, and I see it mainly on Internet message boards and Websites run by Neo-Pagans or by Militant Atheists.

Sure, some well meaning people also repeat these claims, and I don't think everyone who does has malicious intent, with some sincerely believing in this, but that doesn't make it true.

Nor does it make it a widely accepted idea. I doubt most people in general have heard any of this.

I haven't read these biblical versions you speak of, and considering their age and probable value, they're probably in archives somewhere, so I doubt you've read them either.

They are available online, for anyone to read. You can google or yahoo search them.

I'll give you one source. There are others. Check online. I know Wesleyan University scanned the entire Wycliffe Bible onto their site, for instance, and you can find copies of the Coverdale or Geneva online too.

You can also download E-Sword, and get a lot of them, though Unfortunately, you can't get the Wycliffe Bible or Coverdale yet. Still, the Geneva and Bishops are available.

You can, as I said earlier, also get lexicons for Biblical Hebrew.

You can also search Amazon for hard copies.

Here is STudylight. It has the Coverdale, Bishops, and Geneva Bible, as well as Wycliffes and the KJV. (And others.)

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Genesis+1&translation=mcb

You have not directly translated the Hewbrew, only posted already translated lines where in replacing words are shown to make the line nonsense. That does not mean the line is representative of the original Hebrew.

But, the word Kaphash doesn't mean Poisoner. I know as Ive studied Hebrew. You can too, or at least get a Lexicon.

So, again, where are your sources?

I've listed them.

And why am I challenged on this, when others who say King James Mistranslated the Bible to read Witch rather than Poisoner aren't?

It seems illogical to take me with some sort of hostility while believing the original far more willingly.

Especially since a simple online search can secure you the same knowledge I just presented.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:47 PM (P)

And so heathens living in the holy lands had nothing to do with it, just like they have nothing to do with it now.

Still waiting on those sources.

Patience is a virtue.

And, no, the Crusades didn't have anything to do with Heathens. In fact, neither Muslims nor Christians saw each other as Heathens. Muslims used the term "Infidel" and Christians "Herertic" to describe each other.

Still, if you read the History, the Crusades where about either Defending Europe, such as the Battle of Tours, or reclaiming the Holy Land for Christian Pilgrimages, not about forced conversions or killing infidels.

Do I need to source this as well? You can easily go to a reputable history source to see that I'm right.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:51 PM (P)

I haven't been hostile, I've only asked you to establish where you're coming from, because I haven't heard of any of this.

I'm just trying to fact check.

Before I look at the hebrew bibles, are they posted in manner that's compatible to using a hebrew lexicon to translate them?

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:54 PM (P)

Quote:
And, no, the Crusades didn't have anything to do with Heathens. In fact, neither Muslims nor Christians saw each other as Heathens. Muslims used the term "Infidel" and Christians "Herertic" to describe each other.

Still, if you read the History, the Crusades where about either Defending Europe, such as the Battle of Tours, or reclaiming the Holy Land for Christian Pilgrimages, not about forced conversions or killing infidels.

Do I need to source this as well? You can easily go to a reputable history source to see that I'm right.

You say potato, I say "pohtahto." Well, not really. But in my mind, that's the exact same thing.

Americans didn't kill Native Americans because of their religious beliefs, but the fact is, differences in religious belief justified killing them for land.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:58 PM (P)

Actually no. Racial discrimination combined with greed caused Thomas Jefferson to want to expand America, and he forcibly removed the Native Americans in order to achieve his goal of a conquered, white America.

Jefferson started that, and didn't care about their religious beliefs.

In fact, missionaries to the Indians actually protested Jefferson sending the army in, writing letters to Congress or the President to plead with him to stop.

The removal of the Indians was done to facilitate what was later codified as "Manifest Destiny" of the white race taming and civilizing barbarian lands, and claiming the land as their own.

Many of the Indians had actually converted to Christianity already, and where still forced off their land.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:01 PM (P)

As to the Hebrew Bibles, I do not know. I usually use hardcopy as its easier on the eyes and despite studying it, my first language is English.

But you can do something easier if not, in that you can trace the word back in the Strong's.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:03 PM (P)

Fine, it was a COMBINATION of racism, coupled with broad generalizations of Native Americans as heathens.

The analogy isn't perfect, but you didn't comment on it in regards to the point at hand, which is that Christians killed Muslims trying to reclaim what they perceived as their holy lands. What justified the Christians in this case?

EDIT: Actually, nevermind, that's also off the point at hand, which was specifically in regards to witches and the killing thereof for their practices and whatnot.

So, when I get the chance to look over those bibles and check the translations, I'll be good.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:10 PM (P)

Fine, it was a COMBINATION of racism, coupled with broad generalizations of Native Americans as heathens.

No, it wasn't. it was a combination of racism, greed, and lust for power. Jefferson never stated that they where Heathens, nor did he use this as justification for Appropriating their land.

Historical records do not indicate that the Religion of the Native Americans played any role in their removal by American forces.

The analogy isn't perfect, but you didn't comment on it in regards to the point at hand, which is that Christians killed Muslims trying to reclaim what they perceived as their holy lands. What justified the Christians in this case?

Well for centuries the Christians didn't kill Muslims over the Holy Land, but let them rule it. Only when Muslims began to actively persecute Christians, or even kill them, did this even become a COncern.

But the First Crusade, which was a massive success, really got the ball rolling. They thought that, if they could eaisly win agaisnt the Muslims, and thinking God was on their side, this means they also have the abiklity to reclaim the Holy Land to make it safe for Christian pilgrims.

They did not see the word as modern Democrats, or in the way we do regarding Nation-Sates, but rather in a Feudal Sense, and where demanding their Sacred and historical rights to make Pilgrimage. To them this made sense.

Also, I tire of the Christians getting all the flack, didn't the Muslims first threaten to conquer Europe? Why does no one mention this?

Because the defensive motive is crucial in understanding the Christians.

Also, it wasn't "The Christians" but the Catholics. The Eastern Orthodox Church did not take part in the Crusades.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:17 PM (P)

Hmm, I still see it as religious outrage, but good points.

MSA

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:27 PM (P)

um Zarove I seldom make this comment , but for someone with your " education" you lack an understanding of basic grammar, composition and spelling which seriously belies ( look it up ) your claims to the above referenced education.

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.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:37 PM (P)

Im dyslexic.

Also, my grammar is actually good. Spelling is bad.

I just use a stilted form of English, as opposed to conversational prose. Besides, this is a message board not a thesis. I don't try too hard as usually I'm just disbelieved and ridiculed for saying what I just did.

Talk to enough Jesus Mythers or Dawkins Drones, and you loose a lot of interest in the niceties. But I remain polite.
But don't take my word for anything I say, look up the information. That is where proof of my claims are to be found.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:43 PM (P)

After re-reading my posts, I do not see any obvious Grammatical errors.

So, perhaps you, as most do regretably, think the Grammar is bad simply because the spelling is?

Even then, Ive done a lot more for this baord than others in cleaning it up, and took the time to. Usually I dont as its hard for me to.

But I do not see my grammar as particulalry bad in the above posts.

KATESFRIEND

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:39 AM (P)

Zarove, thanks for the wonderfully fascinating and entertaining thread. I learned a lot and enjoyed your point of view as very refreshing and honest. Thanks for the read!

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:50 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by ZAROVE:
I hate to break it to you all but, just like the Similarities between Jesus and Horus, or the claim that the Creation account in Genesis is referring to a Plurality of gods, this is actually a hoax.

King James didn't intentionally mistranslate the Bible in order to persecute Witches, and the word used can't possibly be Poisoner.

For one thing, if this was all because James feared Magic, and he is the original reason why the word "Witch" is found in our Bibles, why is the same word used in the Coverdale Bible in the same place in 1535? This is 31 years before James Stuart was born.

Coverdale Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffre a witch to lyue.

Its also in the Geneva Bible, of 1587, and the bishops Bible of 1568.

Geneva-Exo 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to liue.

Bishops- Exo 22:18 (22:17) Thou shalt not suffer a witche to lyue.

Both of those Bibles where translated before James Ascended the Throne, and the Geneva Bible in the Reign of Queen Mary, who had begun a brutal purge of Protestants, causing several to flee to Geneva, Switzerland, where it was produced. (Hence the name)

The Bishops Bible was produced in England after the Ascension of Queen Elizabeth the First.

Even the Wycliffe Bible of 1395 says Witch! It just renders the word a plural.

Wycliffe 1395-Exodus 22:18 Thou schalt not suffre witchis to lyue.

The Latin Vulgate follows suit, and in fact Wycliffe's was translated from it.

Its hard to believe James Stuart was able to corrupt those Bibles long before he was Born, or those composed shortly after his Birth, or before his reign.

So, the claim that James was fearful of Magic and thus sought to Alter the Bible to reflect his fear of Witches, and to legitimise it, just doesn't stand up.

Then theres the Question of rather its even a Mistranslation.

For that, we look to the Hebrew.

The word in the Hebrew is Kashaph, which means "Witch" or "One who practices the black arts". It doesn't mean "Poisoner", and in fact it wouldn't make sense to think it did, since the same word is used in Daniel 2:2, and if it means Poisoner, and not "Witch" (Its actually translated as "Sorcerer" in this passage of Daniel in the KJV) how then do we explain the following?

From the KJV.

1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

If you modify it to make Kashaph mean "Poisoner" you get a strange reading.

1. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.
2. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the poisoners, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.

Why would Nebuchadnezzar summon poisoners to discern the meaning of his dreams?

I'm sorry but, the idea that the King James Bible deliberatively mistranslated the Bible in order to give a basis for the persecution of women as Witches is just daft.

In fact, even the Sexism of the day is overstated, and women did have rights in Jacobean Britain.

Don't believe everything you hear about the "Real History of Christianity", much of it is simply a repetition of old Urban legends that lack any real credibility.

Be a little more Skeptical.

Quoted for truth and kudos.

The decision for King James to publish his Bible was the beginning of the modern age of reason, and freedom. Those of you who are not Americans may not realize just how pivotal this event was to world history.

ZAROVE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:53 PM (P)

I wouldn't say that only Americans can appreciate how Pivotal the significance of the Authorised Version. (The real name of the KJV, by the way. King James did not name this after himself.)

After all, James himself was a Scot, and ruled Scotland since he was 6 years old, beginning in 1572. In 1604 he assumed the (separate) Throne of England. The English Throne was shared by Wales, so now he ruled England, Wales, and Scotland, and from the days of Elizabeth he inherited a firm Ireland.

The Authorised version was also not the first English Bible, and took a long while to gain its popularity, though was immediately adopted by the Church which the King was supreme Governor of.

The significance of the Authorised Version was the culmination of effort to make a Bible that was both accurate and in the language of the common man, readily understandable to all. The dream was to bring the people to the word of God and let them, for themselves, learn Gods ways.

It was the crowning achievement, but it was not the only step.

Indeed, the proccess began n the 1360's with John Wycliffe arguing that the Church needed reform, and later translating, by hand and alone, the Latin VUlgate Bible into English, somehtign that caused quiet a controversy when he did this. During Wycliffes day and age, the bIble wa sonly in Latin, and even many Priests had no deep understanding, knowing just enough Latin to get by services in Mass.

(Which also belies {and yes I knew what it meant before} the claim that the Eeeeeeeevil Christains, base don reading their Bibles, commited this or that attrocity in the Middle Ages. Most where illiterate and had no funcitonal knowledge of the Bible, other than stories heard at Mass.)

Wycliffe escaped harm, but shortly after his death a law was passed that prevented any Translation of the bible in the vernacular.

In the 1500's the Protestant reformation began, when in 1517 Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses on the Church door in Wittenberge.

William Tyndale became a part of this, arguing for the common man to be able to read the Bible, and decide for himself what Gods word said.

Despite the people where who hate religion because of how it causes people to do evil things, Religion really shaped society, and continues to. No one really lacks a religion, because Religion is really simply the way we see the world an understand it. Its a set of beliefs about the nature of our existence, and the meaning of the same. Even Anti-Religious zealots like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens actually are Religious, as they possess a worldview that informs them how the world works.

They simply have different doctrines and preach that God doesn't exist.

(Besides, all the people who continually rag on Religion for all the evil it has done always ignore the good.)

So, while the King James Bible has certainly been a great and historical achievement, it was the end result of a movement toward allowing freedom of the people to read Gods word in their own language and in an accurate translation, but it was not th beginning of the process, and the overall impact of the translation rests in how it influenced thoughts and language as literature, and how it was used, rather than in the fact that it was translated. By this time 9 English Bibles had been translated. (excluding derivatives like he Great Bible, or Taverner's.)

In fact, the King James Bible is largely based on Tyndale's work, and the New testament is about 80-85% Tyndale.

Still, as this is British History, anyone descending form British colonies, and of course Great Britain herself, should appreciate it.

ZAROVE

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:12 PM (P)

Oh, and the "Age of Reason" is a synonym for the Enlightenment, which occurred in the 1700's.

As the Enlightenment was actually Anti-Christian.

The teachings of the Enlightenment where that Reason and Reason alone was paramount to Human endeavours and all things we believed in must be rooted in reason. This is actually not so bad, nor necessarily Anti-Christian, ans in fact is what the Rationalists argued and all but one of them was a Christan. The trouble was, the Enlightenment also developed some rather obvious doctrines of its own, that, as with the Neo-Atheism that largly builds on Enlightenment arguments, forces you to arrive at a singular conclusion. (WHich is Ironic as they claim this is Freethought.)

The Enlightenment wanted either to Abolish Christianity (Religion, as they only knew Christianity before) and replace it with the adoration of Human reason.

It also sought to overturn Monarchical rule and replace it with Republicanism, and sought to build on the rights of man and the principles of Liberty.

The Enlightened where the first to argue that the Church had brought about the Dark Ages (WHich is now known as a Historical myth, but still believed by the man on the street) and was party to the destruction of the Roman Empire, and began for the first time to claim that Christianity brought about a form of bondage that prevented men from being truly free. This soon also began to be linked to the idea that Christianity was also irrational and absurd, for it violated the laws of Nature.

Thus began the argument that Religion enslaved mankind and needs to be broken, in favour of a new religion (Later people would argue that all religion as bad and claim to be nonreligious, but the early Enlightenment didn't think this way)

This was mainly because the teachings of the Church went against the libertine values of the Enlightenment, and because the Enlightenment saw itself as a revival of ancient Greek and Roman thought. (It wouldn't be till the 19th century that the idea came about hat it was Purely Atheistic, and somehow people who followed this thinking where not religious.As if Atheism means you have no religion.)

The Enlightenment also linked the Church to the King, and since the King was perceived as the enemy of freedom, and certainly as a block to the creation of an "Ideal republic" that would bring nothing but peace and prosperity, they revolted, killed the Royal Family, and established their Republic.

Then, in true Revolutionary fashion, turned on each other, and eventually Ropesphere began killing his political opponents. This lead to the Ten Year reign of Terror, and finally ended up destroying the dictatorial French Republic that claimed to be base don Freedom. (The same story as the Soviet Union, though it did manage 75 years.)

Some claim America was also founded on the Enlightenment, but this isn't entirely true. America was similar to the French Revolution in its ideals, but this is because the American Founders based their ideas on the same sources as the Enlightenment, notably John Locke. However, the American founder's began their revolt before the Enlightenment began, and did not use Hume, nor believe in forcing freedom onto the masses or reshaping all of society, but letting people make their own decisions.

This doesn't excuse their own Treason tot he Crown, nor negate the damage their philosophy has brought our world, but nevertheless those changes in ideas on ow Government run are the standard, basic ideas held by near everyone around the world.

Although not quiet, as most want a Democracy and Americas Founders universally hated Democracy. America was established as a Constitutional Republic.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:05 PM (P)

Hmm. Maybe I'm getting the stresses wrong, but this is what I've found so far.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=03728&ve
rsion=kjv

Also, you're saying they DIDN'T burn witches? They may not have been able to READ the bible, but to say people don't know WHAT the bible said doesn't seem reasonable. If that were true, then wouldn't they not have known the ten commandments? They would learn what the bible said through the teaching of those who either could read it or had been passed the stories through oral tradition.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:17 PM (P)

Although it's true about the U.S.A founders, they didn't trust their fellow man at all. Only if they had enough money and education... One of the reasons I actually don't like them, OR their antiquated ideas of Republic government rule.

ZAROVE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:18 PM (P)

I believe you do have the tenses, or something, wrong. Hebrew doesn't use the same Alphabet we do, so perhaps its just the transliteration I used.

I have a Programme on my PC but it won't open due to technical errors that links to two different lexicons. Ill try to repair whats wrong with it over the weekend. But here from another programe (E-Sword, which I told you of earlier) is what it defines it as.

H3784
ëּùׁó
kâshaph
kaw-shaf'
A primitive root; properly to whisper a spell, that is, to inchant or practise magic: - sorcerer, (use) witch (-craft).

I believe you can find Strong's concordance online as well, and with it you can simply look the word up and find he Hebrew original.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:22 PM (P)

Hmm. I'll keep looking then.

Hebrew is tough, but fun. It's like a treasure hunt.

ZAROVE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:22 PM (P)

Bytemite, you and I may just agree on something yet.

Although it's true about the U.S.A founders, they didn't trust their fellow man at all. Only if they had enough money and education... One of the reasons I actually don't like them, OR their antiquated ideas of Republic government rule.

I also have problems with the American Founding Fathers, and associated mythos around them.

Though I'm not sure you and I would agree politically, I also do not approve of Republicanism. But this is because I am a Loyalist and Monarchist. I do not support Absolute Monarchy, and prefer Constitutional, but do think the Monarch needs more power than just a symbol or figurehead.

This may be seen as even more Antiquat4ed of course, but I think it a better system.

Of course now I subject myself to the usual complaints about Monarchy, and many of those as mythic as the complaints about Christian history, such as people telling me how we'd lack freedom, or how we'd all be ordered about by one guy. Thats not what I support, but I wager I'll hear enough of it.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:31 PM (P)

Eh. What is a monarch besides a strong executive figure? If some nations have Presidents, I don't have much problem with monarchs.

Of course, I do prefer a more equitable system... I have issues with class structure as an instrument as oppression, and strong class structure as prone to corruption. I prefer small, local governments, where a vote is given to everyone, and those who truly care about or are effected by an issue are encouraged to work out compromise that is acceptable to all parties.

So if you think YOUR ideas are antiquated, heck, I'm tribal!

ZAROVE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:35 PM (P)

Also, for the last two points.

Most accused Witches where Hanged, not Burned. At least this was true in Western Europe. The Orthodox Church in the East was much more lenient, demanding Penance and perhaps some community service for Witchcraft.

Still, the bulk of the Witch Trials, contrary to popular imagination, actually where conducted by the State, not by the Church. There are even instances of the Church attempting to block Witch Trials.

For the most part, they where seen as civil affairs, rather than Ecclesiastical ones.

As to the people and their knowledge of the Bible, its a complex issue, but the base of it is that I never said they where completely ignorant of everything in the Bible, but they didn't understand it by and large.

Even many clergy in Wycliffe's time only barely understood enough Latin o get by.

The Catholic Church had based its entire Service, known as the Mass, upon a pre-arranged order, which is true even today. Thus, what happened at one Parish happened at all others around the whole of the world. It was planned and scheduled int he Missal.

Common Bible stories where recounted, as well as famous teachings, and so where known, but the bulk of the biblical material, as well as actual historical context of most of the stories recounted, where not.

So, while they weren't 100% ignorant of the Bible, the common man wasn't reading his Bible nightly, and was not well versed in it.

Its rather analogous to today, when many people know of the Ten Commandments ( Tough most can't cite them all) and know some basic Bible stories, but simply do not know a good deal about the Bible.

Indeed, look how easy it is to fool people into believing that Witch was mistranslated into Poisoner, or how many people think "cleanliness is next to Godliness" is in the Bible!

conversely, many people do not realise that Judea was run by Client Kings, that Israel had a civil war and broke up into two nations when Solomon died, or that Jesus was sent back and fourth between Herod and Pilate at his trial.

I've heard a lot of things claimed about the Bible over the years that where horribly inaccurate regarding tis content, and people easily believe claims made base don distortions of the text.

This is in a day and age when Literacy is high.

Imagine a world in which Literacy was about 15% of the population or less.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:43 PM (P)

Huh. I thought burning them was supposed to cleanse them. Do you know why it was hanging? I mean that my impression is in those times that certain offenses had sort of standard punishments, and there was often some symbolic reason for them.

Also, what about White Witches, is there any historical context to that, or has that been invented?

ZAROVE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:46 PM (P)

Eh. What is a monarch besides a strong executive figure? If some nations have Presidents, I don't have much problem with monarchs.

Of course, I do prefer a more equitable system... I have issues with class structure as an instrument as oppression, and strong class structure as prone to corruption. I prefer small, local governments, where a vote is given to everyone, and those who truly care about or are effected by an issue are encouraged to work out compromise that is acceptable to all parties.

So if you think YOUR ideas are antiquated, heck, I'm tribal!

Actually thats not too far off mine. I'm a Neo-Feudalist. I'd retain the rights people have won over their own lives, such as freedom of speech and assembly, and don't mind voted in small areas, I just find voting for leaders daft. Its a popularity contest, and we all know Popular people do not always make good leaders.

I'd simply allow each City to have as its principle leader either an appointed or hereditary leader, though cities may elect leaders, they are smaller. I'd call this bloke an Earl. I'd then let each County be lead by a Count, and larger areas by Dukes.

The King, sitting atop this mess, basically exists as a supreme judge, rather than as an absolute ruler. His main task is to defend the realm, as well as to make sure the Counts and Earls work in harmony with each other, and to ensure the peoples rights are maintained.

The King would not, however, directly rule each Fief.

This also allows greater freedom in smaller communities, which would determine their own character within the greater whole. IE, a Jewish Feif can decide to close its post offices and mail delivery services on Saturday rather than Sunday, and so could an officially Seventh Day Adventist Feif. They couldn't force people to follow those faiths, but could, if the area is mainly occupied or run by these groups, make hose accommodation's.

Just as an example.

ZAROVE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 4:47 PM (P)

Burning was an old Roman punishment for treason, and seen as the most painful.

Witches where seen as Criminals, not traitors.

Incidentally, Heretics where burned, as they where seen as Traitors to the faith.

Also, the idea of a White witch did not exist. The root of the English word Witch is a clue, as its crooked, or bent, and a Witch was universally understood as evil.

No one thought there where good witches.

ZAROVE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:14 PM (P)

Oh but on some occasions witches where burned, for ocnvienince, local custom, or also accused of Blasphemy or crimes against the state.

But most Witches where Hanged, with a few beheaded, or drowned.

OUT2THEBLACK

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:23 PM (P)

Something like this is what searchers will find helpful ;

an Interlinear Hebrew translation :
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

ZAROVE

Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:26 PM (P)

Thanks!

OUT2THEBLACK

Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:35 PM (P)

Just happy to be doin' good works...

WASHNWEAR

Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:54 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by ZAROVE:
Oh but on some occasions witches where burned, for ocnvienince, local custom, or also accused of Blasphemy or crimes against the state.

But most Witches where Hanged, with a few beheaded, or drowned.

Burned for convenience?!

Sorry - that just sorta caught my eye...carry on.

donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, July 24, 2009 6:54 AM (P)

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.

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Friday, July 24, 2009 3:10 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by ZAROVE:
Also, to your question.

Its no different from 9-11 Conspiracy theorists or people who think NASA faked the moon landing. Its rooted in fake evidence and badly understood history.

Funny, that's my position on religion.:)

The Inquisition killed people over their religious beliefs. "Saint" Olaf gave pagans the choice to convert to Christianity, leave Norway, or be emasculated and blinded.

While I don't think Christianity OF ITSELF is evil, don't pretend that massive evil hasn't been done in its name, and it certainly has been used as an excuse to kill people over religious beliefs.

Certainly, there were economic bases to the crusades. But I guarantee a number of crusaders did use it as an excuse to kill in Christ's name.

While modern Wicca is in fact evolved from Christianity in large part (which I find hysterical when talking to the fluffy bunny sect) (and my wife was the first serving Soldier to wear a pentacle as a locally authorized uniform device, and did conduct rituals at Ft Meade, so I do know what I'm talking about), and the numbers of "witches" killed during the Middle Ages is grossly exaggerated, I can still offer examples of violence done against them, and prejudice against them, BY CHRISTIANS, quoting the Bible as justification.

Don't make me dig up the proscription on crossbows against Christians, but fine to use on heathens, or the SQUARE BULLETS developed to kill Turks because they would make more horrible wounds (They thought).

And since the Bible insists that PI = 3, that locusts have 4 legs, that hail and snow are kept in granaries in heaven, etc, please don't pretend it's anything more than yet another mythology.

It's great that you believe substantial parts of it, it's wonderful that you use it in a positive fashion to improve your life, and it seems you also use it to enlighten others by example. All great things. But one can do that with ANY mythology, if the person in question is decent and compassionate.

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

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Friday, July 24, 2009 3:13 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Just had this documentary brought to my attention after it was nominated for a BAFTA. It's strange to think that what looks like a throwback of two centuries in "Safe" when River is to be burnt at the stake for being a witch is still going on today:

The interesting thing about African tribal superstition is that in multiple interviews, the interviewee will admit to a confidante that their magic is fake.

"But we have to pretend we have powerful magic, because (that tribe over there) has a shaman who can turn into a giant frog, cause people to fall asleep, raise boils and make leopards arrive to eat people."

It's a mutual BS society, where no one has made the jump that everyone else's magic is also merely PR.

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

ZAROVE

Friday, July 24, 2009 4:37 PM (P)

mIKE-

, that's my position on religion.:)

You may have any take you want, but this would ultimatley include your religion. One of those bits of badly understood history is the history of what words mean, and what things actually are. No one is non-religious, even though some say they are today. Religion is really simply a set of belefs regarding the world we live in, and concerns itself with establishing the ocntext by which we understand it and our lives. It is a set of beleifs regarding the nature of our world and our existance.

So, religion isnt somehtign anyone lacks, or can eb free of. its foundaitonal, and in fact nessisary for us to have in order to udnerstand the world we live in. You can change relgiions, but you cannog be free of it.

The Inquisition killed people over their religious beliefs. "Saint" Olaf gave pagans the choice to convert to Christianity, leave Norway, or be emasculated and blinded.

And Saiot Patrick insisted that no one die, and was threatened with death by Pagans routinely in Ireland. He still managed to win converts peacefully. Saint Alban was martyred at the hands of a Pagan King because he protected a Priest and refused to recant his own conversion to CHristainity. Saint Jhn CHrystom sought only dialouge thinkign that Pagans coudl be converted by sheer reason.

No one ever said all Christains where always good, but oen thing I tire of is the idiotic attacks on Christianity, which basicllay focus only on the bad, and act as if this composed the bulk of Christain History. The eay it spresented, all fo Europe was conquered byt he sword and Christainity imposed upon the people by force. Actually, this isn't true by and large. With a handful of exceptions, such as Olof, or the Campaigns of CHarlimege, which where largely politiclaly motivated, Christianity spread throughout Europe peacefully along ROman Trade Routes.

Pagans tended to convert to Christainity because Christyaisn offered them a consistant theology, and actually provided them help. As Christianity focused mainly on doign good to others,which the Pagan religions (Plural, it was never a single religion) didn't, peopel saw in Christianity a better way to ive.

If you jst focus on the Olofs, sure, CHristainity becomes a dark force in History, but there where many more St. Albans and St. Patricks and St. Augustines than there where St. Olofs.

And even Olof was misunderstood. He didnt make that offer simply because he was a cruel man, but because the Norwegean Pagans where a particulalry violent and hostile brood.( Check their hisotry.) CHristainity tamed them into a civilised people, but those who rfused wanted to carry on in their Pagan ways, which Inlcuded rape and pillage.

That may not be th ePC thing to say, and we may prefer ot think of them as meley having different religiosu beleifs abotu gods and different rituals, and the Eeeeeeeeevil Christaisn came alogn to kill them on that basis alone, but this just sint so. The Norwegeian Oagans weren't peaceful, and didn't at all care about the rights of other peopel themselves.

But who cares about real History? If the point is to tarnish Christanity, Olof killed those who refused to convert because he was mean, anxdd is represnetitive of how Christainty spread throgujut Europe, ebcause that way Christainity is a bad relgiion soaked in blood. WHo cares hwy he did hwat he id or the real hisotry? WHo cares about all the peaceful mizsions that gradually converted Europe? This makes it easier to hate Christainity.

Just ike pointing to 9-11 and pretendign that represents Islam makes it easier to hate Islam.

Hey, did you know Jews slaughtered some peopel in villages of Eastern Europe in the 1100's? I guess all Jews are evil too. Jews also prodiuced Bernie Madoff so I guess they really all are greedy theives.

Obviously, focusign on negative examples is unhelpful.

While I don't think Christianity OF ITSELF is evil, don't pretend that massive evil hasn't been done in its name, and it certainly has been used as an excuse to k

MSA

Friday, July 24, 2009 5:23 PM (P)

In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah to describe the person who should be killed. The word means a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others - e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly "evil sorceress" or "woman who does evil magic" would be the most accurate phrases in today's English usage for this verse.

Also,The King James Version and Revised English Bible use the term "witch." In North America, at this time, the term normally refers to Wiccans -- the followers of the Wiccan religion. According to the Scofield Reference Bible this verse from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) was written in the year 1491 BCE. This is some 650 years before the origin of the Celtic people circa 850 BCE from whom some elements of Wicca were taken. So Exodus 22:18 can hardly be referring to Wiccans.

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.

ZAROVE

Friday, July 24, 2009 5:53 PM (P)

Actually the term is Gender neutral. It doesn't refer only to women, but can include men.

Men where, in fact, more likely to be accused of Witchcraft than women in Ancient Israel.

That said, Wicca derives the bulk of its ideas from 19th century romantic notions and Margaret Murray's book, but I've forgotten the title so need to look it up. I do not think Wicca actually derived anything form Paganism in the past.

I cold be wrong as Wicca changes rapidly, but last I checked a few years ago, other than the names of the gods they use, and general relation one to another, Wicca tends to be wholly modern.

One last quibble, Scofield did not claim anything happened in any year BCE. He would have used BC. BCE is an attempt to de-Christianise the calender, which itself is daft since its based (thouh inaccurately) on the time Jesus was suppose to have been born.

I always found our cultures need to attack Christianity an odd thing to study, as it seems so prevalent.

it also renders people willing to suspend all reason and go along with stupidity. Like when Mike said the Bible insists Pi is 3 because of a reference to a pool that used estimated values.

Then again, MSA thinks I don't know what the word belies means and that I'm an idiot, so I suppose anything is attackable.

ZAROVE

Friday, July 24, 2009 5:59 PM (P)

Jewel, I am sorry, I overlooked our excel;ent post.

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.

Yes indeed! Though to be fair, by 1776 the Authorised Version had become ubiquitous in households and was already Printed. However, it required the Royal seal to do so thus the crown retained power over the publication and distribution. The American revolt lead to that good thing, amongst the few good things it accomplished, in hat it increased the availability and distribution of the Bible.

And contrary to those who think Americas founders wanted a complete seperation of Church and State that forbade the Goernment ever financing anything to do wiht Religion ( except thier own, which they simply rebrand as nonreligion), Congress itself published the Authorised Version for general distribution.

Of course, Americas founders wherent like the modern Evangelicals, nor sid their vision coincide with the modern Evangelical vision, but they where harldy militant secularists either.

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Friday, July 24, 2009 6:09 PM (P)

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

SHADESIREN

Friday, July 24, 2009 11:05 PM (P)

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

ZAROVE

Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:17 AM (P)

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 b

BYTEMITE

Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:29 AM (P)

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

And were witches considered heretics?

ZAROVE

Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:40 AM (P)

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.

SHADESIREN

Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:03 AM (P)

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'.)

BYTEMITE

Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:57 AM (P)

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?

ZAROVE

Saturday, July 25, 2009 5:01 AM (P)

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.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, July 25, 2009 5:31 AM (P)

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

ZAROVE

Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:52 PM (P)

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

ZAROVE

Saturday, July 25, 2009 4:42 PM (P)

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.

ZAROVE

Saturday, July 25, 2009 6:19 PM (P)

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.

KWICKO

Sunday, July 26, 2009 7:22 PM (P)

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?

ZAROVE

Sunday, July 26, 2009 9:39 PM (P)

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, July 27, 2009 6:29 AM (P)

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.

ZAROVE

Monday, July 27, 2009 7:43 PM (P)

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.

BIGWOLF18

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:00 AM (P)

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

BIGWOLF18

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:21 AM (P)

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

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:23 AM (P)

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.

IREMISST

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:55 PM (P)

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...

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:11 PM (P)

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 Vati

KWICKO

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:49 PM (P)

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...

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:09 PM (P)

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.

ZAROVE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:57 AM (P)

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:41 AM (P)

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.

ZAROVE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:59 PM (P)

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 thin

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:14 PM (P)

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.

ZAROVE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:30 PM (P)

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.)

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:42 PM (P)

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?

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:42 PM (P)

EDIT: Oops, double post.

ZAROVE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:54 PM (P)

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.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:58 PM (P)

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.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:14 PM (P)

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?

MSA

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:21 PM (P)

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.

ZAROVE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:30 PM (P)

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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:58 PM (P)

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!

ZAROVE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:09 PM (P)

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.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:22 PM (P)

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.

ZAROVE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:37 PM (P)

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.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:01 PM (P)

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.

ZAROVE

Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:44 AM (P)

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:59 AM (P)

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

ZAROVE

Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:46 AM (P)

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

DMAANLILEILTT

Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:39 AM (P)

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

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:31 AM (P)

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:48 AM (P)

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.

ZAROVE

Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:26 PM (P)

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.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:35 PM (P)

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?

ZAROVE

Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:42 PM (P)

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.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, July 31, 2009 9:03 AM (P)

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.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE