The first Christmas
James Warren
Church fathers designated December 25th, the birthday of the popular pagan god Mithras,
as Jesus's official birth date. The celebration of the birth of Christ also took over
the pagan winter solstice holiday, which like the birthday of the sun god Mithras, fell
in late December. From thereon, December 25 was to be observed at a holy mass, or
"Christ's Mass."
Happy Solstice celebration!
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
Al Smith
Happy bathing in the blood of the bull to you, James.
-Al-
Warren
useful too.
Merry Mithras
http://culturalvision.net/html/merry_mithras.html
The Christmas Hoax:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christmas.htm
Solstice Is The Reason For The Season
http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_77022.asp
And how about my favorite carol for the season?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMTxrFTr7hk
James Warren
> You're just getting started. A few links for further reading could be
> useful too.
>
> Merry Mithras
> http://culturalvision.net/html/merry_mithras.html
>
> The Christmas Hoax:
> http://www.truthbeknown.com/christmas.htm
>
> Solstice Is The Reason For The Season
> http://chattanoogan.com/articles/article_77022.asp
>
> And how about my favorite carol for the season?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMTxrFTr7hk
>
>
I could have done those things, its true. But because it was Christmas
day, I showed some restraint. Anyway, its good to see that I don't have
to take all the heat on this NG from broaching these topics. Welcome aboard! :)
I have a few a Acharya's books. Good reads.
>
> James Warren wrote:
>> The year 336 - The first recorded celebration of Christmas on December
>> 25 took place in Rome.
>> Church fathers designated December 25th, the birthday of the popular
>> pagan god Mithras,
>> as Jesus's official birth date. The celebration of the birth of Christ
>> also took over
>> the pagan winter solstice holiday, which like the birthday of the sun
>> god Mithras, fell
>> in late December. From thereon, December 25 was to be observed at a
>> holy mass, or
>> "Christ's Mass."
>>
>> Happy Solstice celebration!
>>
>
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
Warren
My web page has many more items than just those listed.
My library includes the following. There are seveal others but I'd have
to go upstairs to check.
Richard Hawkins, The God Delusion
Bobby Henderson, Gospel of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
James Hider, Spiders of Allah
Joseph Lewis, The Bible Unmasked
Warren
Oops, typo... Should be Richard Dawkins
James Warren
Check out Sam Harris. He has several videos on youtube. He is an excellent speaker.
Dawkins is a good read whatever the topic.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
>
> Oops, typo... Should be Richard Dawkins
>
> Warren wrote:
>>
>> My web page has many more items than just those listed.
>>
>> My library includes the following. There are seveal others but I'd
>> have to go upstairs to check.
>> Richard Hawkins, The God Delusion
>> Bobby Henderson, Gospel of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
>> James Hider, Spiders of Allah
>> Joseph Lewis, The Bible Unmasked
>>
>> James Warren wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I could have done those things, its true. But because it was Christmas
>>> day, I showed some restraint. Anyway, its good to see that I don't have
>>> to take all the heat on this NG from broaching these topics. Welcome
>>> aboard! :)
>>>
>>> I have a few a Acharya's books. Good reads.
>>>
>>
>
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
demibee
> My library includes the following. . .
Seriously consider Karen Armstrong's _The Case for God_.
It describes religion as it was in times past and as it was *intended* to
be from then on.
She spent her youth as a Catholic nun, and she had difficulties with the
whole thing (If there's a loving God, why is there so much sadness, etc.);
so she left, went on her own personal journey, studied many other
religions, and (I think) found out what religion is all about...
It's *not* to be taken even kind of literally... Ever! By anyone! My
crude comparison with today's society would be that scriptures around the
Middle East were treasures in the sense that Shakespeare was... or that
the best of Hollywood once was... combined with the way Americans see
their constitution and other national documents.
If you saw the movie "Philadelphia," for example, you saw the effect it
had on people. It *wasn't* a true story... wasn't meant to be. But it
had a profoundly emotional effect on people... and it had a moral message.
Or think of any movie about Kennedy... or MLK.
So think of Matthew as a "remake" of the earlier gospel Mark; it was the
one that added a birth narrative. Think of Luke & Acts as another remake
-- a grand masterpiece of film-making. And John is a complete
re-conceptualization... possibly in response to the Gnostics of the time
(according to Elaine Pagels).
The author of Matthew wanted to get across a certain message; the key is
in the birth narrative he added: Hey, fellow Jews, this guy (this kind of
person) is what Messiah means; note how he fits all the prophecies.
"Luke's" message was a little different: To the Greeks & Romans, this is
not just a Jewish religion, it's a way of living that *anyone* can try to
imitate.
Then... along came Constantine. He eventually came to embrace
Christianity. But he, like so many laypeople of the era, took it somewhat
literally. And he was distressed by the multitude of Christian sects and
their differences. Via the Nicene creed created by his council, he forced
a synthesis -- the creation of the Triune God central within it. People
ignored it for decades until, in around 380 AD (after generations had been
exposed to this weird idea), it was made the official religion of the
empire. And most of us are cultural descendants of that empire.
(Imagine doing that to the Protestants of the U.S. today... get them all
together and force them to agree to one way of viewing the Bible.)
Eastern religions have rarely had this problem. Very few Hindus, as is my
understanding, would take their scriptures that literally.
Armstrong makes the point that atheists and fundamentalists have one thing
in common -- they both believe that one is *supposed to believe* the
Bible. No! Get something from it? Sure! What, exactly? That could be
debated for millennia, as it has been. But believe it, or deny it as a
sincere belief, and you've missed the point.
Consider it... It's an interesting read!...
<http://www.amazon.com/Case-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0307269183>
db
James Warren
That is an interesting take on it. But I could also interpret to be an apology
for forcing nonsense down people's throats for millennia. It could also be taken
as a confession that yeah yeah its all bullshit but there are some nice stories
here that we could take as object lessons. I am not impressed.
I think she has come to believe that man cannot, by his nature, live a rational
existence and needs some kind of mythology or magical beliefs to live peacefully.
I saw her plea for somesuch at a TED conference. I am not convinced. Let's give
reason a chance.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
demibee
> That is an interesting take on it. But I could also interpret to be an
> apology for forcing nonsense down people's throats for millennia. It
> could also be taken as a confession that yeah yeah its all bullshit but
> there are some nice stories here that we could take as object lessons. I
> am not impressed.
The Bible was not supposed to be reasonable. The Greeks are really the
inventors of the NT, and they understood the Earth to be spherical.
It was between 1200-1600, as the West was re-emerging from the hold of The
Church, that some (who knew no better), started interpreting the
scriptures the way the emerging rationalism and science were dealt with.
You don't deal with literature or poetry or scripture the way you deal
with science... They're different approaches to thinking about a thing...
just as eating chocolate and noting its nutritional content are two
different approaches to that.
> I think she has come to believe that man cannot, by his nature, live a
> rational existence and needs some kind of mythology or magical beliefs
> to live peacefully.
I've read a few of her books, seen her interviewed a number of times...
I've never come away with that impression.
> I saw her plea for somesuch at a TED conference. I am not convinced.
> Let's give reason a chance.
She would agree; her admiration for science is evident in her books. But
just because we can do that (with some limitations; science isn't
applicable to everything) doesn't mean we can't also enjoy the world in
front of us in more philosophical, aesthetic, and even reverent ways.
What you're saying amounts to, Let's just study things and never allow
ourselves to appreciate things for what they are... to *experience* them,
to take that experience in, to think about it in various ways, or just to
feel it.
Life isn't either-or. It's both.
db
James Warren
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:10:18 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> That is an interesting take on it. But I could also interpret to be an
>> apology for forcing nonsense down people's throats for millennia. It
>> could also be taken as a confession that yeah yeah its all bullshit but
>> there are some nice stories here that we could take as object lessons. I
>> am not impressed.
>
> The Bible was not supposed to be reasonable. The Greeks are really the
> inventors of the NT, and they understood the Earth to be spherical.
>
> It was between 1200-1600, as the West was re-emerging from the hold of The
> Church, that some (who knew no better), started interpreting the
> scriptures the way the emerging rationalism and science were dealt with.
>
> You don't deal with literature or poetry or scripture the way you deal
> with science... They're different approaches to thinking about a thing...
> just as eating chocolate and noting its nutritional content are two
> different approaches to that.
Are you sure about this? I'm not.
>
>
>> I think she has come to believe that man cannot, by his nature, live a
>> rational existence and needs some kind of mythology or magical beliefs
>> to live peacefully.
>
> I've read a few of her books, seen her interviewed a number of times...
> I've never come away with that impression.
>
>> I saw her plea for somesuch at a TED conference. I am not convinced.
>> Let's give reason a chance.
>
> She would agree; her admiration for science is evident in her books. But
> just because we can do that (with some limitations; science isn't
> applicable to everything)
I don't agree with this. Every day science finds a way to be relevant to new
things. I've heard this blanket statement many times. It isn't true. Anything
that is capable of being known and understood is properly a subject for science.
doesn't mean we can't also enjoy the world in
> front of us in more philosophical, aesthetic, and even reverent ways.
I think I do.
>
> What you're saying amounts to, Let's just study things and never allow
> ourselves to appreciate things for what they are... to *experience* them,
> to take that experience in, to think about it in various ways, or just to
> feel it.
I don't say that at all. I experience things for sure. I just don't *experience*
things. I am not mystical.
>
> Life isn't either-or. It's both.
>
>
> db
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
demibee
> demibee wrote:
>> You don't deal with literature or poetry or scripture the way you deal
>> with science... They're different approaches to thinking about a
>> thing... just as eating chocolate and noting its nutritional content
>> are two different approaches to that.
>
> Are you sure about this?
Yes.
> I'm not.
So, you *would* deal with literature purely the way you'd deal with
science? What aspects of _To Kill a Mockingbird_ are scientific? After
all, it's a novel, not a textbook.
What do you think its message was (assuming you read it in school)? Was
it about injustice as it relates to race?... as it relates to mental
illness? I think so. Or, was it really Harper Lee's attempt to showcase
Boo Radley as a psychological subject, illustrating what would likely
happen if you locked someone in a basement for his whole life? Seriously,
which two of these are reasonable literary conclusions... and which is
utterly ridiculous?
Would you sit back and *appreciate* a poem, or would you dissect and
analyze it in an attempt to determine whether its message is verifiable?
When Emily Dickinson says that "Parting ... is all we need of Hell," is
she saying that she believes in a literal Hell, and that parting is
exactly what it entails? Or is she saying that the death of a loved one
is very hard to deal with?
Going to the chocolates example: Which would you rather have if you could
have only one -- the taste... or a list of nutritional information?
I mean, c'mon... You're being ridiculous here! Sometimes, I think you're
being obtuse deliberately in these conversations. Or perhaps Punk was
right when he said that, for you, science isn't a candle in the dark; it's
a crutch -- something you *need* to have applicable to all you encounter.
Maybe you'd be lost without the *seeming* certainty of science.
> I don't agree with this. Every day science finds a way to be relevant to
> new things. I've heard this blanket statement many times. It isn't true.
> Anything that is capable of being known and understood is properly a
> subject for science.
No... Science can *describe* the taste of chocolate. It can give reasons
why people find it pleasant. But it can't *replace* the experience. Only
the experience is the experience... It simply isn't subject to the kind
of scrutiny you'd like it to be.
> I don't say that at all. I experience things for sure. I just don't
> *experience* things. I am not mystical.
That makes no sense.
db
James Warren
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:48:21 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> demibee wrote:
>>> You don't deal with literature or poetry or scripture the way you deal
>>> with science... They're different approaches to thinking about a
>>> thing... just as eating chocolate and noting its nutritional content
>>> are two different approaches to that.
>> Are you sure about this?
>
> Yes.
>
>> I'm not.
>
> So, you *would* deal with literature purely the way you'd deal with
> science? What aspects of _To Kill a Mockingbird_ are scientific? After
> all, it's a novel, not a textbook.
>
> What do you think its message was (assuming you read it in school)? Was
> it about injustice as it relates to race?... as it relates to mental
> illness? I think so. Or, was it really Harper Lee's attempt to showcase
> Boo Radley as a psychological subject, illustrating what would likely
> happen if you locked someone in a basement for his whole life? Seriously,
> which two of these are reasonable literary conclusions... and which is
> utterly ridiculous?
>
I didn't read this but I like your analysis.
> Would you sit back and *appreciate* a poem, or would you dissect and
> analyze it in an attempt to determine whether its message is verifiable?
It is possible for a poem to make incorrect assertions.
> When Emily Dickinson says that "Parting ... is all we need of Hell," is
> she saying that she believes in a literal Hell, and that parting is
> exactly what it entails? Or is she saying that the death of a loved one
> is very hard to deal with?
The latter of course. You used a lot of knowledge and logical skills to reach
this conclusion didn't you?
>
> Going to the chocolates example: Which would you rather have if you could
> have only one -- the taste... or a list of nutritional information?
Gimme the chocolate. The list is far too skimpy a description to satisfy.
>
> I mean, c'mon... You're being ridiculous here! Sometimes, I think you're
> being obtuse deliberately in these conversations. Or perhaps Punk was
> right when he said that, for you, science isn't a candle in the dark; it's
> a crutch -- something you *need* to have applicable to all you encounter.
> Maybe you'd be lost without the *seeming* certainty of science.
>
Sure I like to have my emotions aroused by literature, movies music. I don't
deny this. I'm a hedonist as much as anyone. But these things don't tell me
much about how the universe works. They do give clues about how the human brain
works though.
>
>> I don't agree with this. Every day science finds a way to be relevant to
>> new things. I've heard this blanket statement many times. It isn't true.
>> Anything that is capable of being known and understood is properly a
>> subject for science.
>
> No... Science can *describe* the taste of chocolate. It can give reasons
> why people find it pleasant. But it can't *replace* the experience. Only
> the experience is the experience... It simply isn't subject to the kind
> of scrutiny you'd like it to be.
>
Thats because knowing these things doesn't cause the appropriate electro-chemical
activity in my brain. Only that will be the experience.
>
>> I don't say that at all. I experience things for sure. I just don't
>> *experience* things. I am not mystical.
>
> That makes no sense.
>
>
> db
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
demibee
> Gimme the chocolate. The list is far too skimpy a description to
> satisfy.
Ah! You're human after all! ;)
> Sure I like to have my emotions aroused by literature, movies music. I
> don't deny this. I'm a hedonist as much as anyone. But these things
> don't tell me much about how the universe works. They do give clues
> about how the human brain works though.
Not what they're for.
But I'd argue that some give insight into the human condition.
db
James Warren
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:08:30 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> Gimme the chocolate. The list is far too skimpy a description to
>> satisfy.
>
> Ah! You're human after all! ;)
>
Is that an insult or a compliment? I'll go with compliment. :)
>
>> Sure I like to have my emotions aroused by literature, movies music. I
>> don't deny this. I'm a hedonist as much as anyone. But these things
>> don't tell me much about how the universe works. They do give clues
>> about how the human brain works though.
>
> Not what they're for.
>
> But I'd argue that some give insight into the human condition.
They sure do.
demibee
> Is that an insult or a compliment? I'll go with compliment. :)
I meant it in the good way... but, yes, sometimes I think these crazy
humans (I've even met some!) are biggest problem on the planet! ;)
db
Roger Pearse
> The year 336 - The first recorded celebration of Christmas on December 25 took place in Rome.
Evidence? Considering that Cyprian talks about it, a century earlier,
your chances are slim.
> Church fathers designated December 25th, the birthday of the popular pagan godMithras,
Nope. No association between Mithras and 25 Dec. is known.
> as Jesus's official birth date.
Which church fathers?
> The celebration of the birth of Christ also took over
> the pagan winter solstice holiday, which like the birthday of the sun godMithras, fell
> in late December.
Which ancient text records that they "took over" this holiday?
> From thereon, December 25 was to be observed at a holy mass, or
> "Christ's Mass."
Unlikely that the Romans spoke English.
> Happy Solstice celebration!
Good luck with believing hearsay.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Warren
James Warren
Hi Roger.
I passed on the message of the day from reference.com. However, numerous other
authors say the same thing. Check out Acharya S, aka D Murdock at
http://www.truthbeknown.com She has lots of information.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
Roger Pearse
subject with a religious jeer?
Not very impressive.
On Dec 29, 10:15 pm, Warren <warr...@ns.dot.sympatico.dot.ca> wrote:
> Seems you've fallen for it.http://www.godisimaginary.com/
>
>
>
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> > Good luck with believing hearsay.
> > All the best,
> > Roger Pearse- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Roger Pearse
> Roger Pearse wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 5:48 pm, James Warren <jwwarren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The year 336 - The first recorded celebration of Christmas on December 25 took place in Rome.
>
> > Evidence? Considering that Cyprian talks about it, a century earlier,
> > your chances are slim.
>
> >> Church fathers designated December 25th, the birthday of the popular pagan godMithras,
>
>
> >> as Jesus's official birth date.
>
> > Which church fathers?
>
> >> The celebration of the birth of Christ also took over
> >> the pagan winter solstice holiday, which like the birthday of the sun godMithras, fell
> >> in late December.
>
> > Which ancient text records that they "took over" this holiday?
>
> >> From thereon, December 25 was to be observed at a holy mass, or
> >> "Christ's Mass."
>
> > Unlikely that the Romans spoke English.
>
> >> Happy Solstice celebration!
>
> > Good luck with believing hearsay.
>
> > All the best,
>
> > Roger Pearse
>
> Hi Roger.
Hi!
> I passed on the message of the day from reference.com.
Sure. Usually best to stick the ref. on this sort of stuff, by the
way; people won't shout at *us* if we make plain that we're not
guaranteeing it ourselves.
> However, numerous other authors say the same thing. Check out
> Acharya S, aka D Murdock athttp://www.truthbeknown.comShe has lots of information.
You may want to verify this author out for yourself. I can tell you
that educated atheists find her book an embarassment.
There's people out there who aren't above telling porkies on this, and
rather more who pass on in good faith what they heard without checking
it. But there is a tremendous amount of rubbish in circulation, as
you will find if you try to check it (as I have).
How do we tell whether it's rubbish? Well, in truth we need the
relevant education. But a good, quick, shortcut is to ask to see the
ancient sources for the statements made. (They're nearly all
online). If these are somehow not forthcoming, or people start
playing games like saying "use an encyclopedia", or quote wiki, or
Britannica, or give a list of books with no specific page numbers...
be suspicious; ten to one they don't know and are blustering.
After all, unless we have a time machine, we can only know what the
Romans said about Mithras by reading the surviving books written by
Romans, looking at inscriptions, coins, and archaeology. That goes
for people who write books too. So they can get out of the way, and
just give us the original evidence, if they have any. But... they
don't.
Here's a digest of all the literary sources on Mithras, which I made
myself some years ago when I first grew tired of this Mithras stuff --
it appears every Christmas -- and wondered how much of it was actually
true. Not much, it turned out.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras
demibee
> Snipped the whole post? No reply? Facts wrong? Tried to change the
> subject with a religious jeer?
I dunno... I have books by Karen Armstrong, Robert Wright, Bart Ehrman,
Elaine Pagels, Bishop Joseph Shelby Spong, and others who suggest the same
thing.
BUT... There were lots of gods whose birthdays were associated with Dec
25... lots of winter solstice festivals held at that time. It seems
reasonable, that since people didn't have an exact date for Jesus' birth,
that they'd have chosen one polytheistic people were already familiar
with.
A similar occurrence is the change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
Constantine did that. Prior to his conversion to Christianity, he'd
worshipped Apollo -- the Greek god of the sun... who was associated with
the Day of the Sun.
db
James Warren
A simple google search yurned up this.
http://www.benbest.com/history/xmas.html
IV. CHRISTMAS IN ANCIENT ROME
Harvest festivals are typically celebrated later in warmer countries. Thanksgiving is celebrated in October in Canada,
in November in the United States and was celebrated in December in ancient Rome. Saturn was the Roman god of
agriculture, after whom Saturday is named. Saturnalia was the most popular of Roman holidays, with "Mardi-Gras"-like
street celebrations. Originally it began with a celebration on December 17th (birthday of Saturn), but this was later
extended to a week (December 17 to 23), and finally extended to end with feasting on December 25th (Sol Invictus). Halls
were decked with evergreens. There was an exchange of gifts, principally wax candles and little clay dolls. Authority
figures, however, were given tribute in the form of urns, jewelry, coins or gold. Romans parading in the streets wearing
masks and animal skins during Saturnalia began a tradition which continued later in Europe in the form of "mummers".
Similar celebrations were held at Kalends, the Roman new year festival held January 1st to January 5th. People stayed up
on Kalend's Eve to celebrate the new year with drinking and singing. Gambling was normally illegal in Rome, but was
permitted and enthusiastically practiced during these festivals. People spent lavishly on gifts for others as well as
for self-indulgence. Slaves were relieved of their duties and partied as equals with their masters. Social inversions
("mock rulers") were part of the entertainment, inspired by earlier Mesopotamian traditions.
In 64 AD the Roman emperor Nero is believed to have started a fire in Rome, which conveniently cleared ground for the
expansion of his palaces. Nero blamed the Christians for the fire, beginning a Roman policy of persecution that lasted
more than two centuries. To avoid persecution the Christians decked their homes with holly and the second bishop of Rome
(circa 130 AD) declared that the Nativity of Christ should be celebrated during the Saturnalia period. (It was a
"movable feast", a single day was not specified.)
The ancient polytheistic religions of Egypt, Persia, Babylonia and eventually Rome increasingly consolidated their
pantheons of deities under a single primary god, usually a Sun-god. The Egyptians believed in a transubstantiation of
their Sun-god Ra into a disk-shaped wafer that could be eaten in a sacred ritual. The Persian Mithra (Roman Mithras)
held special prominence as god of day (light) and the only son of the God of Heaven. But some time before the 5th
century B.C. the Persian prophet Zoroaster (Zarathustra) taught a dualism based on the conflict between the God of
Heaven and the God of Evil. Humans could choose between good (light) or evil (darkness) and on judgment day be sent to
Heaven or Hell based on their choices. Mithras was identified as the redeemer prophesied by Zoroaster: the sun-god who
would appear as a human being at the end of time.
Mithras was a divine being borne of a human virgin on December 25th (the Winter Solstice by the Roman Julian calendar),
his birth watched and worshipped by shepherds. As an adult, Mithras healed the sick, made the lame walk, gave sight to
the blind and raised the dead. Before returning to heaven at the Spring Equinox Mithras had a last supper with 12
disciples (representing the 12 signs of the Zodiac). Mithraism included Zoroastrian beliefs in the struggle between good
& evil, symbolized as light & darkness. This militaristic black-and-white morality (including a final judgment affecting
an afterlife of heaven or hell) probably accounted for the popularity of Mithraism among Roman soldiers. Mithraism was
like an ancient fraternity: a mystery cult open only to men which had seven degrees of initiation � including the ritual
of baptism and a sacred meal of bread & wine representing the body & blood of Mithras. Late in the second century AD
Commodus became the first Roman emperor to be initiated into Mithraism. The priests of Mithraism were called Father �
Christians at the time were forbidden to use "Rabbi" or "Father" in reference to church leaders based on the admonition
in Matthew 23:8-9.
Around 220 AD the unpopular Syrian-born Roman emperor Elagabalus attempted to replace Jupiter with Sol invictus
("unconquerable Sun") as the head of the Roman pantheon. In 270 AD a professional army officer named Aurelian rose to be
emperor and was able to reunite the Roman Empire through military might. In 274 AD he attempted to unite the religions
of the empire under the state cult of Sol invictus. Aurelian's new temple enshrined the Sun gods of Babylonia (Baal, Bel
or Marduk). Although Mithras was not formally acknowledged, Natalis solis invicti ("birth of the unconquered sun") was,
nonetheless, on December 25th. By the time of the reign of the military despot Diocletian (284-305 AD) ten percent of
the Roman Empire was Christian. The attempts by Diocletian to impose the state religion on everyone led to the last and
most terrible of all persecutions. But many people saw the state as a greater enemy than the Christians, who were
respected for their willingness to die for their beliefs. Slaves & upper-class women (who were excluded from other
religions) were drawn to a god with a human face who espoused justice & love.
Despite the intense persecutions of Christians in the Roman Empire, Christianity continued to win many converts from
paganism. Many of the former pagans were unwilling to relinquish their traditional winter solstice celebrations. When
Constantine replaced Diocletian as Emperor of the Western Roman Empire in 305 AD he ended all of the persecutions.
Constantine was said to have accepted Christianity in 312 AD on the eve of a battle when he had a vision of a cross of
light superimposed upon the sun. Persecution of Christians ended in both the Eastern & Western Empires in 313 AD when
Constantine & Licinius issued the Edict of Milan. Constantine sought to unify Sun-worship and Christianity into a single
monotheistic state religion. (Although Constantine was baptized on his deathbed, this was not an indication of his
insincerity � it was a common practice of early Christians to delay baptism so as to die without sin.)
Although the Bible sanctifies Saturday as the Sabbath, many Christians regarded Sunday (the day of the resurrection of
Christ) as the new holy day � especially because this distanced Christianity from Judaism. In 321 AD Constantine made
Sunday rather than Saturday (Saturn's Day) the weekly holiday of the state religion of Sun-worship. The revolt of the
Jews & the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the rejection of the Hebrew calendar and the increasing pre-eminence of
the bishop of Rome were all part of the Romanization of Christianity which accompanied the Christianization of Rome.
Constantine regarded himself to be the supreme spiritual leader of both the Sun-cults and of Christianity. Constantine
moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople, a city he immodestly renamed after himself.
Constantine called himself "first of the apostles" and he did not recognize the papacy of the bishop of Rome. In 325 AD
Constantine called the first Council of Nicea (Nicaea) to resolve controversy and establish Christian orthodoxy. The
Council established the Unity of the Holy Trinity, the date of Easter and a doctrinal statement of Christian belief (the
Nicene Creed). The Council of Nicea was the first ecumenical conference of Christian bishops, the nucleus of the
institution which was to become the hierarchical Roman Catholic Church, dominated by celibate male priests. (Celibate
priests had not been part of the teachings of Jesus � many of his apostles, including Peter, were married.) The Council
sanctioned the efforts of Irenaeus, Eusebius and others who were establishing certain scriptures as the infallible canon
of the New Testament, while declaring other scriptures to be heresy � notably Gnostic Gospels such as the Gospel of Mary
and the Gospel of Thomas, which support the idea that Mary Magdalene was an apostle and that salvation is possible
without a church. With orthodox Christianity incorporated into the monolithic state religion Christian "heretics" were
heavily persecuted.
Also in 325 Constantine declared December 25th to be an Immovable Feast for the whole Roman Empire. The bishop of Rome
may have accepted December 25th as the date of birth of Jesus Christ as early as 320 AD, but historical documents
provide no evidence for a date earlier than 336 AD. The Church was pushed by political forces and pulled by the desire
to co-opt a popular pagan holiday, despite a lack of evidence that Christ was born in December. Constantine built the
Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, one of the oldest continually operating churches in the world (currently
administered by a coalition of Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox clerics).
In Egypt, January 6th was the birthday celebration of the child-god Aeon, borne of the virgin goddess Kore � celebrated
in the Temple of Kore at Alexandria. Egyptian Gnostic Christians celebrated January 6 as the date of Christ's baptism
("spiritual birth"). (Gnostics believed that spiritual is more important than physical, that the knowledge Christ
brought to the world is far more important than his physical birth or crucifixion and that direct personal experience of
God is of greater importance than churches or other institutions.) Later the Eastern Christian Churches celebrated
January 6th as the date of both the Nativity and the Epiphany (Greek for manifestation) � the manifestation of Christ to
the Gentiles (the wise men) as well as Christ's baptism by John the Baptist. (The rebirth of the Greek god Dionysus had
been celebrated on January 6th.)
In the 4th century, the Eastern Orthodox Churches began to accept December 25th as the date of Christ's birth and the
Roman Church began to introduce the January 6th feast of Epiphany. (Only the Armenian Orthodox Church refused to abandon
January 6 as the date of the Nativity.) Epiphany for Western churches means the visit of the Magi, whereas for the
Eastern churches Epiphany is the anniversary of Christ's baptism. The 567 AD Council of Tours proclaimed the duty of
Advent feast and established the period between December 25th and January 6th as a 12-day holy festival � the Twelve
Days of Christmas (if the first day is the day after Christmas, the twelfth day of Christmas is Epiphany).
336 is also mentioned here;
http://www.origin-of-christmas.com/
Again here.
http://hinduworld.tripod.com/history/mithra.html
s 25th December the correct date for celebrating Christmas ?
Most of the Christians celebrate Christmas, birth date of Jesus Christ, on 25 December. But why "Most", why not all ?
Because few Christians still celebrate Christmas on 06 January, believed to be the correct date. In 354 some Western
churches, including those of Rome, commemorated the birth of Christ on December 25th. But why was Dec 25th chosen as a
date for celebrations. Actually, Christianity borrowed and then replaced Mithraism, which was the main religion in
Persia and Rome. Followers of Mithraism used to worship the Sun-god "Mitra" or "Mithra". It was the birthday of Mithra,
25 December (winter solstice), that was taken by the early Christians as the birthday of Jesus as a need and urgency by
the early Christians to compromise with existing traditions. The real birthday of Christ was abandoned in favor of the
birthday of Mithra. The worshippers of Mithra were called "Soldiers of Mithra" which is the origin of the term "Soldiers
of Christ."
There are many more but I will stop here.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
Al Smith
Christians: Sunday, solar god (Sun).
Muslims: Friday: lunar god (Venus).
Jews: Saturday: earth god (Saturn).
Sort of interesting.
-Al-
demibee
> Christians: Sunday, solar god (Sun).
> Muslims: Friday: lunar god (Venus).
> Jews: Saturday: earth god (Saturn).
>
> Sort of interesting.
Strictly speaking, Saturn was the god of agriculture -- earth in the soil
sense. I dunno why they'd choose Saturday... Isn't there a Jewish
harvest festival? I looked it up and found only "Sukkot"; I'd thought one
of the more commonly known ones was the harvest festival.
And both Muslims and Jews, I believe, follow the lunar calendar.
db
Al Smith
The lunar calendar was common in ancient cultures. It worked out
roughly to 13 lunations per year. The lunar cycle was a natural
and an easy way to divide the year.
The symbolism of these three religions is fascinating to me. Solar
symbols abound in Christianity, but in Islam there are many lunar
symbols -- the lunar crescent, the mental silver which is the
lunar metal, the color black which is lunar also (the Black Stone
at Mecca). Even the curved swords that are associated with Islam
are lunar in shape.
As for Judaism, the god of Moses was the angry god of a mountain.
I suppose he might be regarded as a sky god, but the Bible says
mountain, and that's rock. Jews wear a cube on their foreheads
when they pray -- the cube is an earth symbol. They pray to a
stone wall. The name of their god has four letters -- four is the
earth number, because it represents the four drections and the
four sides of a square, the two-dimensional representation of the
cube.
-Al-
Roger Pearse
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:46:31 -0800,Roger Pearsewrote:
> > Snipped the whole post? No reply? Facts wrong? Tried to change the
> > subject with a religious jeer?
>
Me too. <grin>
NB: Don't even think about trying an argument from authority, please;
only ancient evidence counts.
> BUT... There were lots of gods whose birthdays were associated with Dec
> 25... <snip hearsay>
Were there? People say so, but those who say so display no knowledge
of ancient history whatever. Why not try to name some, but ...
BUT... only with the ancient evidence that backs up the claim.
You will find the sources that you used for this get all shy when
asked for ancient evidence. And I'm sure you can guess why.
> A similar occurrence is the change of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
> Constantine did that. Prior to his conversion to Christianity, he'd
> worshipped Apollo -- the Greek god of the sun... who was associated with
> the Day of the Sun.
You can, no doubt, point me to the ancient text that tells us that
Constantine worshipped Apollo? Hmm? Or did you pick this up as
hearsay somewhere?
I won't even start on the rest of that paragraph. Again... you want
to check this stuff. It's rubbish.
There's too much hearsay along these lines going round. Don't repeat
it until you have checked it. Every bit of it that I look into turns
out to be pathetically ignorant and dishonest, and not infrequently
malicious.
Roger Pearse
>
> > You may want to verify this author out for yourself. I can tell you
> > that educated atheists find her book an embarassment.
>
> > There's people out there who aren't above telling porkies on this, and
> > rather more who pass on in good faith what they heard without checking
> > it. But there is a tremendous amount of rubbish in circulation, as
> > you will find if you try to check it (as I have).
>
> > How do we tell whether it's rubbish? Well, in truth we need the
> > relevant education. But a good, quick, shortcut is to ask to see the
> > ancient sources for the statements made. (They're nearly all
> > online). If these are somehow not forthcoming, or people start
> > playing games like saying "use an encyclopedia", or quote wiki, or
> > Britannica, or give a list of books with no specific page numbers...
> > be suspicious; ten to one they don't know and are blustering.
>
> > After all, unless we have a time machine, we can only know what the
> > Romans said about Mithras by reading the surviving books written by
> > Romans, looking at inscriptions, coins, and archaeology. That goes
> > for people who write books too. So they can get out of the way, and
> > just give us the original evidence, if they have any. But... they
> > don't.
>
> > Here's a digest of all the literary sources on Mithras, which I made
> > myself some years ago when I first grew tired of this Mithras stuff --
> > it appears every Christmas -- and wondered how much of it was actually
> > true. Not much, it turned out.
>
> >http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras
>
Did you READ anything I said?
I wasn't asking you to paste some more hearsay. I told you to check
your facts. Why didn't you?
Let me say it again:
"How do we tell whether it's rubbish? ... a good, quick, shortcut is
to ask to see the ancient sources for the statements made. (They're
nearly all online).
"If these are somehow not forthcoming, or people start playing games
like saying "use an encyclopedia", or quote wiki, or Britannica, or
give a list of books with no specific page numbers... be suspicious;
ten to one they don't know and are blustering."
Does this site pass this test? Does it?
> <snip crap>
Roger Pearse
James Warren
I have neither the time nor the inclination to duplicate the scholarship of
numerous others. So far its your word against theirs. If you insist that
you're right and they're all wrong what can I do?
Happy New Year.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
demibee
> I won't even start on the rest of that paragraph. Again... you want to
> check this stuff.
Check it where? If only ancient evidence counts, and if we don't have
those ancient writings, we have to go with what we *do* have, no?
> It's rubbish.
I don't think so... My sources, which I listed, are experts in the fields
of comparative religion and the history of the Bible; they're OT and NT
scholars, and/or high-ranking clergy... Armstrong was a Catholic nun.
Spong, a bishop. Ehrman is a professor of religious studies, and a former
minister (with plenty of credentials). Etc.
You'll get the same answers from profs at any reputable university. Ask
any prof at Dal or SMU. I have. What did they say at Merton? You were
there, no?
Do these pages...
<http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/rpearse.html>
"I'm a Christian"
<http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/life/index.htm>
"There is a reason why things tend to be pointless. Human beings are
all messed up. The book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible tells us how
life is pointless - at length. And do we really need to be told that
all of us are imperfect? Well, apparently we do! I'm not the person I
would want to be, and probably you wish you were a better person than
you are - more capable, more socially competent, whatever. As the
Bible says, 'All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'."
... indicate a scholarly bias? :)
(While I'm not a Christian, the latter page does look interesting... At
some point, I'll likely give it a thorough read.)
I expect you'll reject anything I find online -- I'll stay away from Wiki'
-- but to give just one example...
Original Catholic Encyclopedia - Mithraism
<http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Mithraism>
"... December 25 was observed as his birthday ..."
I can't go back and talk to Constantine, but think about it: Before he
converted to Christianity, as a Greek, who do suppose he would have
worshipped? A Greek god, no? If not, then who would you guess it to be?
How do you suppose that a religion which grew out of Judaism -- with a
Saturday sabbath -- had its sabbath changed to Sunday? If not the very
widely accepted explanation, then what?
Don't just refute or ask me to check what isn't available to me: Give a
counter argument. If I'm wrong, I'd rather know than not... How did
December 25th come to be associated with Jesus' birthday? How did Sunday
come to be the Christian sabbath?
db
Roger Pearse
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:39:50 -0800,Roger Pearsewrote:
> > I won't even start on the rest of that paragraph. Again... you want to
> > check this stuff.
>
> Check it where? If only ancient evidence counts, and if we don't have
> those ancient writings, we have to go with what we *do* have, no?
Ah - we're at cross-purposes.
We - anyone - can only actually talk about what happened in antiquity
based on one of four things:
1. Some ancient literary source has come down to us that talks about
whatever we want to know.
2. Some inscription or coin or document dug up talks about whatever
we want to know.
3. Some bit of archaeology
4. Imagination.
I don't think #4 is a reliable source, you know. Any of the others
will do.
If something doesn't exist in #1-3, it belongs to #4. Do you follow;
whatever you're thinking of, either it has some facts behind it, from
sources #1-3, or it belongs to #4.
Of course if it DOES have some facts behind it, we must ask to see
them.
> > It's rubbish.
>
> I don't think so... My sources, which I listed, are experts in the fields
> of comparative religion and the history of the Bible <snip>
Not really, but it doesn't matter a bit if they were god incarnate.
Either what they say -- if they say this, and did you check? -- is
based on ancient evidence, or it isn't. If it is, let's see that
evidence and judge for ourselves. If no such evidence is
forthcoming.... well, what do you think?
Arguments from authority are simply unnecessary on such subjects.
It's not a question of whether the shape of a letter does or does not
belong to the 13th century -- a question for an expert opinion. It's
simply a question as to whether any ancient source says X, Y or Z.
I notice, by the way, while chanting the names of these people, that
you don't specify just which of the claims about 25 Dec you say they
endorse, or where, or with references. It would be delightful if any
of these fools did make such a claim, just for amusement value --
please, go ahead and give us details. Unless, of course, you are
making a claim to authority based on books you haven't read...? If
so, that is naughty indeed.
> You'll get the same answers from profs at any reputable university.
Here you make a statement, the truth of which cannot possibly be known
to you, and is in fact untrue. That would normally be called "telling
a lie". How desperate is that?
Don't do this.
> Do these pages...
> <http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/rpearse.html>
> <snip quotations proving that I am a Christian>
> ... indicate a scholarly bias? :)
Ad hominem. Oh dear.
You're being asked for evidence; not for your religious opinions,
which are evidently rather hateful. Again, don't do that.
> I expect you'll reject anything I find online --
On the contrary; if you can find online ancient evidence for the
claims you are defending, it would be of considerable interest. But
if it's just hearsay, why would you expect me -- or anyone -- to treat
it seriously?
You know, would you like to explain just why you need so desperately
to believe something, the truth of which is unknown to you, the facts
about which you don't know, and yet you want to fight with someone who
clearly does know?
It's a bit daft, you know. Just because something would be
convenient, would gratify your evident desire to stick it to the
Christians, does not make it true. Trust me on this; convenience is
not a reliable guide to reality.
> Original Catholic Encyclopedia - Mithraism
> <http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Mithraism>
>
> "... December 25 was observed as his birthday ..."
And... which ancient evidence supports this? Hmm?
> I can't go back and talk to Constantine, but think about it: <snip speculation>
Don't rely on #4 -- imagination -- as a guide to reality.
> Don't just refute or ask me to check what isn't available to me:
The majority of primary data about antiquity is available online! You
really can go and find it! But that isn't quite the point.
I'm asking you to think critically about claims presented to you on
this. Now if people say X, yet people never know what data supports
X, how much faith do you place in their statement? You're placing
quite a lot. I'm suggesting that we just don't.
I can tell you that I did quite a thorough search for the Mithras-25
Dec link, and none of the references led anywhere. The best I could
find was to the CIL, and that proved bogus. I discussed it with a
specialist solar scholar, and he didn't know of evidence for it
either. There just is no evidence for it, as far as I or anyone can
tell, and no-one online (other than me) ever attempts to provide it,
or looks for it. So; I say it's a modern myth. Having done the
legwork, I will continue to say so, unless or until some hard evidence
is forthcoming, and I don't think any exists.
Would you prefer hearsay, if you had all the data before you? You
wouldn't, I know.
> Give a counter argument. If I'm wrong, I'd rather know than not...
Consider yourself informed! But beyond this point, you know, you have
to find out. There's no shortcut on this, I'm afraid. Your religion
causes you to distrust anything I say, so, you have to check for
yourself.
You ask a couple of further questions, but since I don't know anything
much about those topics, I have no comment to make.
Roger Pearse
You perhaps have forgotten that you haven't mentioned any scholars,
tho. This is what I'm saying; this is anti-scholarly nonsense here.
People other than scholars write books, you know.
I imagine that many people are hazy about what constitutes a scholar.
In the US today, this would be a person who earns their living by
holding a full-time teaching post in the subject in question at a
reputable university, who has published on the subject in journals
listed in L'Annee Philologique or ATLA.
Test your sources accordingly.
> So far its your word against theirs. If you insist that
> you're right and they're all wrong what can I do?
Only one thing; seek the ancient sources yourself. If someone makes a
claim, yet they never provide an ancient source, be suspicious. But I
said this already. All you're being asked to do is evaluate claims
for some sign of knowing the data. Simple, I think.
> Happy New Year.
And to you.
John
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
Sorry I have nothing to contribute other than to say it's terrific to
see a new name here and especially terrific due to your articulate
posts.
Cheers,
John
demibee
> Consider yourself informed! But beyond this point, you know, you have
> to find out. There's no shortcut on this, I'm afraid. Your religion
> causes you to distrust anything I say, so, you have to check for
> yourself.
I'm afraid you've said nothing in your post, other than, "You're
incorrect," and "Go find out."
I'm not an archaeologist; and I'm not about to pursue a degree in NT
studies or the like to get my answers. That leaves me with the sources I
do have... and, yes, they do back up their claims.
You have the list of authors from my post. Check their books out at the
library. Check *their* sources; they *are* there! So, to say they all
back away when asked these questions is simply not the case. See which
church fathers they quote, which relics they mention.
db
demibee
> On Jan 1, 10:02 am, demibee <demi...@post.com> wrote:
>> Do these pages...
>> <http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/rpearse.html>
>> <snip quotations proving that I am a Christian>
>> ... indicate a scholarly bias? :)
>
> Ad hominem. Oh dear.
No, an honest question!
Anyway, apologies for the double reply, but a question occurred to me...
Would you accept the findings of a Mormon scholar regarding the
authenticity of the Book of Mormon? What if he said he went back to
Joseph Smith's original translations of those plates? That's where I'm
coming from.
In any case, methinks you are the Christian version of James Warren.
That's not a bad thing!... a Christian who demands evidence. Myself,
while I've been interested in religion for some time, I've never been able
to "make" myself believe in Christianity in anywhere near a literal
fashion... I think the exclusive nature of Christianity (and of Islam) is
another factor for me.
db
demibee
> I think anyone who is part of a religion or any other group has a vested
> interest in proving their beliefs. However, someone who is not a
> believer CAN have a vested interest in disproving those beliefs which is
> just as strong. The ideal is someone who researches the issues with no
> agenda or personal involvement. They are more likely to come to a
> conclusion that is legitimate. Anyone can come to an incorrect
> conclusion when examining data that has to do with matters of faith or
> beliefs and their basis but the viewpoint of someone with no personal
> involvement is LESS likely to be faulty and tainted.
I recall a paper -- a "spectral" analysis of the Bible, so to speak --
that tried to determine the authors by words chosen, writing style, and
what's known of how Hebrew and Greek were spoken at different times.
They came to the conclusion -- or rather, verified one -- that stated that
it was an authentic document in the sense that no one person just sat down
and made the whole thing up... Indeed, it is a work of many people over
many centuries. It's called the Documentary Hypothesis. Here's a graphic
showing what they found... each colour representing a particular author
(or scribe, who may have edited somewhat)...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Documentary_Hypothesis_Sources_Distribution_English.png>
However, when scholars did the same for the Book of Mormon, they found
something quite different... It was "all one colour" -- i.e., it appeared
to have been written by a single author, which is quite in contrast to
what should have happened, as, like the OT & NT, it's supposed to have
been an accumulated history. So, why one author? How could that be?
Unless Joseph Smith wrote the whole thing himself.
But that's exactly what it seemed to show... that the differences within
each book (of the Book of Mormon) were no less varied than those across
the *whole* Book of Mormon. It was as though each "separate author" had
the exact same writing style, despite the claim that it was supposed to
have been compiled over a long period, and no doubt, the language should
have changed over that period.
However... Scholars from BYU (and only BYU) came to the exact opposite
conclusion -- that it was, in fact, very different from book to book. Who
would you trust? :)
That's one example of why I'm usually skeptical of the conclusions of
those who *believe* the books they study.
This never happens with dead religions. There are no scholars of Egyptian
or Aztec religions, for example, who *believe* those religions. As a
result, their conclusions tend to be more objective.
That's not to say Roger *is* biased... but I did want to pose the question
to him.
db
demibee
> That makes sense although, whether it was Joseph Smith or not, is a
> mystery, At the time the book was published, he was a young, uneducated
> man. Although it is often a VERY difficult read because of the grammar,
> I just don't see someone with his educational level being able to write
> such a large, complex volume.
I suppose he could have had help in that area. I seem to recall from a
documentary -- "The Mormons" -- that was put out a few years ago that
others were involved.
> It was supposed to be written by ancient prophets and translated by
> Joseph Smith but there are references to substances such as iron that
> weren't even available in ancient times. I suppose, for the sake of
> being a devil's advocate, the similarity in writing style COULD be
> because one person translated the whole thing.
Maybe... but as I recall, he had divine help... and the Urim and Thummim,
whatever they were.
There are a lot of problems with it, from what I read after having seen
that doc. The Israelite tribes were supposed to have brought horses and
goats, etc., plus technology like the wheel. None of that was found when
Europeans colonized the Americas. The only horse remains found were from
a time long before people appeared in the Americas at all (it's my
understanding that horses evolved in the Americas, migrated to Eurasia,
but died out in the Americas before people arrived).
And then there's the "reformed Egyptian"... While the Hebrew alphabet
*is* a descendant of a subset of 23 simplified hieroglyphics (actually,
all extent alphabets are), it doesn't look anything like the ideographs
that reformed Egyptian was supposed to have been made of.
I think there was even a test to see if DNA evidence could confirm at
least some Hebrew ancestry in Native Americans... and I don't think it
came out in favour of Mormon claims.
> Some of the analyses of Biblical documents are based on ancient
> documents. No such comparisons can be made with Mormon scriptures
> because the original plates disappeared ...if they ever existed.
Yeah, that's another problem... Personally, I always found it kind of
"interesting" that Joseph Smith was looking for the One True Religion, and
when the angel Moroni appeared saying it had disappeared and that the
plates had the truth, they were within a stone's throw of his house?? ;)
I mean... how big are the Americas? And weren't the Israelite tribes
supposed to have been centred around the Yucatan peninsula or thereabouts?
Why were these plates in upstate New York?
Of course, there are problems like this with pretty much any old
scriptures.
Growing up in Sackville, I had a few Mormon friends -- great people, no
doubt. Given that you've attended, you probably know them, as they're
well known within the community. Just down the street from their house
were two apartments where four Mormon missionaries stayed; they changed
every several months or so. My non-Mormon friends and I got to know quite
a few of them, and they were good guys. They showed us their religion
*only* at our request -- videos, books, etc. And when we seemed to be
getting a little too interested, one elder (Prothero, IIRC) warned, "Hey!
Get to know your *own* religion before you consider anything else." Not
quite like the all-too-ready-to-convert Rock Churchers down the highway!
An aunt and cousin of mine even converted to Mormonism in the '80s. My
cousin has since given it up. My aunt, however, is very involved... takes
trips to the temple in, well, somewhere in the eastern states, I think.
> There are times we need to examine all sides of the story for ourselves
> and make up our own minds.
Yep... Another's view is never a good reason to believe. To use a
hackneyed phrase, it's a personal journey.
db
Al Smith
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 14:33:50 -0400, Donna Whitman wrote:
>
>> That makes sense although, whether it was Joseph Smith or not, is a
>> mystery, At the time the book was published, he was a young, uneducated
>> man. Although it is often a VERY difficult read because of the grammar,
>> I just don't see someone with his educational level being able to write
>> such a large, complex volume.
>
> I suppose he could have had help in that area. I seem to recall from a
> documentary -- "The Mormons" -- that was put out a few years ago that
> others were involved.
>
>
>> It was supposed to be written by ancient prophets and translated by
>> Joseph Smith but there are references to substances such as iron that
>> weren't even available in ancient times. I suppose, for the sake of
>> being a devil's advocate, the similarity in writing style COULD be
>> because one person translated the whole thing.
>
> Maybe... but as I recall, he had divine help... and the Urim and Thummim,
> whatever they were.
>
Urim and Thummin are oracular stones. Joseph Smith was a seer. He
talked to spirits through magic rocks.
-Al-
demibee
> Urim and Thummin are oracular stones. Joseph Smith was a seer. He talked
> to spirits through magic rocks.
Oh, right... the "stone in the hat" thing. I recall that now; it was in
the doc I mentioned.
db
Al Smith
Magic stones. Smith found one of them at the bottom of a well, I
believe. They "talked" to him and showed him visions. From that
base the Mormon religion was born. Never underestimate the power
of mystic visions.
-Al-
demibee
> Magic stones. Smith found one of them at the bottom of a well, I
> believe. They "talked" to him and showed him visions. From that base the
> Mormon religion was born. Never underestimate the power of mystic
> visions.
Ah! Are you saying you believe his claims? :)
db
Rob
> Magic stones. Smith found one of them at the bottom of a well, I
> believe. They "talked" to him and showed him visions. From that base the
> Mormon religion was born. Never underestimate the power of mystic visions.
>
> -Al-
Are magic stones anything like crystal balls?
Al Smith
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 00:05:12 -0400, demibee<dem...@post.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 14:33:50 -0400, Donna Whitman wrote:
>>
>>> That makes sense although, whether it was Joseph Smith or not, is a
>>> mystery, At the time the book was published, he was a young, uneducated
>>> man. Although it is often a VERY difficult read because of the grammar,
>>> I just don't see someone with his educational level being able to write
>>> such a large, complex volume.
>>
>> I suppose he could have had help in that area. I seem to recall from a
>> documentary -- "The Mormons" -- that was put out a few years ago that
>> others were involved.
>
> Brigham Young and Smith's inner circle had.
>
>
>>> It was supposed to be written by ancient prophets and translated by
>>> Joseph Smith but there are references to substances such as iron that
>>> weren't even available in ancient times. I suppose, for the sake of
>>> being a devil's advocate, the similarity in writing style COULD be
>>> because one person translated the whole thing.
>>
>> Maybe... but as I recall, he had divine help... and the Urim and Thummim,
>> whatever they were.
>
> (receiving revelation from God) or fortune telling at the time. I
> can't quite wrap my mind around the legitimacy of translations
> achieved by putting stones in a hat and then putting your face over
> the hat.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stone_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29
>
It's a standard technique to scry into crystals in total or near
total darkness, usually achieved by veiling your head and the
stone with a black cloth, or in some similar way. A hat would
work. Light reflections in the crystal are a distraction. The seer
is "seeing" with inner sight. Joseph Smith didn't use crystals,
but the technique is the same.
-Al-
Al Smith
I'm saying that the spirits he talked to sent him a revelation,
and he transformed that revelation into a prospering modern
religion with millions of members. That's quite an achievement.
-Al-
Al Smith
> there are millions of members of the LDS faith), some of whom are well
> educated professionals, do believe it. Other than blind faith, what
> prompts them to believe that the golden plates ever existed and that
> Joseph Smith is God's prophet ?
For that matter, why would anyone willingly subjugate themselves
to all the annoying laws and prohibitions of Islam? I mean
seriously, what's in it for them, other than not getting hacked to
death in their sleep by fanatical Muslims if they don't? One can
only presume that Mormans derive something of value from their faith.
-Al-
Al Smith
Very similar, but not shiny.
-Al-
Al Smith
> actually exist or not is something that can be discussed ad nauseam
> but it's very difficult to firmly disprove. The thing is that it's
> very easy for unscrupulous scam artists to CLAIM to have had
> revelations when they're really just trying to separate people from
> their cash. Whether Joseph Smith or the likes of James Praugh, that
> can be a matter of some debate. Do they sincerely believe that they
> have received divine revelation or communication from beyond the
> grave?
Who can speak for each individual? I believe that most religious
leaders sincerely believe that they have been chosen for a
mission, and that they converse with the agents of God, or with
God himself. There are probably phonies out there, but they don't
usually get very far, because their followers can sense their lack
of sincerity.
An exception may have been L. Ron Hubbard, who by all accounts was
a complete phony and a piece of shit as well. It's quite
remarkable that Scientology managed to con so many people around
the globe.
One phenomenon that occurs is that the phonies come to believe
their own con. There are suggestions that at the end of his life,
Hubbard was convinced that his whole spiel about engrams and Xenu
was real. Similarly, Anton LaVey, who founded the Church of Satan
in Los Angelos during the nineteen-sixties began it as a scam, but
eventually came to believe that he was doing a useful service by
freeing people of their inhibitions and hangups.
-Al-
Al Smith
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:10:51 GMT, Al Smith<inv...@address.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Donna Whitman wrote:
>
>>> They were seer stones which were a fairly common method of diving
>>> (receiving revelation from God) or fortune telling at the time. I
>>> can't quite wrap my mind around the legitimacy of translations
>>> achieved by putting stones in a hat and then putting your face over
>>> the hat.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seer_stone_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's a standard technique to scry into crystals in total or near
>> total darkness, usually achieved by veiling your head and the
>> stone with a black cloth, or in some similar way. A hat would
>> work. Light reflections in the crystal are a distraction. The seer
>> is "seeing" with inner sight. Joseph Smith didn't use crystals,
>> but the technique is the same.
>>
>> -Al-
>
>
>
Yes, the standard technique that has been used for scrying into
stone for centuries.
-Al-
Al Smith
> high up in the LDS church at a stake level?
Nope, no Mormons in my family. We're strictly Church of England.
-Al-
Al Smith
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:23:54 GMT, Al Smith<inv...@address.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> I don't discount mysticism and spiritual revelations . Whether they
>>> actually exist or not is something that can be discussed ad nauseam
>>> but it's very difficult to firmly disprove. The thing is that it's
>>> very easy for unscrupulous scam artists to CLAIM to have had
>>> revelations when they're really just trying to separate people from
>>> their cash. Whether Joseph Smith or the likes of James Praugh, that
>>> can be a matter of some debate. Do they sincerely believe that they
>>> have received divine revelation or communication from beyond the
>>> grave?
>>
>>
>> Who can speak for each individual? I believe that most religious
>> leaders sincerely believe that they have been chosen for a
>> mission, and that they converse with the agents of God, or with
>> God himself. There are probably phonies out there, but they don't
>> usually get very far, because their followers can sense their lack
>> of sincerity.
>>
>> An exception may have been L. Ron Hubbard, who by all accounts was
>> a complete phony and a piece of shit as well. It's quite
>> remarkable that Scientology managed to con so many people around
>> the globe.
>
> and is actually in conflict with the law in some arts and I totally
> agree that L. Ron Hubbard was a piece of shit.
>
> As for Smith, I think his motivation may have been wither personal
> gain or building a society where he could have a harem with God's
> stamp of approval as well as 10% of his followers' gross income to
> play with.
>
> Just for the sake of argument, say he WAS sincere. How can all the
> historical and archaeological inconsistencies in the religion be
> explained? What about the book of scripture supposedly translated from
> reformed Egyptian that turns out to be a burial document?
>
>
>> One phenomenon that occurs is that the phonies come to believe
>> their own con. There are suggestions that at the end of his life,
>> Hubbard was convinced that his whole spiel about engrams and Xenu
>> was real. Similarly, Anton LaVey, who founded the Church of Satan
>> in Los Angelos during the nineteen-sixties began it as a scam, but
>> eventually came to believe that he was doing a useful service by
>> freeing people of their inhibitions and hangups.
>>
>> -Al-
>
>
> those who come afterwards who blindly accept these teachings without
> ever examining them. In the case of the Mormon Church, they are
> actively instructed NOT to examine the teachings. I will not soon
> forget the statement "Once the prophet has spoken, the thinking is
> done". Huh? I'm sure Scientologists have their own ways of
> discouraging discussion too.
Regarding Joseph Smith, I agree that the physical basis of the
Mormon faith is a fraud. Smith cooked up the tablets. Whether he
did so from sincere motives or as a con, I don't know.
My guess is that many individuals find membership in a church to
be a security blanket that shields them from the harsh realities
of the greater world. Maybe they are willing to turn a blind eye
to the obvious inconsistencies of the faith to obtain that
protection for themselves and their families. Mormons tend to be
prosperous. Their work ethic obviously does them no harm in business.
-Al-
demibee
> I can't understand either but I'm more likely to give some credence to
> Islam that has a lengthy history and scriptures that weren't translated
> by a teenager using magic rocks. Believers often gain benefit from their
> faith. If it makes someone a better person, it's not all bad. I just
> wish there was a better way of self improvement than holding fairy tales
> in such high esteem.
One of the things about ancient religions is that they were usually
influenced by philosophical thinking. Judaism had always been a religion
that encouraged questioning and debate. Christianity was heavily
influenced by Greek philosophy... in particular, notions of what God is.
And Islam had its "falsafah" (philosophy).
This led to two sides of each religion: the esoteric (the deeper, inner
meaning that required reflection of some kind and a layered interpretation
of the texts), and the exoteric (the ritualistic side that looked more at
the surface meaning of the texts, whether they were taken literally or as
non-literal examples). Often, the rituals meshed in some way with either
the inner or the surface meanings -- e.g., for the laity, a simple
Christian ritual might symbolize the death and resurrection of Jesus; for
the mystics, a more elaborate ritual might symbolize the death and
resurrection of the self -- a giving up of the earthly self, allowing God
(or Jesus) to fill the void created by that renunciation. So, "giving
one's life over to God" meant different things for the laity than for the
mystics.
Religions in the East never lost this. A typical Hindu may worship
Ganesha at a shrine, and he may believe in that god somewhat literally.
The Hindu brahmin (scholar) might see it only as a symbol that points
toward a single higher impersonal Ultimate that he believes to be the
basis for reality, all life, and all consciousness.
Similar things could be said of Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, and
too many others in the East to name. Hinduism and its descendants alone
account for a huge number of schools.
In the West, the mystical schools all but disappeared. Islam has its
Sufis who see their goal as unity with The Divine, their method being one
of complete devotion... almost love in the sense that one would love a
spouse. But it's shunned by most traditional Muslims, who take their text
pretty literally...
Hasidic Judaism employs Kabbalah -- the notion that God created the world
out of Himself; he "shone" His many beams of "divine light" into the void;
and creation, us included, resulted from the ever more complex mixture.
But the average Jew has no interest in Kabbalah (although, for some
reason, many in Hollywood have a New Age-ish fascination with it)...
And Christians once had gnosticism -- the radical idea that the OT god,
Yahweh, was not really God, but a perverted descendant who created this
evil world and thought himself to be a supreme being... Jesus, therefore,
came from the *true* God; and His mission was to free us by letting us
know of the Divine Spark within each of us... that unity with this true
God was possible upon death, and we could be free of Yahweh's world once
and for all. Not surprisingly, this kind of gnosticism today is seen as
rather anti-Semitic.
When it comes to Mormonism, I'm not sure there *is* a deeper esoteric
side... or whether philosophy (or modern science, given that it was
available to Mormonism) ever played a role.
db
demibee
> I'm saying that the spirits he talked to sent him a revelation, and he
> transformed that revelation into a prospering modern religion with
> millions of members. That's quite an achievement.
From what I understand, I wouldn't call that mysticism. Mysticism tends
to be more about learning and following some basic "Way" of Reality... or
attempting unity with a Higher Power (in this life and after death). The
idea is usually that of transcending the self and allowing that Way or
Higher Power to guide followers.
Things like magic, charms, and psychic phenomena creep in later, but
they're not usually associated with the original teachers. E.g., Lao Tzu
talked about Tao as if it were Natural Law; and he made no mention of the
I Ching, which is an ancient Chinese divination system. But later
practitioners of certain branches of Taoism tried to turn it into a method
of achieving literal immortality.
db
Al Smith
There's no sharp division between magic and religion. Mysticism
embraces both. Magic can be just as intellectual, just as abstract
and abstruse, as the religion taught by Thomas Aquinas. It just
depends on the sources that are studied. All of the early
religious mystics practiced magic in one form or another. Jesus,
for example, was known as a magician by the Jews and Romans. It
was only his own followers who disputed this label, and sought to
distance him from such similar wandering wonder workers as Simon
Magus.
-Al-
Al Smith
> And Christians once had gnosticism -- the radical idea that the OT god,
> Yahweh, was not really God, but a perverted descendant who created this
> evil world and thought himself to be a supreme being... Jesus, therefore,
> came from the *true* God; and His mission was to free us by letting us
> know of the Divine Spark within each of us... that unity with this true
> God was possible upon death, and we could be free of Yahweh's world once
> and for all. Not surprisingly, this kind of gnosticism today is seen as
> rather anti-Semitic.
>
> db
There were sects of Jewish Gnostics.
-Al-
James Warren
To talk to Al's gods, angels, spirits and devils, he must use his two crystal balls.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
No Siree. I wouldn't want to do that. ):
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
Rick Walker
"James Warren" wrote:
>
> To talk to Al's gods, angels, spirits and devils, he must use his two
> crystal balls.
>
I've heard it said that Al has an amazing pair of balls, James. :)
James Warren
I think that mean he is imagining it all.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
Many delusions are comforting. Pick one, any one.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:56:24 -0400, Donna Whitman wrote:
>
>> I can't understand either but I'm more likely to give some credence to
>> Islam that has a lengthy history and scriptures that weren't translated
>> by a teenager using magic rocks. Believers often gain benefit from their
>> faith. If it makes someone a better person, it's not all bad. I just
>> wish there was a better way of self improvement than holding fairy tales
>> in such high esteem.
>
> One of the things about ancient religions is that they were usually
> influenced by philosophical thinking. Judaism had always been a religion
> that encouraged questioning and debate. Christianity was heavily
> influenced by Greek philosophy... in particular, notions of what God is.
> And Islam had its "falsafah" (philosophy).
>
> This led to two sides of each religion: the esoteric (the deeper, inner
> meaning that required reflection of some kind and a layered interpretation
> of the texts), and the exoteric (the ritualistic side that looked more at
> the surface meaning of the texts, whether they were taken literally or as
> non-literal examples).
This is a clever way of having your cake and eating it too. :)
The texts are bullshit. Never mind, its the deeper esoteric meaning the
really counts. A great way to "bullet proof" your religion.
So is any of it true DB or is it just interesting history?
>
> When it comes to Mormonism, I'm not sure there *is* a deeper esoteric
> side... or whether philosophy (or modern science, given that it was
> available to Mormonism) ever played a role.
>
>
> db
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
Al Smith
Stereo.
-Al-
Al Smith
Is a delusion of comfort a delusion if it actually does provide
comfort?
-Al-
Al Smith
Either that, or the angels instructed him in how to form a new
religion that would flourish and live on after him in millions of
believers.
-Al-
James Warren
He has bragged about them on this group. We can only take his word for it. :)
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
Have you named yours Al?
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
Of course, thats what delusions are for! :)
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
Of course, how could I have neglected that possibility. Silly me. :)
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
Al Smith
No.
-Al-
Al Smith
The comfort isn't a delusion.
-Al-
Al Smith
Rick Walker
"Al Smith" wrote:
>
> http://abitofthat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tasmanian-devil.jpg
>
Jesus Al, you scared the crap outta me with that! :-))
Al Smith
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:17:48 -0400, James Warren
> <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Al Smith wrote:
>
>>> For that matter, why would anyone willingly subjugate themselves to all
>>> the annoying laws and prohibitions of Islam? I mean seriously, what's in
>>> it for them, other than not getting hacked to death in their sleep by
>>> fanatical Muslims if they don't? One can only presume that Mormans
>>> derive something of value from their faith.
>>>
>>> -Al-
>>
>> Many delusions are comforting. Pick one, any one.
>
>
> her become a better person, it beats the pants off the delusions
> caused by alcohol or drugs ...a LOT less harmful.
>
And if it produces a real benefit, I don't think it was
delusional. On the contrary, it was very sane.
-Al-
James Warren
The comfort is real. Comfort born of delusion OK for those who don't want to know
reality. I prefer to know, or to be uncertain and uncomfortable.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:17:48 -0400, James Warren
> <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Al Smith wrote:
>
>>> the annoying laws and prohibitions of Islam? I mean seriously, what's in
>>> it for them, other than not getting hacked to death in their sleep by
>>> fanatical Muslims if they don't? One can only presume that Mormans
>>> derive something of value from their faith.
>>>
>>> -Al-
>> Many delusions are comforting. Pick one, any one.
>
>
> her become a better person, it beats the pants off the delusions
> caused by alcohol or drugs ...a LOT less harmful.
>
True. But for us truth seekers we shun all delusions whatever the origin.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
It is delusional and therefore insane.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
demibee
> Of course, thats what delusions are for! :)
Does your delusion -- the one suggesting that the universe is just what
humans can make of it -- provide comfort?
db
demibee
> This is a clever way of having your cake and eating it too. :) The texts
> are bullshit. Never mind, its the deeper esoteric meaning the really
> counts. A great way to "bullet proof" your religion.
Would you say you're in a position to know the *intentions* of the
original authors? Most Hindu brahmins didn't take their myths seriously:
they were just that -- myths that explained some point of life.
Chuang Tzu's little stories -- obvious fables -- were meant to get the
idea of Tao across to the average person: they were *certainly never*
meant to be taken literally, any more than Little Red Riding Hood was.
Maybe the Jews of, say, 500 BCE were the same. We don't know. E.g., do
you really think temple priests believed in a six-day creation? I can see
the uneducated making that mistake, but the priests?? I doubt it. Why
would they debate the meaning of the texts if they did?
What we *do* know is that, in the West, people started taking religious
texts literally as science rose: They tried to interpret the texts as
they would the new science. This was especially true of conservative
Protestants.
The Catholic Church often did, too, as they were in it for control. Prior
to that, there was a lot of open debate about what it all meant... and
Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle influenced later Christians'
understanding of what God might be like. A modern conservative Christian,
like those who want Creationism taught in schools, might believe in a
bearded old guy in the sky; but the thinkers of early Christianity, like
Philo of Alexandria, were *interpreters* of the religion... They had
beliefs of their own, but they knew there wasn't one single way to
understand it.
And even within the Catholic Church, there were plenty of mystics early
on. Teresa of Avila's a well known one.
> So is any of it true DB or is it just interesting history?
In most cases, almost certainly the latter. Things like gnosticism are as
convoluted as Lord of the Rings. It might make an interesting metaphor --
e.g., the overthrowing of Yahweh *could* (my own interpretation) indicate
an overthrowing of self (as seen in so many other esoteric traditions)...
Yahweh is angry, jealous, always evolving. And the acceptance of Jesus is
likely a metaphor for the (by now) oh-so-familiar unity with God; the
gnostic texts say as much on that point.
Whether people took gnosticism exactly this way, I can't say. But the
time they spent arguing about it all suggests, to me, that they didn't
just read the texts and take them at face value. In fact, for a good deal
of early Christianity's history, many people didn't have access to any or
all of the texts; and for very early followers of Jesus, there were no
texts: there were oral traditions only, and oral traditions change -- an
ongoing "conversation" much like philosophy.
From century to century, people's views of Christianity and Jesus changed.
When it comes to the ultimate message of virtually ALL mystical traditions
-- i.e., "Thou Art That" -- who can say? And how literally does one take
it?...
Aren't *you* the universe, for example?... not all of it, of course; but
isn't your ever-changing body a process, not just within, but *of* the
universe itself?... Doesn't it continuously lose itself to the
universe?... and get its constituents from it?... much like a hurricane is
a process of the atmosphere, continuously gathering up air and water, and
casting it away?
I can understand ancients standing in awe of an idea like that. When Carl
Sagan said on his show, Cosmos, that we are all made of "star stuff" --
almost a cliche now -- many intelligent people stood in awe of *that*.
I don't know if you do. You seem not only to want all religion to just go
away forever... you seem to want all perspectives of the natural world,
except for the most mundane, to disappear too -- to have all people
perceive reality as stagnantly and prosaically as you do... as though they
were constantly seeing it under laboratory conditions, divided up,
measured, labelled, and categorized.
Am I right? If so, *is* the universe *naturally* divided up, measured,
labelled, and categorized? Perspectives like those of the mystics allow
for something *approximating an experience* of what all this is. Since we
can't "stand outside" the whole thing and look at it, and see it from all
scales -- see all the details -- those other perspectives are the next
best thing. Is doesn't mean that science and its findings are
discarded... anything but!
db
Al Smith
Anyone who wants to know how big my balls are can look at Oscar here.
-Al-
James Warren
All of the above is begging the question, eloquently of course. The texts
say what they say. If they are shown to be wrong or you disagree with them,
well then, they need to be interpreted. Where does it say in the OT that its
all allegory? It purports to be history.
>
> From century to century, people's views of Christianity and Jesus changed.
>
>
> When it comes to the ultimate message of virtually ALL mystical traditions
> -- i.e., "Thou Art That" -- who can say? And how literally does one take
> it?...
>
> Aren't *you* the universe, for example?... not all of it, of course; but
> isn't your ever-changing body a process, not just within, but *of* the
> universe itself?... Doesn't it continuously lose itself to the
> universe?... and get its constituents from it?... much like a hurricane is
> a process of the atmosphere, continuously gathering up air and water, and
> casting it away?
>
> I can understand ancients standing in awe of an idea like that. When Carl
> Sagan said on his show, Cosmos, that we are all made of "star stuff" --
> almost a cliche now -- many intelligent people stood in awe of *that*.
>
> I don't know if you do. You seem not only to want all religion to just go
> away forever... you seem to want all perspectives of the natural world,
> except for the most mundane, to disappear too -- to have all people
> perceive reality as stagnantly and prosaically as you do... as though they
It may be stagnant and prosaic and mundane to you but that is how it is! Its best to
perceive it that way. Making stuff up to make it interesting doesn't add anything.
It is in fact far from stagnant, prosaic and mundane. Apparently reality isn't
enough, you want fables too.
> were constantly seeing it under laboratory conditions, divided up,
> measured, labelled, and categorized.
>
> Am I right? If so, *is* the universe *naturally* divided up, measured,
> labelled, and categorized?
The universe is what it is. The is no need to dress it up.
> Perspectives like those of the mystics allow
> for something *approximating an experience* of what all this is. Since we
> can't "stand outside" the whole thing and look at it, and see it from all
> scales -- see all the details -- those other perspectives are the next
> best thing. Is doesn't mean that science and its findings are
> discarded... anything but!
>
>
> db
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
James Warren
That is not my delusion. The universe is what it is. Our understanding may
be incomplete but there is no need to make stuff up to fill in the blanks.
We know what we know and that is all.
--
jw (a.k.a. Nagilum)
demibee
> All of the above is begging the question, eloquently of course. The
> texts say what they say. If they are shown to be wrong or you disagree
> with them, well then, they need to be interpreted. Where does it say in
> the OT that its all allegory? It purports to be history.
It does?
Where does it say in the Bhagavad Gita that the conversation between
Arjuna and Krishna never really took place?
Where does it say in Chuang Tzu's parables that they *are* parables?
Where does in say in the Epic of Gilgamesh -- some of which made it into
the Bible (e.g., Noah's flood) -- that the things described never
happened?
It's obvious (for most) upon reading.
Just as today, it doesn't need to be stated that children's fables,
English and American folklore, Native American parables, etc. aren't
really true stories, it's not likely that the stories of the Bible would
have contained such disclaimers.
Little Red Riding Hood ==> Don't Talk to Strangers
Robin Hood ==> There should be equity among people
George Washington and the cherry tree ==> Washington was an honest man
Did King Arthur really exist? Does it explain that he didn't in any of
the stories about him?
Did the Pilgrims really land on Plymouth Rock?
Did Columbus really set out to prove the world was round?
Did the first Thanksgiving really happen as usually understood?
> It may be stagnant and prosaic and mundane to you but that is how it is!
> Its best to perceive it that way. Making stuff up to make it interesting
> doesn't add anything. It is in fact far from stagnant, prosaic and
> mundane. Apparently reality isn't enough, you want fables too.
Then it's a fable that we're made of "star stuff" as Sagan claimed??
Where's the fable there?... What's untrue?
It may seem unnecessarily "romantic" to *you*... but, for many, it
explains not only the origin of the elements of the Periodic Table, but
also connects us -- in a very real way -- to the universe from which we
come... of which we're an integral part. There's no fable here... no
false information... just a *broader perspective*.
Ironically, I suspect Sagan impressed that upon his viewers (and readers)
to *oppose* prevalent religious views -- i.e., to explain that, no, we
weren't created in some whimsical fashion... that we're not "alien" to
this universe, as a literal understanding of Genesis would have us
believe. We are part of it... In a very real sense, we *are* it.
> db wrote:
>> If so, *is* the universe *naturally* divided up, measured, labelled,
>> and categorized?
>
> The universe is what it is. The is no need to dress it up.
Oh my lord!... So, the universe naturally *is* divided up, measured,
labelled, and categorized? And to say otherwise is "dressing it up"??
Is the natural world really divided up into countries? Did the chimpanzee
and the bonobo become separate species only when we humans categorized
them that way?
More generally, are you *incapable* of any kind of big-picture
perspective?
Sorry, James, but it's *your* view that's out of whack. The bureaucracy
of the scientific method -- while necessary for discovery -- is *not*
required (or desired) for any kind of *overall description*. You adhere
so closely to scientific labels that they've blinded you. To use a
cliche, you can't see the forest for the trees.
Once an understanding of something is reached, dispense with the data...
File it away. Just look at the knowledge that's been gained and see for
yourself how it fits together.
db
James Warren
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:51:45 -0400, James Warren wrote:
>
>> All of the above is begging the question, eloquently of course. The
>> texts say what they say. If they are shown to be wrong or you disagree
>> with them, well then, they need to be interpreted. Where does it say in
>> the OT that its all allegory? It purports to be history.
>
> It does?
Yes.
>
> Where does it say in the Bhagavad Gita that the conversation between
> Arjuna and Krishna never really took place?
>
> Where does it say in Chuang Tzu's parables that they *are* parables?
>
> Where does in say in the Epic of Gilgamesh -- some of which made it into
> the Bible (e.g., Noah's flood) -- that the things described never
> happened?
>
> It's obvious (for most) upon reading.
More begging the question.
>
> Just as today, it doesn't need to be stated that children's fables,
> English and American folklore, Native American parables, etc. aren't
> really true stories, it's not likely that the stories of the Bible would
> have contained such disclaimers.
>
The authors did not claim the stories were true.
>
> Little Red Riding Hood ==> Don't Talk to Strangers
>
> Robin Hood ==> There should be equity among people
>
> George Washington and the cherry tree ==> Washington was an honest man
>
>
> Did King Arthur really exist? Does it explain that he didn't in any of
> the stories about him?
>
> Did the Pilgrims really land on Plymouth Rock?
>
> Did Columbus really set out to prove the world was round?
>
> Did the first Thanksgiving really happen as usually understood?
>
Written as fiction and not represented otherwise.
>
>> It may be stagnant and prosaic and mundane to you but that is how it is!
>> Its best to perceive it that way. Making stuff up to make it interesting
>> doesn't add anything. It is in fact far from stagnant, prosaic and
>> mundane. Apparently reality isn't enough, you want fables too.
>
> Then it's a fable that we're made of "star stuff" as Sagan claimed??
> Where's the fable there?... What's untrue?
This is literally true. It is not a good example of what you were talking about.
>
> It may seem unnecessarily "romantic" to *you*... but, for many, it
> explains not only the origin of the elements of the Periodic Table, but
> also connects us -- in a very real way -- to the universe from which we
> come... of which we're an integral part. There's no fable here... no
> false information... just a *broader perspective*.
>
> Ironically, I suspect Sagan impressed that upon his viewers (and readers)
> to *oppose* prevalent religious views -- i.e., to explain that, no, we
> weren't created in some whimsical fashion... that we're not "alien" to
> this universe, as a literal understanding of Genesis would have us
> believe. We are part of it... In a very real sense, we *are* it.
>
Yes, I agree.
>
>> db wrote:
>>> If so, *is* the universe *naturally* divided up, measured, labelled,
>>> and categorized?
>> The universe is what it is. The is no need to dress it up.
>
> Oh my lord!... So, the universe naturally *is* divided up, measured,
> labelled, and categorized? And to say otherwise is "dressing it up"??
>
Whether it is or not we have to do this in order to talk about it.
> Is the natural world really divided up into countries? Did the chimpanzee
> and the bonobo become separate species only when we humans categorized
> them that way?
Of course not.
>
> More generally, are you *incapable* of any kind of big-picture
> perspective?
Of course not. You're creating a straw man as you are wont to do.
>
> Sorry, James, but it's *your* view that's out of whack. The bureaucracy
> of the scientific method -- while necessary for discovery -- is *not*
> required (or desired) for any kind of *overall description*. You adhere
> so closely to scientific labels that they've blinded you. To use a
> cliche, you can't see the forest for the trees.
There is no "bureaucracy of the scientific method" - another straw man.
I see the forest about as well as anyone can.
>
> Once an understanding of something is reached, dispense with the data...
> File it away. Just look at the knowledge that's been gained and see for
> yourself how it fits together.
>
Why dispense with the data? I'm fine with trying to see how it all fits
together. I do try of avoid force fits into preconceived notions though.
Calm down. Its bad for your blood pressure. I know you're passionate but
there is nothing life and death here.
>
> db
--
jw
"Science is a candle in the dark" - Carl Sagan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=e5xdcxablf
James Warren
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:09:53 -0400, James Warren
> and may even help a person cope with the world around them (like
> religion). Insanity is when the delusions take over your life and you
> are unable to function normally.
I might dispute than people cope better with a delusion than without. I do
agree that not all delusions are crippling though, as you say.
James Warren
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:01:14 -0400, James Warren
> <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Is a delusion of comfort a delusion if it actually does provide comfort?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Al-
>>>> Of course, thats what delusions are for! :)
>>>>
>>> The comfort isn't a delusion.
>>>
>>> -Al-
>> The comfort is real. Comfort born of delusion OK for those who don't want to know
>> reality. I prefer to know, or to be uncertain and uncomfortable.
>
>
> whatever life throws them, then that's not necessarily a bad thing. It
> may be better to tackle problems directly and accept uncertainty but
> not everyone deals well with that. Rather than turn to drugs
> (prescription or illegal) or alcohol to drown out reality, isn't it
> better to have a "friend" to talk to and seek help from? I may not
> believe in it but it's a harmless coping mechanism for some.
Perhaps it is. I still say that having no delusions is preferable though.
Discovering that your beliefs are false can be crippling to those who have
come to depend of them. I wouldn't want to be the one to shatter that person's
delusions. I feel sorry for them. They may be in for a rough ride.
James Warren
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:03:18 -0400, James Warren
> <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Donna Whitman wrote:
>
>>> If a person takes comfort in a religious delusion and it helps him/
>>> her become a better person, it beats the pants off the delusions
>>> caused by alcohol or drugs ...a LOT less harmful.
>>>
>> True. But for us truth seekers we shun all delusions whatever the origin.
>
>
> seeker but that's just me.
>
I don't want to be forced into dividing the world into two classes of
people: alpha - those who can take the truth, and beta - those who cannot
and need to be comforted with delusions.
Al Smith
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:03:18 -0400, James Warren
> <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Donna Whitman wrote:
>
>>> If a person takes comfort in a religious delusion and it helps him/
>>> her become a better person, it beats the pants off the delusions
>>> caused by alcohol or drugs ...a LOT less harmful.
>>>
>>
>> True. But for us truth seekers we shun all delusions whatever the origin.
>
>
> seeker but that's just me.
>
There are different levels of truth. Poor James is (it seems)
forever barred from knowing spiritual truth. He is in effect a
spiritual cripple. That's sad, but there's nothing the rest of us
can do about it.
-Al-