Will you still go to mass on sunday?

MagicMarker

roger_pearse wrote: »

All you're doing is repeating hearsay, unchecked, and with the utmost certainty that it must be true.

Sounds familiar.

partyatmygaff

Malty_T wrote: »

If you care about it, why do you want to dodge it?

I have an irish exam on monday, Jack and fheabas a gheobsda won't learn themselves. :pac:

MagicMarker wrote: »

Sounds familiar.

No it doesn't. I never did claim anything is the utmost unquestionable truth unlike you and pookie and the other people debating this have said, You are proclaiming that your opinion is the utmost unquestionable truth. I was merely stating my opinion that I have formed from studying it.

Turtwig

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I have an irish exam on monday, Jack and fheabas a gheobsda won't learn themselves. :pac:

Ahh but this is more important than defending the church from the anger people will irrationally direct at it anyways.
C'mon Free will!:)

MagicMarker

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No it doesn't. I never did claim anything is the utmost unquestionable truth unlike you and pookie and the other people debating this have said, You are proclaiming that your opinion is the utmost unquestionable truth. I was merely stating my opinion that I have formed from studying it.

Chill out, the comment wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at religion as a whole.

You can study something all you want, it doesn't make it true.

partyatmygaff

MagicMarker wrote: »

Chill out, the comment wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at religion as a whole.

You can study something all you want, it doesn't make it true.

Truth and opinion are not the same thing, I formed an opinion from studying it and it may or may not be true in reality but I believe it is true.

No one knows the truth 100% therefore all we can do is study it to form our opinions and attempt to find truth for ourselves.

Malty_T wrote: »

Ahh but this is more important than defending the church from the anger people will irrationally direct at it anyways.
C'mon Free will!

Bhuel, ba mhaith leat chun díospóireacht as gaeilge? :pac:

dvpower

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I refer you to the fact I don't particularly care about some youtube video.
I care about the true meaning of free will, it does not change by context.

I don't want to keep talking about free will or whatever now so leave it be.

No problem - that's your choice
(but now I'm going to, em, burn your car as a consequence of that choice;))

partyatmygaff

dvpower wrote: »

No problem - that's your choice
(but now I'm going to, em, burn your car as a consequence of that choice;))

Fair enough, I like my cars nice and crispy anyway, more bite to it that way.

pookie82

roger_pearse wrote: »

Erm, you studied "near eastern mythology for a few years", did you?

Or did you just repeat this, unchecked, from some nameless bit of hearsay?

Please ... don't pretend to learning you don't possess, in order to intimidate others. If you want to claim that Christians adopted certain doctrines because they borrowed them, knowingly, from somewhere else, you have to offer evidence, in the form of ancient statements of them so doing. Since this is rubbish -- you know how hostile Christians are to paganism -- it wouldn't be possible. Somewhere in the hearsay you read is the fallacy "similarity proves connection and derivation". It doesn't, even if made rather better than this.



This is not how syncretism works, and Christianity is not syncretic. On the contrary, as you will find out if you try to worship Jupiter in a Catholic church. The pagans, on the other hand, were prepared to treat God as Jupiter.



It is a pity that you claim to have looked up Mithras. In what, I wonder?

1. There is no "birthday" for Mithras recorded in any ancient source.
2. Mithras was born from a ROCK. Indeed "Rock-born" is one of his epithets.
3. Mithras never had "followers", 12, 1 or otherwise. The guy who made this story up -- to con the gullible and unwary -- saw a depiction of Mithras surrounded by the zodiac and presumed this was "12 followers".



Indeed; it's just listing some of the events of Christ and asserting that they belong to Mithras. But ... however much you want to believe this, did you never hear the phrase "too good to be true"?

Why not look up the Roman deity Mithras yourself? You know, it was rather dishonest to pretend you ever did so. Don't do that.



Quite poetic, but I suspect that you have never done what you are advising others to do! Nor do you actually make whatever argument you're making here, relying on insinuation. Naughty naughty!



You do seem very certain that all this material -- factually rubbish -- is true. Why not research it? See if you can find the texts in the early fathers where they discuss making up doctrines because the pagans believe them? You will find it difficult, but in the process you might acquire some knowledge of how the early Christians REALLY thought. It's not very different to how modern ones, do, as you might expect; the modern ones are apeing the ancient ones.



And if you don't want to, because "do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc" are inconvenient, you will be no different to those in power who decide what we all should think. Good luck with it.



Yet haven't you just done the same? You haven't researched a line of this, as far as I can see. All you're doing is repeating hearsay, unchecked, and with the utmost certainty that it must be true.

You know, I think you owe the forum an apology. Don't do this sort of thing. Argue for your beliefs, by all means; but honestly.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yes i did study near eastern mythology for a few years. I have papers to prove it if you want me to send you photocopies.

My thesis was largely dedicated to syncretism and Christianity borrowed heavily from many of the religions it sought to overtake. Read up about the goddess Tonantzin that i mentioned earlier. There are records of Christian priests writing letters in which they give out about the old goddess continuing to be celebrated in the guise of the Virgin they tried to enforce upon the community. It doesn't take a genuis to figure out that Christmas - which we celebrate in December - was hijacked from ancient pagan festivals, just as all souls day was - nicely slotted into Halloween. These are only the glaringly obvious ones.

Please don't even attempt to infer that Christianity operated completely outside of the laws of syncretism. Utterly ridiculous. All you have to do is read about the ancient Sumerian flood myths, study the dying and rising again traditions of Demeter and Persephone, Adonis, Ishtar, Inanna and the wealth that prevail in Egyptian mythology to see that that is wishful thinking at best.

I would imagine that my supervisor would have pulled me up very quickly on there being no glaring instances of syncretism in Christianity - in fact it was the easiest religion to use as an example. It was more difficult to portray concrete traces of it on Greek cults from the east.

So yes, I have read up on it, in fact I studied it for a number of years in detail, and to suggest that Christianity sprung up uniquely from the mouth of god is bloody hilarious. I know priests who would wilfully admit that the Christian church amalgamated heavily from the religions it sought to overtake. It's common sense.

But I wish you well in your desire to remain completely blinkered. Good luck with that.

roger_pearse

It's really interesting seeing all these posts. It's certainly opened my eyes.

You see, I was under the impression that the child abuse was carried out by clerics, and covered up by a gang of some other clerics. As I understood it, some of these other clerics were perverts like the first ones.

I also understood that quite a lot of people at the time didn't really believe that such abuse went on; and everyone knows that teachers, clergy, etc, get a lot of false accusations even today. So I sort of supposed that lots of these other clerics doing the cover up were innocently supposing that these were probably false accusations -- they didn't have an inquisition to tell them -- and just trying to avoid scandals probably not based on fact.

Boy was I wrong! Apparently NONE of these people were guilty!!!! It was the CHURCH itself that was guilty! It wasn't the pervert priest who did wrong, it was the poverty-stricken pensioner old ladies in the congregation, it was the ordinary folk going to mass, it was the village postman who did his confession once a year if that.

Well, that IS a revelation! So these are the guilty ones!? Well, I'd never realised pensioners could be responsible for Ireland-wide events like this, but I am convinced. Yes, they must accept responsibility, and yes, they must pay whatever sums are demanded as "compensation" to anyone who comes along and claims to have taken it up the ass from Father O'Bendy in 1944.

But the important thing is that the ordinary pensioner and churchgoer is guilty.

After all, when you get a pervert schoolteacher, he's the one who goes to prison. It isn't the SCHOOL that is held responsible. The media all talk about the man, not the institution, because realistically the institution can't catch every one, or if it could, it would be like a borstal. That's quite right. But obviously in the case of the CHURCH it WAS the ordinary churchgoer who was responsible; and quite rightly he should pay and pay and pay.

I suppose, just to be fair, we ought to prosecute the pervert priests as well? Or, is that too extreme? After all, they could claim that they were just expressing their sexuality. There are gay pressure groups campaigning to lower the age of consent to 14. Do we want to prosecute men who are just a bit in advance of their time? Or would it be right, except that the perverts are wearing clerical clothes? It's so difficult to say, in these politically correct days.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
(Seriously: I think those really responsible should be brought before a court without delay or excuses. None of this trial-by-media crap).

Turtwig

roger_pearse wrote: »

After all, when you get a pervert schoolteacher, he's the one who goes to prison. It isn't the SCHOOL that is held responsible. The media all talk about the man, not the institution, because realistically the institution can't catch every one, or if it could, it would be like a borstal. That's quite right. But obviously in the case of the CHURCH it WAS the ordinary churchgoer who was responsible; and quite rightly he should pay and pay and pay.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
(Seriously: I think those really responsible should be brought before a court without delay or excuses. None of this trial-by-media crap).

Are you trying to rationalise the blatant attempts at cover-up by certain members of clergy?

Using your "schoolteacher" analogy, if the school lied about it when confronted and tried to ensure nobody ever found out about it would you still say the school board shouldn't be held in part accountable?

Turtwig

roger_pearse wrote: »

There are gay pressure groups campaigning to lower the age of consent to 14.

Really who?

philologos

pookie82: It is correct that Mithras was believed to have been born as a fully grown man from a rock. Zeitgeist has been well and truly refuted. There is no comparison between Mithras and Jesus Christ worth talking about.

Even if there were, all the texts of Mithraism post date Christianity. It is possible that plagiarism could have occurred the other way around, Mithraism copying Christianity.

The same is true of Horus and Osiris, we have no evidence of any texts that pre-date Christianity.

Edit: If you want to send a copy of your thesis to me please PM me, I'd be interested in reading what you've found.

pookie82

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: If you want to send a copy of your thesis to me please PM me, I'd be interested in reading what you've found.

Sure, i don't have it in electronic copy anymore cos my laptop ate it but i could easily send on the chapter on syncretism at some stage by scanning/retyping it. I can send on a bibliography of the sources I used too. My hard copy is at home but I can get it in a week. The bibliography will have all of the texts I used to back up any argument.

The main work concentrated on the syncretism of near eastern religion into Greek cults and the christianity came into it when I wanted to look elsewhere for other successful examples of seamless syncretism.

Like I said, the religions of the near east had flood myths and countless dying and resurrection myths long before Christianity did. It was a really fascinating topic. It taught me a lot about religions and the way they work as a whole.

roger_pearse

pookie82 wrote: »

Yes i did study near eastern mythology for a few years. I have papers to prove it if you want me to send you photocopies.

I'd rather you displayed some evidence of knowledge of it!

My thesis was largely dedicated to syncretism

Yet you show no knowledge of what syncretism is...

and Christianity borrowed heavily from many of the religions it sought to overtake.

I notice you snipped my challenge to provide the references in the Fathers for this borrowing, where they talk about doing it! <smile>

Read up about the goddess Tonantzin that i mentioned earlier.

Friend, if you offer, as evidence for your claim that Christian doctrine was derived from paganism, some statements about Catholicism in MEXICO, you may wish to know that in the first century AD, and indeed throughout late antiquity, the new world was undiscovered.

It is remarkable to meet someone with THAT hazy a grasp of history (or logic).

It doesn't take a genuis to figure out that Christmas - which we celebrate in December - was hijacked from ancient pagan festivals

So it seems. But it does take an educated man to require evidence, rather than supposition, which is all you offer. This also indicates lack of education on your part, you know! It would have to be a very crap college not to teach people to look for facts, rather than "figure out" something.

The origins of the celebration of Christmas on 25 Dec. are complex, and little is actually known for sure of how it came to be situated on that date, because no-one in antiquity in the early 4th century says so.

We have the letter of Pope Gregory I to St. Augustine of Canterbury in which he tells the latter to site churches on top of pagan temples in England, so that the converted pagans' habit of going to the temple will take them to church rather than away from it. So the church was entirely willing to compete with pagan festivals and obliterate them by overlaying them with something else. This approach was continued later. Whether this always worked might be questionable, and as you rightly say, in some cases Saint's cults display definite signs of pre-Christian attitudes. But the church did not adopt the pagan god; it tried to obliterate him. Again, read Gregory's letter -- it's online -- if you want to argue.

Please don't even attempt to infer that Christianity operated completely outside of the laws of syncretism. Utterly ridiculous.

I'm afraid that rhetoric is not a reply. Stick to facts.

All you have to do is read about the ancient Sumerian flood myths, study the dying and rising again traditions of Demeter and Persephone, Adonis, Ishtar, Inanna and the wealth that prevail in Egyptian mythology to see that that is wishful thinking at best.

The vagueness of these comments tells me that you're reading that hearsay again. Please... don't make claims, the truth of which is unknown to you.

Let's start with Adonis. Tabulate the ancient sources that give his myth, and let's see what they say. That will be facts, and we will all learn something from it. But I suspect you would rather assert than investigate, you see. This is commonplace when people trot out this one.

You see, all you're doing here is repeating a degenerate version of J.G.Frazer's "corn king" idea. Most people have come across this, you know?

But YOUR claim is that the early Christians borrowed this, and dressed Jesus up in it. THAT you have to prove, and you won't be able to, because it isn't true. The church is hostile to pagan teachings.

I would imagine that my supervisor would have pulled me up very quickly on there being no glaring instances of syncretism in Christianity - in fact it was the easiest religion to use as an example.

And he told you Mithras was born of a virgin, eh? Where DID you claim to go to college again? Who precisely are you claiming endorses these absurd claims? <smile> If you persist with this claim, I'm afraid we will all start to make fun of you.

You see, you have again indicated your utter unfamiliarity with pagan mythology, by the way in which you discuss it. This is why your claims are being treated with a smile. No-one would call Christianity "the best example" of ancient syncretism! (If you knew even a little more about late antique religion, you'd realise that people reading what you say are laughing at you!).

Please ... don't repeat hearsay as fact. And don't foul yourself by claims that your own posts discredit. How does that help you? I don't demand you prove to me that you are the professor of ancient history at Cambridge, you know (or whatever you choose to claim). I only demand that, if you post these sorts of statements, that they are factual and verifiable. Is that too much to ask?

It was more difficult to portray concrete traces of it on Greek cults from the east.

By accident last night I was reading about Jupiter Dolichenus and researching all the sources for our knowledge of this cult. As you say, it must be terribly, terribly difficult to perceive concrete traces of syncretism in 2nd century paganism. Or perhaps not...

So yes, I have read up on it, in fact I studied it for a number of years in detail, and to suggest that Christianity sprung up uniquely from the mouth of god is bloody hilarious. I know priests who would wilfully admit that the Christian church amalgamated heavily from the religions it sought to overtake. It's common sense.

I have to doubt you ever studied a line of it, Mr. Anonymous Poster; you display not the slightest familiarity with the subject.

But I wish you well in your desire to remain completely blinkered. Good luck with that.

The blinkers would seem to be yours, since you meet reasoned statements with rhetoric and vague claims to authority. Good luck with believing stuff merely because it's convenient! And ... it does you no good to end with an ad hominem argument. You don't know me, and to claim that I am blinkered because I expect evidence rather than rhetoric does you no favours.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

roger_pearse

Malty_T wrote: »

Really who?

This may help:

http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/consent%20at%2014.htm

roger_pearse

Malty_T wrote: »

Are you trying to rationalise the blatant attempts at cover-up by certain members of clergy?

Sole purpose of writing, of course.

Please stop beating your wife.

Using your "schoolteacher" analogy, if the school lied about it when confronted and tried to ensure nobody ever found out about it would you still say the school board shouldn't be held in part accountable?

Not at bit, and they should be.

But they never are. When did you last hear the minister of education taking responsibility for such things? Ever?

roger_pearse

Jakkass wrote: »

pookie82: It is correct that Mithras was believed to have been born as a fully grown man from a rock. Zeitgeist has been well and truly refuted. There is no comparison between Mithras and Jesus Christ worth talking about.

I'd forgotten that wretched movie. I really don't see who benefits from this outpouring of rubbish. We're all entitled to our religious opinions (unless the government says otherwise, of course, and says they are "hate" of some favoured group), but surely we all want the right raw facts?

The Mithras=Jesus idea really derives from a statement in Justin Martyr, that the ritual meal of Mithras known to him was a mockery of the Christian communion. This probably refers to some local event. All the rest of the fairy-story is built on that.

Even if there were, all the texts of Mithraism post date Christianity. It is possible that plagiarism could have occurred the other way around, Mithraism copying Christianity.

There is evidence of the influence of gnosticism on the cult of Mithras in the late 2nd century.

Syncretism with Orphic ideas is present in Mithraic reliefs, which sometimes depict Phanes and the cosmic egg.

But it is really a great mistake to see Mithras as a religion. It was merely one deity within paganism.

The same is true of Horus and Osiris, we have no evidence of any texts that pre-date Christianity.

That can't be right! Ancient Egypt is running for millennia before Christ. But I suspect you mean that whatever rubbishy accusations of similarity are around don't predate 30 AD. That's probably so, although I have difficulty getting people peddling this idea to be specific. But a lot of our knowledge of Greek mythology derives from late antique sources anyway.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

thebman

brummytom wrote: »

Yes I will.

In the same way I'd visit Germany, take a tour of Parliament or look around the site of the Boston Tea Party.


Things happened in the past. Terrible, despicable, inexcusable things. But that was the past. It has no place in the present.

The church of the time should be ridiculed for what happened, but not, per se, the church of today.

I understand the majority of posters here won't agree, but it's just my opinion

Hang on the modern fookers are still covering it up and refusing to admit responsibility for what the organisation did in the past.

Guilty by association IMO. They'll defend their organisation and its sins to the death. Well let them but they won't have any support from me.

Biggins

What ever happened to staying on topic?
Mods, any chance we can we get back to the main theme of the thread before Jakkass steals another thread with a moralistic lecture from his pulpit?

Nerin

Biggins wrote: »

What ever happened to staying on topic?
Mods, any chance we can we get back to the main theme of the thread before Jakkass steals another thread with a moralistic lecture from his pulpit?

use the report post button, it sends a mail to all mods of the forum. edit-reported for you. edit2-i didn't realise you edited your original post to include jakkass

philologos

Biggins wrote: »

What ever happened to staying on topic?
Mods, any chance we can we get back to the main theme of the thread before Jakkass steals another thread with a moralistic lecture from his pulpit?

I am no more on a pulpit than anyone else expressing their opinion that God does not exist based on this.

It is a discussion, not a one way anger fuelled rant. As such I am as entitled to my view as anyone else.

TheZohanS

Biggins wrote: »

What ever happened to staying on topic?
Mods, any chance we can we get back to the main theme of the thread before Jakkass steals another thread with a moralistic lecture from his pulpit?

Staying on topic would mean everyone posts a Yes/No answer.

And Jakkass has as much right to express his views here as anyone else. He posts what he believes in and I have yet to come across him taking a swipe at any user.

Leave him alone.

Biggins

We have gone way, way off topic from "will you still go to mass on Sunday" to digging up history about:

eastern mythology
syncretism
the goddess Tonantzin
records of Christian priests writing letters
...and so on and on!

If thats not way off topic on a contentious issue, I don't know what is?

Others would like to add posts including myself on the topic named in the title - however its not possible when threads go so far off topic, its blommin' hard to see the main original theme!

philologos

Is that solely my fault Biggins?

I am only here to try and represent my view in a calm manner, hopefully engaging in some interesting banter with people that will give me food for thought for the next few days.

Min

I will be going to mass tomorrow, I enjoy mass and the report does not change that.

projectmayhem

brummytom wrote: »

Yes I will.

In the same way I'd visit Germany, take a tour of Parliament or look around the site of the Boston Tea Party.


Things happened in the past. Terrible, despicable, inexcusable things. But that was the past. It has no place in the present.

The church of the time should be ridiculed for what happened, but not, per se, the church of today.

I understand the majority of posters here won't agree, but it's just my opinion

I understand what you're saying here but do you really believe there is a lot of new blood on the pulpits around Ireland?

I imagine most priests giving sermons tomorrow were around back then, aware of what was going on and possibly even part-taking in the abuse scandals.

The difference between these scumbags and nazis is that the nazis were taken down, removed from power and where applicable, tried for their crimes. Why should the catholic church be any different? Once these scumbags are tried and removed from their positions of power, and everything is uncovered, properly, then maybe we can start considering church's a sacred place. Until then, they're still shielding these animals from justice.

roger_pearse

projectmayhem wrote: »

The difference between these scumbags and nazis is that the nazis were taken down, removed from power and where applicable, tried for their crimes. Why should the catholic church be any different? Once these scumbags are tried and removed from their positions of power, and everything is uncovered, properly, then maybe we can start considering church's a sacred place. Until then, they're still shielding these animals from justice.

Quite right. Or as Goering said, "that German Jewry shall, as punishment for their abominable crimes etc., etc., have to make a contribution of 1 billion. That'll work. The pigs won't commit another murder. Incidentally, I'd like to say again that I would not like to be a Jew in Germany."

Would that work for you?

Biggins

Jakkass wrote: »

Is that solely my fault Biggins?

I am only here to try and represent my view in a calm manner, hopefully engaging in some interesting banter with people that will give me food for thought for the next few days.

Nope, not sole your fault but when eastern mythology, syncretism and the goddess Tonantzin (the last three alone never mind the previous rest!) are thrown in to a subject thread that is about something else entirely and fundamentally basic, the main theme of a thread is totally gone and the main posters are completely lost on the rest of the thread.

I don't think thats fair on the rest of us. I reserve the right to be wrong on this of course!

Jimmy Bottlehead

People arguing over things that aren't real. Excellent.

And no, until you can PROVE these claims they remain untrue. If our courts operated like religious people think, then we'd all be guilty before being proven innocent.

Oh wait Wasn't there some Spanish Inquisition thingy that did that.....?:pac:

g5fd6ow0hseima

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

People arguing over things that aren't real. Excellent.

And no, until you can PROVE these claims they remain untrue. If our courts operated like religious people think, then we'd all be guilty before being proven innocent.

Oh wait Wasn't there some Spanish Inquisition thingy that did that.....?:pac:

Exactly.

Religious people are the most gullible people on the planet. The worst thing is that, due to its prominence, religion is not seen as brainwashing. To add to that, the Irish are quite weak and feeble, willing to believe anything - hence why catholicism took such a firm root in this country. And yet youll hear Irish people shout proudly that were not a group of people to be ****ed with - brilliant

Most of those idiots who continue to attend that filthy institution every sunday will be the first people to laugh at the likes of scientology or the mormon faith...