pope francis awesomeness

[Cumference]

and by comparison you are thinking of...?

ed

You are right, I was far too positive.

What I meant was:

"The religions still in existence today, were dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. Since they had no other choice, they adapted (somewhat) and adopted some of the things they had vigorously opposed as their own"

There are plenty of fundies in all the religions, who have not really accepted that the iron age/ middle ages are gone.

Probably due to not having had a reformation and a renaissance, the orthodox jews and the moslems are in pole position, but there are lots of close contenders.

 

[Que]

Ah...I see where you are coming from... you are a secular jihadist.

Well, good luck with your holy war... I try to avoid engaging extremists about religion.

 

[silverwhisper]

cumference quoth:
"the religions still in existence today, were dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. since they had no other choice, they adapted (somewhat) and adopted some of the things they had vigorously opposed as their own"

there are plenty of fundies in all the religions, who have not really accepted that the iron age/ middle ages are gone.

probably due to not having had a reformation and a renaissance, the orthodox jews and the moslems are in pole position, but there are lots of close contenders.

that's a dodge: you actually can't answer my question at all, can you? your problem isn't the sitting pope or even the roman catholic church: it's all religion, isn't it?

ed

 

[Cumference]

The argument was:

........

My view is that every major religion piously followed has more to commend it than to detract from it. There are more similarities than differences. Believing in a moral framework for your choices does no harm, and might well bring the benefits promised.

And I gave an example to the opposite.


I know that the talibs are easy points to score, but their driving force is The Book and following it literally.


Since the Some parts of North America is on par with Iran when it comes to religiosity, I am aware that this discussion could be heated.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/alabamians-iranians-common.aspx
(And notice Scandinavia on the map )

 

[Que]

Double post

 

[Que]

The STATEMENT was:



And I gave an example to the opposite.


I know that the talibs are easy points to score, but their driving force is The Book and following it literally.


Since the Some parts of North America is on par with Iran when it comes to religiosity, I am aware that this discussion could be heated.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/alabamians-iranians-common.aspx
(And notice Scandinavia on the map )

pi·ous
ˈpīəs/
adjective
adjective: pious

1.
devoutly religious.
synonyms: religious, devout, God-fearing, churchgoing, spiritual, prayerful, holy, godly, saintly, dedicated, reverent, dutiful, righteous
"a pious family"

The only synonym there that YOU could construe as denoting or even connoting a radical sect is "Religious." because to YOU it is a dirty word in all circumstances. If you truly believe such evil is hatched in temples, mosques and churches in your city, maybe you should visit one to learn of their plans...

I made the mistake of assuming since you were posting on the Catholic thread with some knowledge of Catholicism.. I admitted my ignorance at any factions that may exist within that faith.

When I realized that you know next to nothing about any of the religions you are spouting off about, it was clear we don't have any basis for a productive discussion..

Everyone gets it: "Religion is the opiate of the masses"..."Religion bad ---liberalism the way to truth and light." You only have to walk past a college campus to learn that great, universal truth. If that was your entire point, start a thread harping on the evils of religion and preach to that choir.

I feel like an idiot for taking the time to address this latest post, but here goes. NO ONE thinks the Taliban's "driving force" is the book. That would be like saying pre-Gutenberg Catholics were "driven by the book". Despite the fact that services were in Latin and the people didn't speak it, much less READ it.

The Taliban is comprised of teachings from people that like you, view ancient texts that are "living and breathing". The Koran in plain black (Arabic) letters PROHIBITS all of the things that they teach in the Medrassas to young boys with a few select bastardized readings of the scriptures...It even prohibits such false teachings.

The young boys they recruit generally don't read and follow a "new and improved" version taught to them orally.

People recruit others to do their bidding any number of ways...religion lends itself well to those sorts of abuse, but your religion (secular humanism) is just as used to sway people to causes and actions.

You want the Catholics to adjust to the times and cultures...the Wasabi sect
did EXACTLY that. They adapted the "book" to their evil aims and designs.

 

[Cumference]

.the Wasabi sect
did EXACTLY that. They adapted the "book" to their evil aims and designs.

Wasabi?
What has sushi to do in this discussion?

 

[Cumference]

.... But if you use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman on every example, the discussion is kind of fruitless.

 

[Que]

.... But if you use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman on every example, the discussion is kind of fruitless.

You have displayed no open-mindedness on the issue so there can be no "discussion". You clearly are unconvinced that any religion has a beneficial role for any persons anywhere...which was all my statement (that you erroneously called an argument) was about. That people on balance tend to get more benefit from affiliating themselves in good conscience with some faith than they risk in being led astray.

My view is that every major religion piously followed has more to commend it than to detract from it. There are more similarities than differences. Believing in a moral framework for your choices does no harm, and might well bring the benefits promised.

I can't possibly craft a more tepid statement in support of any religious practices than what I did.

You seem to be proposing that if religions will comport themselves to the philosophies of men and the current 'enlightened" practices of men, that FINALLY mankind will have a religion worth worshiping on behalf of.

Why does one need a religion at all if it merely gives permission to do whatever it was that was already being done by mankind?

It's a defensible position that one can as a society devise morals that are agreed upon and then what? Make a booklet? Why? We all agreed on it. What to do with those that then disagree with that?

I think you don't see value in tradition and history. That's fine...but that is a cultural value issue and nothing really to do with religion.

I don't think shamans are as efficacious at curing disease as modern pharma, but it would be ignorant of me to suggest that they do not benefit their societies, because, clearly, they do.

You think your arguments can possibly refute the wisdom of Descartes on the subject?

 

[Cumference]

...

You seem to be proposing that if religions will comport themselves to the philosophies of men and the current 'enlightened" practices of men, that FINALLY mankind will have a religion worth worshiping on behalf of.

No, I do not.
Religions are made by men, and their scripture provides a snapshot of the philosophy, knowledge an structure of society when it was written.

The old testament clearly reflects the bronze age mindset of a small patriarchal tribe of goat herders in constant conflict with their neighboring tribes.
The new testament is the story about a cult leader under roman occupation. Quite a bit more moderate, because the romans did not like competing deities, and you would have to walk softly in those days.
When it comes to "the work of man", the new testament consists of four versions of the same story, none of them contemporary and they could not even agree on the details (but they have been doing some copying).

There was a lot more of the scripture, but thanks to emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, a decision (or rather an executive order) was made for what was the "correct" text. And the rest was considered heresy.

Why does one need a religion at all if it merely gives permission to do whatever it was that was already being done by mankind?

Not quite.
It gives permission to do, what the priests and the kings/tribal leaders controlling the priests want you to do.

It's a defensible position that one can as a society devise morals that are agreed upon and then what? Make a booklet? Why? We all agreed on it. What to do with those that then disagree with that?

When the religions ruled: Stoning, excommunication, burning at the stake.
Now: Jail and other punishments (unless they are protected by their (man-given) right to freedom of thought, press, religion and so on.

I think you don't see value in tradition and history. That's fine...but that is a cultural value issue and nothing really to do with religion.

Tradition, history and religion is just that. But it must be considered relative to the real world we live in now (I'm a firm believer in life before death).

I don't think shamans are as efficacious at curing disease as modern pharma, but it would be ignorant of me to suggest that they do not benefit their societies, because, clearly, they do.

Of course they do, it was the best they had.
But should I come down with cancer, tuberculosis or syfilis, I will certainly prefer modern medicine!

You think your arguments can possibly refute the wisdom of Descartes on the subject?

Who died in 1650?

He invented the Cartesian coordinate system and analytical geometry.
He also made a model for physics, that was totally crazy (but dominated until Newton got it right).

And he was a philosopher. But what "wisdom" are you referring to? Are you just name dropping, or is there more to it?

 

[Que]

As I said , insurmountable differences...Religion requires either a belief in a power higher than yourself, or a suspension of disbelief of the same.

Religion comes from one's God or not at all.

Religion does not come from man. If so it is not Religion.

You are free to believe that there is no power higher than your intellect.

Feel free to argue the point with yourself.

 

[silverwhisper]

cumference quoth:
the argument was...and i gave an example to the opposite.

well see, the problem here is that i asked you a question, not query. we're different people. since you apparently can't keep up your end of this exchange, i'll repeat it for you.

cumference quoth:
most religions have however adapted quite skillfully to a changing world.

my question to you was:

i quoth:
and by comparison you are thinking of...?

then, cumference backpedaled into:
the religions still in existence today, were dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. since they had no other choice, they adapted (somewhat) and adopted some of the things they had vigorously opposed as their own.

and yet, you completely fail to provide any examples whatsoever of what religions have adapted. i'm still waiting for an example. in fact, i'm waiting for at least 2 examples, although 3 would be better. think of the 3rd example as an extra credit assignment.

see, i'm trying to figure out if you actually have any skill in these types of arguments, or if i'm just gonna wind up argumentatively pantsing you in the schoolyard. based on your posts to date, i'm thinking the latter is vastly more probable: you haven't exactly set the bar very high.

ed

 

[Que]

pshew..the night shift was rough, ed...I am happy to see my relief shift.

It has been pointed out that I still seem a bit wound up an on the argumentative side given the rhetorical exercise of the past couple of weeks...

That said, I have endeavored to be exceedingly civil. It seems unseemly and ironic to raise ire whilst defending the beneficial role of theology in the betterment of society.

I think that it is so ingrained in society that all aspects of religion is a construct of whole cloth by mortal men, that the idea, even when framed as fantasy of an Almighty issuing benevolent dictates just doesn't register.

It is a tired old saw that the only socially acceptable prejudice that one can openly show ones disdain for another group of humans is denigrating the beliefs of various stripes of Christian believers.

The point I offered was the universal nature of man to strive for a higher meaning. No one suggests that the beliefs of aboriginal Australians or Native Americans were not good threads that held the fabric of their societies together. The soft bigotry is that "those people" were not sophisticated enough in their reasoning capacity to question and choose to accept faith.

"Modern" man is so sure that they are unique little daffodils of reason in the annuls of time.

Some of this is basic philosophy, and it draws a blank...but chapter and verse are easily quoth on the religiously affiliated atrocities of man.

Baffling. To be so certain there is nothing else, but yet ascribe often to eastern philosophies like karma and some reward to come.

I can see agnosticism...I can see I am angry because I had hope and faith in a particular divine Providence to be delivered and feel it was not fulfilled...

But to be dead certain of your own ideas about societal values as being more correct and beneficial than any of the combined wisdom of all civilization til today is the most egregious of hubris.

For the sake of discussion let us assume that perhaps one or two traditions not just no longer apply, but lets say they do actual harm and MUST be dispensed with.

As a society we have drifted FROM traditions markedly in recent decades...did we drift from the wrong ones? Not drift far enough? Where has the fabric of society been demonstrably improved by this shift?

None of that is prima fascia evidence that the corrosion of society by any metric you care to name is the RESULT of that disregard of tradition, but point to a tradition discarded that enriched lives in any noticeable way?

I don't know the quote but something like if these be against....

Almost, Ed I am persuaded to study the catechism.

 

[Que]

I see that sloppy style of rhetorical argument a LOT around here. It's as if on a debate team meet and hoping you can employ sleight of hand and the judges won't notice.

Sometimes a re-frame of debate IS appropriate. In which case you march your pawns back and begin anew...

But the idea of picking and choosing which minor asides to "attack" and deliberately leaving out addressing the heart and soul of the matter seems just specious and unworthy.

He quoted large supporting swaths of my words and used them like decorations for his expansion upon his themes. I cant decipher how the blocks of texts relate to his (I guess) rejoinders?

It's like some whirling free-association.

He picks a couple of words from my sentence uses them in an unrelated sentence of his own and off he goes...

He tellingly leaves out twice my simple, declarative statement in support of people benefiting from choosing and practicing a faith.

 

[Cumference]

....
my question to you was:

and yet, you completely fail to provide any examples whatsoever of what religions have adapted. i'm still waiting for an example. in fact, i'm waiting for at least 2 examples, although 3 would be better. think of the 3rd example as an extra credit assignment.
.....

ed

I think I finally get what you were asking for!

I'll start out in my own back yard, the Northern European Lutheran reformed variant of christianity:


The RCC was the dominant factor in Western Europe untill Gutenberg started printing bibles, and (oh horror!) pirate versions in local languages started appearing. Some of them even interpreted directly from Greek, Hebrew and Armenian.

The Reformation was attributed to Luther, but it was facilitated by European rulers who were fed up with the RCC.

1
In theory, women could become priests after the Reformation, but around here, it took a law, ramming the female priesthood down the throat of the church, to actually make it happen.
Now equal rights are a mainstay of the church (except for a fraction of fundamentalist priests, who will not even shake hands with a female colleague).

2
Homosexual marriage?
Moving from stoning (and other jolly punishments) to a church ritual is quite a change.

3
Marriage of divorced?
In the bible the husband can sack his wife if he is displeased with her, but Jesus opposed that. (Matthew 19:3-12)
Luther tagged along, but made an allowance, accepting that it was a last resort, if the couple could not live together (But then they should NOT marry again), or if the partner ran of or committed adultery (in which case it was OK for the offended part to re-marry).
Today people happily divorce and re-marry and the church is just happy to have customers in the shop.


(And the reformation was probably the biggest adaptation of them all)

 

[Cumference]

But we should not forget the OP!

Yesterday the pope produced a couple of new saints.

A liberal and a hardliner:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27172118

Awful! (oh, sorry, awesome)
And the procedure was speeded up and the miraculous requirements relaxed to get Paul through.

 

[Eilan]

I fail to see a problem with Cumference's posts?

 

[Lord Pmann]

Say what you want about the last Pope, but this guy was doing good things:

www.theonion.com/articles/pope-vows-to-get-church-pedophilia-down-to-accepta,17201/

 

[Cumference]

Say what you want about the last Pope, but this guy was doing good things:
www.theonion.com/articles/pope-vows-to-get-church-pedophilia-down-to-accepta,17201/

That is truly awesome!


Pope Benny was a great man.

 

[silverwhisper]

cumference quoth:
i think i finally get what you were asking for!

o good, i ask for nothing better. let's see now...

cumference quoth:
i'll start out in my own back yard, the northern european lutheran reformed variant of christianity:

the RCC was the dominant factor in western europe untill gutenberg started printing bibles, and (oh horror!) pirate versions in local languages started appearing. some of them even interpreted directly from greek, hebrew and armenian.

uh...armenian? did you perhaps mean to type aramaic? considering armenian's oldest known textual example dates back to a fifth century CE bible? or are we perhaps running afoul of a translation issue?

cumference quoth:
the reformation was attributed to luther, but it was facilitated by european rulers who were fed up with the RCC.

i don't think that's disputable quite honestly, esp given the politicization of the church, esp the ravenna period.

cumference quoth:
1 in theory, women could become priests after the reformation, but around here, it took a law, ramming the female priesthood down the throat of the church, to actually make it happen. now equal rights are a mainstay of the church (except for a fraction of fundamentalist priests, who will not even shake hands with a female colleague).

considering no major branch of christianity has allowed for female clergy until the 20th century, i'd like a citation for your assertion.

cumference quoth:
2 homosexual marriage?
moving from stoning (and other jolly punishments) to a church ritual is quite a change.

there are very few major sects of christianity that will perform gay weddings. i love that there are, but your statement seems to suggest it's universal. it isn't. what is the basis for your statement?

cumference quoth:
3 marriage of divorced?
in the bible the husband can sack his wife if he is displeased with her, but jesus opposed that. (matthew 19:3-12)
luther tagged along, but made an allowance, accepting that it was a last resort, if the couple could not live together (but then they should not marry again), or if the partner ran of or committed adultery (in which case it was OK for the offended part to re-marry).
today people happily divorce and re-marry and the church is just happy to have customers in the shop.

(and the reformation was probably the biggest adaptation of them all)

you appear to be conflating jewish bible vs christian bible (or if you prefer, old testament vs new testament) here. the jewish bible makes very clear that divorce is permissible under certain specific instances. however, most major sects of christianity did not in fact allow for divorce until the past century or so, and only in the past several decades has the stigma of divorce largely dissipated.

since you obviously aren't actually very familiar with christian theology: the jewish bible from which the christian bible emanates is generally not considered to be of equal standing theologically due to the fact that christ is viewed as the fulfillment of the prophecy of a messiah from the jewish bible. therefore, a lot of the law (the jewish bible, specifically the first 5 books thereof) are in many ways a lot less relevant. by way of example: when's the last time you met a christian who keeps kosher or honors the sabbath?

so in closing: cumference, you don't really know what you're talking about here. i get that you're an atheist. so am i. so if you're going to rail against christianity, go right on with your bad self. heaven knows christianity does indeed have a lot to answer for in human history: millennia of institutionalized misogyny, persecution of gays, support for slave trade, complicity in the holocaust, concealing rape of children, never mind the utter bullshit nonsense eternally squawked by american christians who inexplicably and wrongly feel that somehow they're being fucking persecuted...there's a lot of ground there.

but for fuck's sake, know what you're talking about if you're going to do it, man.

this schoolyard pantsing has been brought to you by,

ed

 

[Cumference]

OK, we'll take it again.

My religious background is, as I stated clearly in the post you quote, local (before becoming a despicable apostate).
And I answered based on Danish legislation, history et cetera.

Female priests:
It was clearly out of the question among the jews, you would even have to come from the right tribe to be a priest.
In the early ears of the Christan cult, women seem to have had lots of central roles, but that stopped when christianity became a state affair. Patriarchy was back in a central role, an the women back in the bed/kitchen.

And now i have a problem: My sources are in Danish, and since I'm not a native English speaker, I simply do not know the English terms.
In the catholic church, only men could attain the "specielle præstedømme" (special priesthood?) that was disbanded by the reformation. Luther was pretty harsh about priests not being something divinely special.
Luther said, that anyone baptized had access to priesthood ("almene præstedømme" normal/general priesthood?), but it was not followed, and stayed a male business.
In Denmark it became law in 1947, that female priests could be ordained.

The first three were ordained in 1948.
(But even as late as 1968 one of the bishops refused to ordain female priest.... and the responsible Church Ministers did not have the balls to sack him!)
Today we have approximately 50% female priests in Denmark.

Gay marriage: As I wrote: I referred to the Danish case


Divorce: Am I quoting Matthew or Luther wrong?
(As far as I remember, Matthew is not part of the Torah?)


No reason to roll around in the school yard, it would not look good for either of us.

 

[Cumference]

o good, i ask for nothing better. let's see now...

uh...armenian? did you perhaps mean to type aramaic? considering armenian's oldest known textual example dates back to a fifth century CE bible? or are we perhaps running afoul of a translation issue?.

Uh, that hurt!
You got back on me for the wasabi, there!

since you obviously aren't actually very familiar with christian theology: the jewish bible from which the christian bible emanates is generally not considered to be of equal standing theologically due to the fact that christ is viewed as the fulfillment of the prophecy of a messiah from the jewish bible. therefore, a lot of the law (the jewish bible, specifically the first 5 books thereof) are in many ways a lot less relevant. by way of example: when's the last time you met a christian who keeps kosher or honors the sabbath?

Well, Jesus was a jewish cult leader, and keeps referring to the jewish scripture.
He was circumcised (and enough foreskin to build a tent was kept as relics!).

But I agree, that the christian relationship to the old testament is pretty weird.
Some really heavy cherry picking is the norm, where some parts are considered the god-given truth, other parts are just valuable moral lessons and some parts can just be ignored (Ignored! It is the Word of God!).
And which is which, varies with the sectarian directions.


And yes, the early christians dropped a lot of the jewish traditions.
Missionary activity is not a jewish core competence, the christians have on the other hand had it as a clear, well, mission.
So they dropped a lot of the "we're a closed group doing weird things for ourselves"-things.
Ritual genital mutilation, not being allowed to eat what you usually do and keeping the sabbath, would be both uncomfortable and draw unwanted attention.
Not a smart way to get new members! *

In Denmark it was the law until the year 2012, that all shops must be closed from 20:00 saturday to 0600 monday morning (and on all church holidays).
And quite a few people from the church argued strongly against that law being disbanded, insisting that it would make even fewer people attend mass.






*
Another example from Norther Europe is, that the birthday of Jesus was conveniently moved to midwinter, probably on the realization, that if converting meant dropping the midwinter feast (Yule), they could forget about it!
Some of the more bawdy traditions stayed (much frowned upon by the church) and even today quite a few people sacrifice porridge to the house gods on christmas night.
("it is just a funny tradition and we do it to entertain the children")

 

[fire_breeze]

I really don't want to get involved, but Gentlemen, if I may, I would like to point out a few historical facts to help with your discussion. It's extremely fascinating to read, but I am compelled to indicate some misinterpretations - I hope that you will allow me to point them out before I gracefully bow out. I mean no disrespect to anyone, and I hope that I am addressing all discussants here (I am NOT pointing anyone out) and I hope I am not pontificating .

Also, I'd like to remind you of keeping things in historical perspectives. You all bring intriguing points, but are forgetting to historically and culturally contextualise - which, I might add, if you were in any classes that I lecture, would get a huge penalty from me .

Please remember that in the 16thC (and before) all the way until 20th, in the Western World, women were NOT considered to be full persons. You can blame the Graeco-Roman mentality for this one which predates Christianity and Judaism. Everyone knew this and science proved it - hell, it was believed, and scientifically accepted at the time - that women were prone to hysteria and were weak and so forth and so forth. Therefore, women were not considered to be ministers in Luther's mind.

Judaism as we know it is a product of the post-Second Temple period, that is after 70 CE with the destruction of the Temple. Before then, Rabbis had minor roles in certain Jewish sects. And many Jewish sects at the time did actively recruit new members. It was after 70CE, when there was no more Temple and therefore no sacrifices to be conducted, and the Jewish Diaspora truly began (there always was one but now there was a mass exodus from Judea) that the Rabbis played a central role and Rabbinic Judaism as we know it truly developed. So do not apply post 70CE Judaism to Judaism during the time of Jesus, because that form did not exist. Sorry.

Jesus did exist, he was Jewish and yes he was one of the many messiahs that existed. The term simply means 'the anointed one', which is was Christos means, by the way. The thing about Jesus was that he was a popular messiah who amassed a large following, and his message was spread and attracted interest amongst many many different types of Jews and non-Jews alike, which for anyone of the time, was pretty much unheard of.

Romans didn't persecute Christians because they were intolerant of other divinities. This is the biggest falsehood of them all. Romans didn't give a flying fuck what deity you worshipped, as long as you fulfilled one caveat: you sacrificed. They persecuted Christians at times (and to lesser extent Jews after 70CE) because Christians did not conduct any sacrifices and refused to eat of the sacrificial meat dedicated to the state gods. In other words, they were considered to be Atheists, which was a crime of treason, because sacrificing to the state gods, you were swearing allegiance to the emperor. That's it. Add to the fact that this was a new movement/religion, and at that time, all the way to the Enlightenment, anything new was suspicious (old was good, because it stood the test of time, and therefore must be true. This is why Jews at this time were rarely persecuted because it was an old religious system). This why the apologists existed in the 3rd C, to convince Pagans that the Eucharist was a sacrifice in its own way and besides, they are cool with the emperor. Period.

Christians believed that Jesus fulfilled the promise of the Hebrew Bible (also known as the Old Testament) and through his death, he created a new covenant with the people and God. Hence, the New Testament. Additionally, it was Paul who said that one did not need to convert to Judaism before one because a follower of Jesus' message. Jesus did not start out to create a new religion, he just wanted to take the emphasis away from rituals and bring the focus on doing good, loving each other, forgiveness, sharing, the concept of agape and all that. So why emphasise the Old Testament when the New one fulfilled the promise? It was after the Destruction of the Temple that things began to split.

The New Testament was written in Greek - and then translated into Latin (the vernacular of Rome). It was then considered to be a holy language (nothing unusual there - the Qur'an is written in Arabic, the holy language of Muslims), and it was believed to be divinely inspired, so why mess up something holy? Additionally, in High Middle Ages, most people who were able to read knew how to read Latin better than the Romans, Greek, as well as the vernacular languages.

Pauper Bibles, written specifically for those who had less time to dedicate to reading, were not educated as the literati and had less money, was written in vernacular Latin or in the vernacular itself.

Guttenberg invented the moveable printing press, making literature more accessible. As mentioned before, biblical texts were allowed, and yes some of them were written in the vernacular (or Latinised vernacular, which believe you and me, is a fucking bitch to translate). There were no pirated versions of the bible circulating. It was accepted and all cool, even with the big bad Vatican.

The Vatican as we assume to know it didn't exist as such in the Mediaeval Era. It is a product of the Reformation. The Vatican, as most religious institutions in history, was enmeshed in the politics of the time. It was a secular as well as a religious institutions. Keep that in perspective that this was NOTHING NEW. Most religious institutions throughout history and throughout cultures had a political influence, and most secular institutions had an influence on the religious ones. Hells, in many cultures, the ruler was a priest serving the state gods.

When Luther posted his 95 Theses on the church door of Wittenberg, he wanted to start a discussion with the Church - a common method at the time. Some German princes wanted to separate from the Holy Roman Empire, which was essentially German. They were seriously pissed off at the Emperor who was ordained by the Pope of the time, and they got along well. If that didn't happen, then the Reformation, which most scholars would say would have taken place, would have been a Reformation of the Roman Catholic Church, and there probably would not have been a Protestant movement.

The Taliban are adherents of the Deobandi sect. Saudi Arabia follows the Wahhabi sect.

Bottom line, religion is a cultural and human construct that exists in all societies, just as economics, philosophy, history and politics is created by humans. I am not talking about faith. Faith is something else entirely. Religion, according to Frederick Streng, whom most anthropologist use as figuring out a working definition of religion, is a worldview that explains the human condition. It asks the 'why' of existence, whereas the hard sciences asks itself the 'how' of human existence and therefore are, in most cases, are not incompatible, and in fact depend on each other to have a fuller understanding of life (Vatican doctrine, by the way). Religion, and expressions of religions, is entrenched in history and in culture and has so many variety and expressions that one cannot even begin to fathom.

ETA: The idea of splitting everything into neat little spheres that are supposedly untouched by each other was a product of the Enlightenment Era. I can also tell you anecdotally that most scholars I know, regardless of their personal belief, are beyond frustrated with this, but that I cannot substantiate with evidence. In any case, it was not only to protect the political sphere from the religious one, but also vice versa: protecting the religious sphere from the political one. The truth of the matter is that control is control and everyone wants more power.

The idea that religions worldwide is the sole cause of wars is blatantly untrue. Yes, many religions committed atrocious actions and against their core principles of the Golden Rule, and caused tremendous suffering - no one is denying that - but I'd like to point out 2 of the greatest mass murderers that ever existed: Stalin and Mao, both of them who killed countless millions , responsible for decades-long suffering in numbers that exceed comprehension, all in the name of no-religion and Atheism. Abuse of power is abuse of power, and it is at the fault of humanity. Often political agendas will align themselves with religious agendas and both parties just want control. My professional, anthropological opinion? People with some measure of power are royally fucked, regardless if it is done in the name of religion, money, or philosophy.

And by the way, yes I know what I am talking about. If you want, I can supply with all the citation that you need (including some of my own research, if you're so inclined ).

Now, carry on Gentlemen. I'm stepping out and shutting up. It's a fascinating debate.

/history lesson.

 

[Cumference]

.......... My professional, anthropological opinion? People with some measure of power are royally fucked, regardless if it is done in the name of religion, money, or philosophy.

And by the way, yes I know what I am talking about. If you want, I can supply with all the citation that you need (including some of my own research, if you're so inclined ).

Now, carry on Gentlemen. I'm stepping out and shutting up. It's a fascinating debate.

/history lesson.

Dear fire_breeze.

Thanks for breezing some anthropological fire on the discussion, it was a pleasure to read.
It is nice to be lectured by a pro.
(Luckily we're not in a position where we get grades for our internet brawls. You are not one of the girls who consider it fun to watch the stupid boys fighting? Are you?)



But your lecture raises an interesting question:

You say with great certainty, that there was a historical Jesus, and that he gathered a large following.
Are there any contemporary sources to support that?
Does anybody mention him earlier than the secondary or tertiary sources in the early christian texts?

The text by Josephus is more or less a forgery and Tacitus is dated to something like 70 or 80 years after the crucifixion.


Do we know much more, than that he was a cult leader with a (small) following, active for a few years, and then killed?
And after his death, the movement started to gain momentum.







Now we can go back to Francis-bashing or groveling at the papal feet.

 

[fire_breeze]

Dear fire_breeze.

Thanks for breezing some anthropological fire on the discussion, it was a pleasure to read.
It is nice to be lectured by a pro.
(Luckily we're not in a position where we get grades for our internet brawls. You are not one of the girls who consider it fun to watch the stupid boys fighting? Are you?)



But your lecture raises an interesting question:

You say with great certainty, that there was a historical Jesus, and that he gathered a large following.
Are there any contemporary sources to support that?
Does anybody mention him earlier than the secondary or tertiary sources in the early christian texts?

I don't get any pleasure from stupid people at all .

I am not going to go into another spiel about the problematic term of 'contemporary' and the difficulty of accurately pinpointing the dates. Give me a parchment written by them and a well-equipped lab, and yup, then I can. But for arguments' sake, here are a few sources. But, to quote Wikipedia *shudders* (go and check all the footnotes here)

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][27][28][29] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[30][31] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[12]

Primary Sources:

Josephus, and the Antiquities of the Jews, mentions Jesus as a popular figure that are in-line with the (minute) details of Jesus' life that is found in the Gospels and in Paul (who was a child during Jesus' preaching years). And while there were some Christian additions, however, the text has been redacted to eliminate the additions. Additionally, the actually chapters that refer Jesus by name is accepted to be untouched (Feldman).

Tacitus in his Annals who describes Jesus' death - and it must be noted that Tacitus had absolutely no sympathies for the followers of the Jesus movement.

Mara bar Sarapion, a philosopher wrote a letter that, like Tacitus, details the crucifixion of Jesus.

Suetonius, 12 Caesars. Fine, he does not mention Jesus, but he does talk about the early Christians, and the contempt he had of them.

The Tannic period of the Talmud mentions Jesus by name and that he was a minor rabbi.

The details in both the canonical and non-canonical Gospels correspond to political details that happened. These Gospels were written within the four decades of the death of Jesus. At that time, when creating pseudo-biography, the facts were often, if not always, botched if written by the non-literati (which the early Christian writings were written by the non-literati). Therefore, these writings show a similarity in facts when establishing chronology.

The existence of John the Baptist and his execution by Herod is also written by Josephus.

Secondary (non-Christian) sources from highly reputed Classists, religion scholars and historical anthropologists include Meier, Crossan, Vermes, Sanders, Fredriksen (a former Roman Catholic who converted to Judaism), Ehrman (a secular atheist and a class-act jerk), Grant, Herzog and many more.

The fact that a man called Jesus who was a popular preacher existed is undisputed among scholars. Whether or not he did what the Gospels claims and he was what Christians believed him to be is what is debated. His existence is accepted. The details of his life is in question. Big difference.