Christians defacing monuments of other faiths

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

Your argument doesn't make much sense when stated in a different way.

The second statement of mine you cite was a separate point, and one that was well answered.

Dawkins himself, elsewhere in 'The God Delusion' states that he doesn't want to see religious monuments destroyed.

That, however, does not make his position any more logical. He argues that religion, in general, is detrimental. As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that religion took away something that wouldn't have existed without religion.

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that religion took away something that wouldn't have existed without religion.

But religion DOES exist, and the statues DID exist.
They were destroyed by afghan muslim leaders because they were considered blasphemous, blatent evidence that religion has caused detriment in this example.
Islam and Buddhism are two seperate religions. Are you saying that one would not have existed without the other?

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

Religion DOES exist, and the statues DID exist.

A bit superfluous to state the obvious? No-one has argued otherwise.
awkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental.

They where then destroyed by afghan muslim leaders because they were considered blasphemous, blatent evidence that religion has caused detriment in this example.

Nonsense. If I give you ten euro, and then take two of those ten euro away from you, then that can hardly be presented as evidence that my dealings with you have been detrimental.

Islam and Buddhism are two seperate religions. Are you saying that one would not have existed without the other?

I know that they are two separate religions. No literate person would think I have argued that one would not have existed without the other.

The point, however, is that Dawkins was not arguing that one religion is nicer than another. He was arguing that religion in general is detrimental. Therefore he should present evidence that demonstrates how religion in general has produced detrimental results - not that religion has destroyed some of the monuments that came into being through religion.

Turtwig

Sorry PDN, mate, but it seems you're not actually referring to Dawkins argument at all unless of course my google search skills are failing me and the bit you refer to is mention elsewhere.

Page about the statues is 282.
(Not available on preview.:()

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

A bit superfluous to state the obvious? No-one has argued otherwise.
Dawkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental.

You stated that Dawkins was wrong because the statues would not have existed without religion in the first place.
I was merely stating that your point is irrelevent as both do/did exist.

Nonsense. If I give you ten euro, and then take two of those ten euro away from you, then that can hardly be presented as evidence that my dealings with you have been detrimental.

When you place Islam and Buddhism in this set you call religion then that argument makes sense, but they are two different religions.

Tenner - Tenner = 0
Religion - Religion = 0
Islam - Buddhism = well they cant be subtracted, its like taking apples from oranges.

If I understand your argument correctly ( Im not sure If I do ) you are basically saying that religion caused detriment to religion, but its ok because religion wouldnt have existed without religion in the first place.

I'm saying that ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION caused detriment to AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RELIGION.

I know that they are two separate religions.

But you are bundling the two religions into this group you call "Religion". They are two seperate religions capable of causing detriment to one another.

Dr. Loon

PDN wrote: »

A bit superfluous to state the obvious? No-one has argued otherwise.
awkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental.

Nonsense. If I give you ten euro, and then take two of those ten euro away from you, then that can hardly be presented as evidence that my dealings with you have been detrimental.


I know that they are two separate religions. No literate person would think I have argued that one would not have existed without the other.

The point, however, is that Dawkins was not arguing that one religion is nicer than another. He was arguing that religion in general is detrimental. Therefore he should present evidence that demonstrates how religion in general has produced detrimental results - not that religion has destroyed some of the monuments that came into being through religion.

That's a pretty pathetic argument! How about this? If there was no religion, then the statues wouldn't have existed to be destroyed by religion. There would be no reason to destroy/deface them! The fact that they are there is because of religion, and the fact that they were destroyed is because of religion. With no religion, the event wouldn't have occurred.

mardybumbum

Dr. Loon wrote: »

That's a pretty pathetic argument! How about this? If there was no religion, then the statues wouldn't have existed to be destroyed by religion. There would be no reason to destroy/deface them! The fact that they are there is because of religion, and the fact that they were destroyed is because of religion. With no religion, the event wouldn't have occurred.

Im not sure if he believes in his argument himself.
I think its more a case of not wanting to admit his original comment regarding the God Delusion made no sense.

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

Im not sure if he believes in his argument himself.
I think its more a case of not wanting to admit his original comment regarding the God Delusion made no sense.

I've admitted my other point was well answered - so why not just deal with the point I am making now instead of indulging in silliness?

You cannot argue that religion in general is detrimental because it gave the world hundreds of historic monuments and then removed some of them.

I'm saying that ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION caused detriment to AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RELIGION.

Good for you, but that's not what Dawkins was saying, nor what I referred to. I'm not particularly interested in changing the subject to discuss your views on comparative religion.

But you are bundling the two religions into this group you call "Religion".

No, that would be Dawkins who did that. If you object to them being bundled together then I suggest you take it up with him.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Sorry PDN, mate, but it seems you're not actually referring to Dawkins argument at all unless of course my google search skills are failing me and the bit you refer to is mention elsewhere.

Page about the statues is 282.
(Not available on preview.:()

Sorry, Malty mate, but maybe you should have googled the preface.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, Malty mate, but maybe you should have googled the preface.

I'm on it.:)

Edit : Briefly scanned through it, nothing so far, some pointer would be nice...:)

mardybumbum

PDN wrote: »

I've admitted my other point was well answered - so why not just deal with the point I am making now instead of indulging in silliness?

Your points are far from well answered. I still dont understand what your point is tbh. I would be happy to deal with it If I did.
This "the statues wouldnt have existed without religion" rubbish makes absolutely no sense to me at all. It isn't a valid argument.

Good for you, but that's not what Dawkins was saying, nor what I referred to. I'm not particularly interested in changing the subject to discuss your views on comparative religion.

Dawkins said religion is detrimental.
He gave an example of Islam being detrimental to Buddhism.
A religion being detrimental to another religion.
You have tried to shy away from this point by bundling all religions together.
Islam is a religion. Buddhism is a religion.
The muslims destroyed the buddhist statues.
This is a perfectly acceptable example of religion being detrimental.
He could have given an example of Hindus being detrimental to Jews for all I care.
You said this is not a good example because the statues would not have been there were it not for religion in the first place.
This just fails to make any sense to me. The statues were there. Get over it.
I am certainly not changing the subject PDN.
Your just not thinking about it enough.

No, that would be Dawkins who did that. If you object to them being bundled together then I suggest you take it up with him.

You have been doing it for the entire thread. Your " give me a tenner and take a tenner " analogy is a perfect example of this.

PDN

mardybumbum wrote: »

Your points are far from well answered.

I'm starting to feel like I've entered a Twilight Zone - or a foreign country where no-one speaks English.

When I say a point of mine has been well answered, then that means that someone else has given a good answer to a point that I have made.

I made a rather poor point (that if religion is detrimental, then the Taliban were doing something useful by destroying religious symbols). That point was well answered, so I dropped it.

My main point (that you cannot argue that religion is detrimental and cite as evidence the destruction of monuments that are themselves products of religion) has not been well answered. So far it has been very poorly answered.

This "the statues wouldnt have existed without religion" rubbish makes absolutely no sense to me at all. It isn't a valid argument.

If it makes no sense to you then I doubt if that has anything to do with the validity of the argument.

Dawkins said religion is detrimental.

Thereby bundling all religions together.

He gave an example of Islam being detrimental to Buddhism

Which is evidence that religion is detrimental to, er, religion.

You have tried to shy away from this point by bundling all religions together.

Jesus wept! Dickie bundles religions together and, because I point out his inconsistency, I'm now trying to shy away from his point by bundling religions together?

Islam is a religion. Buddhism is a religion.
The muslims destroyed the buddhist statues.
This is a perfectly acceptable example of religion being detrimental.

Oops! You just bundled them together in order to argue that religion is detrimental to religion.

He could have given an example of Hindus being detrimental to Jews for all I care.

Which would also be an example of religion being detrimental to religion.

Your'e just not thinking about it enough.

Hmm, I don't we're going to get very far with this, are we?

Turtwig

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm on it.:)

Edit : Briefly scanned through it, nothing so far, some pointer would be nice...:)

Ok found it,

I'm afraid it doesn't still support your point that you were making...

All he says is "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion ... imagine no Taliban no blow up ancient statues..."

All he seems to be doing is creating an image of a world with no religion for the reader. He does not state anything explicitly here about religion being detrimental.

While you can argue that the statues he most likely is referring to are the Buddhist ones which needed religion to come about. And he clearly is focussing on the more negative aspects of religion.

You cannot argue that religion in general is detrimental because it gave the world hundreds of historic monuments and then removed some of them.

How you got that argument from the paragraph is baffling me.

Preface, 4th Pargraph

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

One of the funny bits in 'The God Delusion' is where poor Richard cites the destruction of those Buddhas as an example of the detrimental effect of religion upon the world. Of course, without religion, they wouldn't have been there in the first place.

Which goes to show you don't understand the reason behind his (and most peoples) disgust at this event.

The Buddha statues were historical relics of immense archeological and anthropological value.

I also would personally go so far as to suggest that the destruction of other religions relics today mostly occurs at the hands of the three main abrahamic religions.

I would also like to point out that Buddhism, in some forms, has no supernatural beliefs whatsoever and these forms are more correctly described as a philosophy which everyone of every religion can agree with, the pursuit of enlightenment.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why Richard Dawkins would admire Buddhism enough to regard it as somehow more worthy of protection than Christianity or Islam. Unless he's a hypocrite that is. At least Christopher Hitchens is an equal criticism atheist.

I'm sure thats not what Dawkins meant at all, he was obviously distressed at the destruction of an object of such immense archeological value.

You really think Dawkins would rejoice at the destruction of the Vatican for example ? Of course not. Religions, including Christianity has given us innumerable objects of immense historical value which no one wants to see destroyed ... except members of other religions.

And as for your comment about Buddhism getting more respect, I'm pretty sure Dawkins has no time for any supernatural beliefs whatsoever be that Christianity or Buddhism. But I personally do think there are things to be learned from religion including Christianity and Buddhism. For example, I have no time for any supernatural aspects of Christianity/Buddhism but I can understand (some of) the basic messages.

And finally, Buddhism is in a far different league to any of the Abrahamic religions. Some Buddhism is just as bad but many branches are as close to philosophical views as you can get and they are philosophy's everyone can agree with.

If you were to summarise Christianity and Buddhism;
Christianity is the worship of a jealous deity and the unquestioning obedience to him/her/it.
Buddhism is the struggle to extinguish suffering in the world and to understand existence yourself.

The Buddha said: “Do not accept what you hear by report. Be lamps unto yourselves.” He also told his followers: “Do not go by what is handed down, nor by the authority of your traditional teachings. When you know of yourselves, ‘These teachings are good or not good,' only then accept or reject them.”

The point in Buddhism is to be yourself. If a teaching makes sense to you, and it works in your life, then there is no reason why you shouldn't believe it.

If it doesn't work for you then no problem.

There are no rules in Buddhism, there is only a guide that worked for Buddha, you have to find your own way.

Fanny Cradock

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Okey dokey but before i do understand that Im not making any claim as to tyhe authenticity or otherwise of Christianity. This aint the place. Im just saying that if a religion is willing to draw its festivals and source material from older religions then naturally it will have no qualms in putting its mark on similarly older buildings, temples, statues etc.
Well. Many Christian holidays and days of note are superimposed over much older pagan festivals
Christmas happens at the same time as the winter solstice in celtic paganism
It happens at the same time as a Roman pagan festival - Attis was a son of the virgin Nana. His birth was celebrated on DEC-25. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about MAR-25, after being crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, as the solar deity for the new season. His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on "Black Friday," and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE...

Perhaps in future you should give links when you copy and paste from a different website.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_sel.htm

As you can see from the link there is only one reference given for the claims - The Woman's Encyclopaedia of Myths and Secrets (have a read of the reviews) by the same Barbara Walker who also wrote such titles as The craft of multicolour knitting. A quick glance at the supposed parallels relating to Attis don't even fit the legend. It seems that Walker is trying to convince us that Attis' death beneath a tree with Jesus' death on a "tree." They also try to connect Jesus' blood pouring from his wounds with Attis' blood flow caused by his auto-castration..

Did Constantine pick a date previously used by the pagans? Yes, but I don't need Barbara to tell me this. Is the date of Jesus birth mentioned in the bible? No.

Perhaps best for another thread. You can do a search on this forum under words like Horus, Osiris and Mithra to see previous discussions in a similar vein.

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

Explain away what?

Dawkins argument is that religion, in general, is detrimental. As 'evidence' of this he cites the fact that religion took away something that wouldn't have existed without religion.

Heading waaaaaaaaay off topic here which always seems to happen when jack arrives. I 'believe" that Dawkins is refering to the mindset people abopt in their competition to be 'the one true 'religion'. A mind set that excuses mutual destruction and malace toward others and their buildings, statues etc.

And besides. Though Im not religious I would find it detrimental to myself if a religious faction wandered into my town or village destroying churches, statues, relics etc etc in the name of Allah, Jehova, God, Yaweh, Buddah, Thor, Zeus, Spaghetti Monster etc regardless of whether these items would have existed without religion.

Ghost Buster

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps in future you should give links when you copy and paste from a different website.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_sel.htm

As you can see from the link there is only one reference given for the claims - The Woman's Encyclopaedia of Myths and Secrets (have a read of the reviews) by the same Barbara Walker who also wrote such titles as The craft of multicolour knitting. A quick glance at the supposed parallels relating to Attis don't even fit the legend. It seems that Walker is trying to convince us that Attis' death beneath a tree with Jesus' death on a "tree." They also try to connect Jesus' blood pouring from his wounds with Attis' blood flow caused by his auto-castration..

Did Constantine pick a date previously used by the pagans? Yes, but I don't need Barbara to tell me this. Is the date of Jesus birth mentioned in the bible? No.

Perhaps best for another thread. You can do a search on this forum under words like Horus, Osiris and Mithra to see previous discussions in a similar vein.

Why ask me to unpack it and then tell me to move it to another thread?
The original point still stands. Superimposing aspects of your religious calendar over those of another is pretty much the same as superimposing your magic symbols over those of another.
With the modern day appreciation of historical buildings and artifacts many (not all) cultures would now frown upon such practice.
Thats pretty much on topic.

philologos

monosharp wrote:

If you were to summarise Christianity and Buddhism;
Christianity is the worship of a jealous deity and the unquestioning obedience to him/her/it.
Buddhism is the struggle to extinguish suffering in the world and to understand existence yourself.

Christianity is pretty much the same in this respect. Christians seek to live according to God's will, rather than to trust the ways of the world which cause suffering to make this world a better place, and to seek for the hereafter.

Obedience to God, isn't meant to be oppressive, but liberating. I'd rather be obedient to God, than mere man any day.

I'd also find karma a very harsh aspect of Hinduism and Buddhism. The idea that you are deformed because of a bad past life is horrific, or that if bad things happen to you, you deserve it. Christianity recognises that bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people, but in the end people will be brought to justice.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity is pretty much the same in this respect. Christians seek to live according to God's will, rather than to trust the ways of the world which cause suffering to make this world a better place, and to seek for the hereafter.

And how is that the same as Buddhism ?

There are many many branches of Buddhism, I suggest you read a bit about it.

Obedience to God, isn't meant to be oppressive, but liberating. I'd rather be obedient to God, than mere man any day.

It doesn't matter if its oppressive or not, its still obedience. My point remains regardless of god's benevolence.

I'd also find karma a very harsh aspect of Hinduism and Buddhism. The idea that you are deformed because of a bad past life is horrific, or that if bad things happen to you, you deserve it. Christianity recognises that bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people, but in the end people will be brought to justice.

Karma is not a part of all Buddhism and neither are past lives, asI said before, please read upon it. And how can you consider karma harsh but 'you will go to hell if you don't follow me' not harsh ?

Fanny Cradock

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Why ask me to unpack it and then tell me to move it to another thread?
The original point still stands. Superimposing aspects of your religious calendar over those of another is pretty much the same as superimposing your magic symbols over those of another.
With the modern day appreciation of historical buildings and artifacts many (not all) cultures would now frown upon such practice.
Thats pretty much on topic.

I didn't tell to move it to another thread, I suggested that if you were going down the Christ-myth route - something I didn't anticipate - it might be better if it had it's own thread.

OK?

roger_pearse

I happened to see this post through Google groups, and I saw that it contained quite a bit of material about ancient history which is circulated on the web but is actually erroneous in fact. May I offer a few comments?

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Well. Many Christian holidays and days of note are superimposed over much older pagan festivals

This claim is widely made, I know, but it is rarely adequately referenced. Be very sceptical.

Christmas happens at the same time as the winter solstice in celtic paganism

I don't claim to know. But surely we may reasonably ask which ancient sources record what celtic paganism was? Or is this modern invention? Sadly there is quite a quantity of the latter going on.

It happens at the same time as a Roman pagan festival - Attis was a son of the virgin Nana. His birth was celebrated on DEC-25. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about MAR-25, after being crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, as the solar deity for the new season. His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on "Black Friday," and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE.

There is no connection recorded in antiquity between Attis and Dec. 25. Unfortunately the remainder of this paragraph is highly misleading and mostly wrong. It is quite extraordinary to talk about Attis, but not mention Cybele, for instance.

Here is the real myth of Attis:

Attis was the boyfriend of the Phrygian goddess Cybele. One day he went off and shagged a nymph; and Cybele found out. In a rage, she cursed him with madness. While "under the influence" he sat down under a tree -- probably a pine tree -- and chopped his willy off with a sharp stone. Then he died, as you tend to in a pre-antibiotic era. Then his missus calmed down, and decided that she missed him. So she went to Father Zeus and asked him to resurrect Attis. Zeus, no mean shagger himself, disapproved of the "adultery=castration" myth, and refused. The most he would do was preserve the body of Attis.

You will no doubt notice the many similarities with Jesus in that account.

There is a version of the myth in which Attis is resurrected. But it's a fake. It's recorded in 350 AD by Firmicus Maternus, at a time when pagan cults were coming under pressure. The cult of Attis was very degraded, and its devotees tried to evade the authorities by pretending that in reality they were just celebrating the sowing of the seed and the new crops. Maternus tells us this is fake, and points out why; and indeed no other source, before or after, says this, and it does violate rather the point of the myth above.

Attis was not born of a virgin. Only one myth records a birth, from a certain Nana, who ate a fruit over which a fertility god had wanked, and got pregnant. Her status is not stated anywhere. The very curious myth involved is not one that can be summarised briefly and involves Attis acting as a catamite.

Attis came to Rome with Cybele, and was an associated cult, and one frowned on by the Roman authorities. But there are no inscriptions to him as a god in pre-Christian times.

His body eaten? Not likely. Rose on a Sunday? Never rose at all. Solar deity? Not in any way. And so on. In other words, the stuff above is just rubbish.

I'm not attacking YOU, you understand? I'm sure you're repeating this in good faith. But ... can you see how badly someone has swindled you? It's grotesque.

Or a Greek festival - Dionysus is another savior-god whose birth was observed on DEC-25. He was worshipped throughout much of the Middle East as well. He had a center of worship in Jerusalem in the 1st century BCE. Some ancient coins have been found in Gaza with Dionysus on one side and JHWH (Jehovah) on the other. In later years, his flesh and blood were symbolically eaten in the form of bread and wine. He was viewed as the son of Zeus, the Father God.

I can't write another essay now, but this also is highly misleading, and mainly untrue. How can one write about a god of wine without even mentioning the fact?

Or Egyptian - Osiris is a savior-god who had been worshipped as far back as Neolithic times. "He was called Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods...the Resurrection and the Life, the Good shepherd...the god who 'made men and women be born again'" 5 Three wise men announced his birth. His followers ate cakes of wheat which symbolized his body. Many sayings associated with Osiris were taken over into the Bible. This included:
23rd Psalm: an appeal to Osiris as the good Shepherd to lead believers through the valley of the shadow of death and to green pastures and still waters

Lord's Prayer: "O amen, who art in heaven..."

Many parables attributed to Jesus.
Worship of Osiris, and celebration of his DEC-25 birth, were established throughout the Roman Empire by the end of the 1st century BCE

No ancient text associates Osiris with 25 Dec. All this stuff is rubbish, basically.

Persian - . Persian Pagan Religion: Mithra was a Persian savior. Worship of Mithra became common throughout the Roman Empire, particularly among the Roman civil service and military. Mithraism was a competitor of Christianity until the 4th century. Their god was believed to have been born on DEC-25, circa 500 BCE. His birth was witnessed by shepherds and by gift-carrying Magi. This was celebrated as the "Dies Natalis Solic Invite," The "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun." Some followers believed that he was born of a virgin. During his life, he performed many miracles, cured many illnesses, and cast out devils. He celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples. He ascended to heaven at the time of the spring equinox, about March 21.

Yet no ancient text associates Mithras with 25 Dec. Mithras had no defined birth date. His myth records only that he was born wearing a hat and carrying a dagger and a flame. He hunted the cosmic bull, which he dragged into a cave and killed. Then he made friends with Sol the sun god, shook hands, and they ate the bull. He was not associated with shepherds, he never died, never had 12 disciples, never had a last supper, never ascended to heaven (since he was never a man), and so on.

The Babylonians celebrated their "Victory of the Sun-God" Festival on DEC-25.

No idea, but you tell me!

Saturnalia (the Festival of Saturn) was celebrated from DEC-17 to 23 in the Roman Empire.

True. The "Saturnalia" of Macrobius among others tells us this.

The Roman Emperor Aurelian blended Saturnalia with a number of birth celebrations of savior Gods from other religions, into a single holy day: DEC-25.

No ancient text records any such thing. Saturnalia was celebrated into Byzantine times as the Brumalia, but not on 25 Dec.!

After much argument, the developing Christian church adopted this date as the birthday of their savior, Jesus. The people of the Roman Empire were accustomed to celebrating the birth of a God on that day. So, it was easy for the church to divert people's attention to Jesus' birth.

All modern invention, I'm afraid.

I hope that helps, and doesn't sound too negative? All this stuff stems from a book by someone calling themselves Acharya S, who plagiarised some of the most ignorant material put out by 19th century atheists such as Kersey Graves (for whom see the Internet Infidels website). But it's all rubbish.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

roger_pearse

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps in future you should give links when you copy and paste from a different website.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_sel.htm

This site, despite the name, seems to be a hate site.

As you can see from the link there is only one reference given for the claims - The Woman's Encyclopaedia of Myths and Secrets (have a read of the reviews) by the same Barbara Walker who also wrote such titles as The craft of multicolour knitting. A quick glance at the supposed parallels relating to Attis don't even fit the legend. It seems that Walker is trying to convince us that Attis' death beneath a tree with Jesus' death on a "tree." They also try to connect Jesus' blood pouring from his wounds with Attis' blood flow caused by his auto-castration..

Always nice to see someone reading critically.

Did Constantine pick a date previously used by the pagans? Yes,

Ah, they got you anyhow! Constantine has no association with Christmas. It wasn't an official festival in his time.

This is why this steady flood of poison is injurious to us all. None of us is well-enough educated to catch every single falsehood, and so it poisons our minds with nonsense.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Turtwig

@ Roger, you could have saved yourself alot of time by posting this video and telling people to watch it.

Then adding this :
IT'S MOSTLY PURE <CENSORED>ing SH1T MISLEADING AND DISHONEST PROPAGANDA LIES.

(Saves you the long post.)

roger_pearse

Malty_T wrote: »

@ Roger, you could have saved yourself alot of time by posting this video and telling people to watch it.

<zeitgeist>

Then adding this :
IT'S MOSTLY PURE <CENSORED>ing SH1T MISLEADING AND DISHONEST PROPAGANDA LIES.

(Saves you the long post.)

Thanks for the thought, (I haven't looked at the video, but presume this is something to do with the Zeitgeist move?) but I imagine the explanation was probably more useful to most people tho.

After all, if someone tells me something is rubbish, I'd want to have some idea of *why* it is rubbish. A lot of people would say "this is rubbish" and mean only "this is something I don't like." Whereas what I mean is that the material is factually untrue, regardless of the issues of opinion and religion involved.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ghost Buster

Hi. In reply to Roger Pearse post 53 (Sorry. Its a huge post and i dont want to get bogged down into all of it)
(1) Discrediting of texts mentioned (More on that in a mo') may or may not be valid but as solar / solstice events take place at New Grange, Nowth, Stone Henge and countless monuments which pre date Christianity I dont think there can be any arguement that Christian festivals were imposed over more ancient festivals. Easter and halloween are other examples.
All I am drawing from this is an analogy between this practice and the defacing or asymilation of temples, statues etc of other religions. The topic of this chat.
(2) I didnt source that material from the web. It is from notes / print outs of a friend of mine for a thesis she is writing and I had no source notes to hand. Dammit it would have saved me a lot of typing!!!!:)
But by pure co-incidence there was a chap interviewed on Sean Moncrief / Newstalk today. I didnt catch his name but i will look into it. He is a Professor of some ilk. He has just published a book on the evolution of religion and described christianity,as a result of his research, as a fusion / construct of aspects of many other religions popular in the day. He didnt elaborate on this too much so I will try to source the book.

(3) Dont you think that getting into the whole area of dodgy source material and interpretation of ancient texts is ill advised when the Bible has pretty much been resigned to the Fantasy/Ficton or Political Propaganda sections

Excelsior

Ghost Buster wrote: »

(3) Dont you think that getting into the whole area of dodgy source material and interpretation of ancient texts is ill advised when the Bible has pretty much been resigned to the Fantasy/Ficton or Political Propaganda sections

can we add something to the charter to rule this ignorance out of bounds? ironically, it will be the scriptures themselves that provide a basis for coptic christians (bringing this back on topic) to actually refrain from molesting archeological sites in the future.

but such realisations would involve attributing a sincerity and nuance to believers and a legitimacy to their Scriptures that would puncture the thing ghost buster seems to prize most highly: his utter sense of superiority

PDN

Excelsior wrote: »

can we add something to the charter to rule this ignorance out of bounds?

No need to add anything. I think the existing Charter already covers such muppetry.

roger_pearse

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Hi. In reply to Roger Pearse post 53 (Sorry. Its a huge post and i dont want to get bogged down into all of it)

:-) But the original post to which I responded was pretty huge, and I did my best to be brief.

(1) Discrediting of texts mentioned (More on that in a mo') may or may not be valid but as solar / solstice events take place at New Grange, Nowth, Stone Henge and countless monuments which pre date Christianity I dont think there can be any arguement that Christian festivals were imposed over more ancient festivals.

Your first point first! I have no interest in discrediting ancient and medieval texts; on the contrary, since I am interested in ancient history. Instead, what I want to see is statements properly referenced against them. The problem with all that stuff about Attis and Mithras etc is that it is contradicted by the texts, and is merely modern hearsay. I just don't see how -- regardless of our opinions -- that is any good for any of us.

Your statement about "events take place at New Grange, Nowth, Stone Henge and countless monuments which pre date Christianity" is a little odd. There is no continuous tradition of celebration at Stonehenge; it was all invented in the last 50 years. So I don't see how this could be evidence of anything -- sorry! Nor do I see the connection with Christmas, which we get from the Graeco-Roman world, not the forgotten peoples of prehistory. But perhaps I misunderstand your argument?

Easter and halloween are other examples.

Um, first you say my post is too long, now you add 6 vague words that would require pages to examine? Come, this won't do.

All I am drawing from this is an analogy between this practice and the defacing or asymilation of temples, statues etc of other religions. The topic of this chat.

I was ignoring that, and just dealing with the Attis/Mithras/etc stuff. I think the argument is ill-defined, tho. To be clear what the church did in whatever circumstances, one would have to look at the source texts on the end of paganism, surely?

(2) I didnt source that material from the web. It is from notes / print outs of a friend of mine for a thesis she is writing and I had no source notes to hand. Dammit it would have saved me a lot of typing!!!!:)

Whatever the source, it's factually wrong, and crudely so. I'm very sorry, but it is, and if you research it a bit you'll find plenty of people groaning about it.

He has just published a book on the evolution of religion and described christianity,as a result of his research, as a fusion / construct of aspects of many other religions popular in the day. He didnt elaborate on this too much so I will try to source the book.

Surely the only evidence we need to see is the quotations from the church fathers recording the process he asserts took place? If there are none, then he has no evidence for his claim.

You don't have to spend much time going through the early Christian writers and their heresiologies to learn that the early Christians, like modern ones, were hostile to paganism. They're all online; give it a go yourself.

(3) Dont you think that getting into the whole area of dodgy source material and interpretation of ancient texts is ill advised when the Bible has pretty much been resigned to the Fantasy/Ficton or Political Propaganda sections

A curious argument indeed: you believe that the bible is fiction, you believe that most of the world thinks so, and so you say that no Christian is allowed to comment on even the grossest forgeries? Rather a hateful demand, that one, surely. Where are you repeating it from, out of curiosity?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ghost Buster

roger_pearse wrote: »

:-) But the original post to which I responded was pretty huge, and I did my best to be brief.



Your first point first! I have no interest in discrediting ancient and medieval texts; on the contrary, since I am interested in ancient history. Instead, what I want to see is statements properly referenced against them. The problem with all that stuff about Attis and Mithras etc is that it is contradicted by the texts, and is merely modern hearsay. I just don't see how -- regardless of our opinions -- that is any good for any of us.

Your statement about "events take place at New Grange, Nowth, Stone Henge and countless monuments which pre date Christianity" is a little odd. There is no continuous tradition of celebration at Stonehenge; it was all invented in the last 50 years. So I don't see how this could be evidence of anything -- sorry! Nor do I see the connection with Christmas, which we get from the Graeco-Roman world, not the forgotten peoples of prehistory. But perhaps I misunderstand your argument?



Um, first you say my post is too long, now you add 6 vague words that would require pages to examine? Come, this won't do.



I was ignoring that, and just dealing with the Attis/Mithras/etc stuff. I think the argument is ill-defined, tho. To be clear what the church did in whatever circumstances, one would have to look at the source texts on the end of paganism, surely?



Whatever the source, it's factually wrong, and crudely so. I'm very sorry, but it is, and if you research it a bit you'll find plenty of people groaning about it.



Surely the only evidence we need to see is the quotations from the church fathers recording the process he asserts took place? If there are none, then he has no evidence for his claim.

You don't have to spend much time going through the early Christian writers and their heresiologies to learn that the early Christians, like modern ones, were hostile to paganism. They're all online; give it a go yourself.



A curious argument indeed: you believe that the bible is fiction, you believe that most of the world thinks so, and so you say that no Christian is allowed to comment on even the grossest forgeries? Rather a hateful demand, that one, surely. Where are you repeating it from, out of curiosity?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I didnt claim that ceremonial event have been happening at the prechristian monuments for thousands of years. I meant that, in New Grange for example at every summer solstice the sun enters the light box and illuminates the inner chamber. This happens in many places. It happens in late Dec. Where christmas now happens.