Thou shall not suffer a witch to live
POSTED BY: SimonWho
UPDATED: Monday, December 5, 2022 19:41
VIEWED: 25190
PAGE 9 of 11
Quote:
Also, what about some of the adoptions of pagan holidays for Christian observances?
None of those matter do they? When peopel claim that Jesus was wither a myth base don earlier pagan myths, or, to his credit, accept he was real but htink hsi life was embellished with stories of pagan gods, they arne't talkign abiut later appelations to the Christyain Faith, but Jeuss of Nazareth and the core narrative of Christendom.
Even if 100% of all later Holidays where taken form Paganism (Thwy wheren't) this doens't mean that Christianity itself emerged from Paganism, as it is claimed, or that the Doctirnes of Christianity are Inherantly Pagan.
Christ was born in the spring and resurrected in the spring, I recall, but Christmas is celebrated around the winter solstice.
Not exaclty. The Winter SOlsctice is the 21st of December, not the 22nd. (Many claim the sun god died and was ressurected three days later hence CHistmas, Im covvering bases here.)
CHrustmas was, indeed, a Pagan Holiday originally, but the reason for it beign changed is not what you commonly fidn on the old Internet. CHristaisn didnt steal a Pagan Holiday to lure pagans into the fold, and it had nothign to do with sun gods or Mithras.
CHristians where mainly slaves in the ROman Empire. Those not enslaved where generlaly poor. But, durign the great festival of Saternalia held in midwinter, Slaves where temproarily freed and all persecutiosn ceased, so all citexens of the Empire codl honour and worhsip Saturn, the god who brogt Civilisaiton to mankind!
Of coruse, Christians did not want to worhsip Saturn, but had the itme off. THey created, for their own community, an alternative Holiday.
Christmas wa snot Celibated durign the firts three centuries of CHristendom though, and doesn't pove that Christainity grew out of a hodgpodge of Pagan thought.
Or what about All Saint's Day overlapping common harvest festivals, but never quite removing all of the symbolism of autumn being a transition towards winter, paralleling life moving towards death and an uncertain afterlife?
Actually, All Saitns Days Hisotry is not qhat yo htink. It falls after Halloween. It was a pure creation fo the CHurhc to follow the Pagan Holiday, which the Pagans htoguht evil spirits roamed the Earth. The Christaisn in Celtic Britain ( Really the only palce Haloween was celebrated) just asusmed these where Demons, and sanctified the day after it.
By the way, before it smentioend, EWaster was not a Pagan Holiday at all, and was actulaly celibrated by the Early Church.
The old story that it develope doput of Oestera and her fertility rites, compellte with Hare and Eggs, is not true.
It develope doff the Chruch commemorating the Ressurection, which happened to coincide with Passover. Hence why Easter always falls on the First Sunday after the First Full moon after the Vernal Equinox. The Firts Full Moon after the Vernam Equinox is Passover.
I soemhow doubt he Pagans who worhsipped Oestera where interested in Jewish Calendric celebrations.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My main issue here is the possible liability schools might face if minorities felt that a religion was being supported over another religion. Or a religious sect over another religious sect, as it may be. I think some separation and secularism is necessary for diverse groups to remain functional when thrown together.
However, if a particular community were are all in agreement and all members had one similar religion, I think then there are absolutely some benefits to being less secular. I believe that culture, local flavour, and regional differences are something to be respected and appreciated. In a community where everyone is Christian, by all means PUT IN creationism into the science classroom, or heck, teach directly out of genesis for all I care. I've also come to understand that I have no jurisdiction over homeschooling and private schools, and not to look down on those forms of education. Unless it's a private school reinforcing the privilege of upper class brats. Then screw 'em.
Unlike most humanists, the last thing I want is some bland autocratic world government turning us all into identical machines while blaring some hokey message about us being beautiful unique snowflakes. 9_9 Yeah, right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You jumped to a lot of conclusions about what I'm asking here. I never once did claim that Christianity is pagan, or has pagan roots. Clearly, Christianity comes from Judaism.
There are sometimes archetypes, and creatures, and things that may have been borrowed from one religion to another all around the world, but I think that is more because the human mind works in symbols, and that symbols and memes can spread, more than any intentional effort.
I asked about the root of each holiday, because my understanding was that the Christian holidays were created to give alternatives to the pagan holidays occurring around the same time. And because Christianity eventually won out, so to did the Christian holidays, but Christian holidays came to include some of the more popular festive practices of the associated pagan holiday. I was seeing if what you thought roughly meshed with what I thought. It mostly does, like your comments about Christmas and Saturnalia. I see Easter and the rabbit and eggs thing being similar. I guess I forgot about All Saint's falling the day after Halloween. Although I think you may be mistaken about that only being a Britain and colonies thing, I know that Spanish speaking countries all have a version of All Saint's Day. Think it might be because there were Gauls in Spain. :)
I made no arguments about dates, or deaths of Sun Gods, or anything like that. I wasn't even AWARE of those arguments.
Although, I am aware of arguments about Satan, and the adaption of certain pagan Gods as demons or Satan himself within the mythology of Judaism and Christianity. Any insights on that?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zarove- I have been a teacher of students with disabilities for over a decade.
Yes slowing down will help you produce a more legible work despite dyslexia. Also it might help you to use a different color when posting that provides a lower contrast ratio to help your focal adjustment. Adaptive spell check specifically for dyslexia and dysgraphia is available on most microsoft products and if you contact them with some record of your diagnosis they can provide that to you at a lower cost.
To love someone is to see a miracle invisible to others.
--Francois Mauriac
It's fuzzy-minded liberal thinking like that that gets you eaten.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My main issue here is the possible liability schools might face if minorities felt that a religion was being supported over another religion. Or a religious sect over another religious sect, as it may be. I think some separation and secularism is necessary for diverse groups to remain functional when thrown together.
I dont mind Secularism, so long as its actually the old definition.
But as I said, this isnt what is happening wiht Secular Humanism. Instead of beign Religiously neutral, the schools teahc rather blatantly the ideals as found in the Humanist Manifestos. ( they dont mention the Manifestos, but do teach the same principles and ideals.)
So, the schools aren't being neutral, they are imposing one religious viewppoint onto their students, and refusing to allow any other.
This is what I've complained about. (An dmroe about the attempt by Secular Humanists, they havent gotten it in all the way.They just want it in, as for the militant sects anyway.)
it is just as wrong to promote Secular Humanism as it woudl be to promote aby others. They get by with it by claimign its not a Religion, so they can create a monopoly.
It slike listening to that idiot Dawkisn say we should make religious insturction illegal for those uner 16, then tellign us we shoudl teach them "Science". (By which he means his own Humanist Philosophy. He goes on to describe it.)
Its essentially a way of preventing other ideas in for consideration.
As for me, Id just teach them all, neutrlaly, rather than try to remove them. Broaden education dont truncate it. Better to expose young minds to the diverse religions and hwo they think rather than to shunt them off.
However, if a particular community were are all in agreement and all members had one similar religion, I think then there are absolutely some benefits to being less secular. I believe that culture, local flavour, and regional differences are something to be respected and appreciated. In a community where everyone is Christian, by all means PUT IN creationism into the science classroom, of heck, teach directly out of genesis for all I care.
Don't tell me you think all Christians beleive in Creationism. I dislike Sterotypes, and this one is rather overused. I mean, the first sxhools to teach Evolution where Catholic Schools, well before Secular Schools did, yet Christianity is all about creationism?
I've also come to understand that I have no jurisdiction over homeschooling and private schools, and not to look down on those forms of education. Unless it's a private school reinforcing the privilege of upper class brats. Then screw 'em.
This atitude is why this dorum has been better to me than most. Too many just dismiss me as a crackpot lune as soon as I tell them that their hisory is off. Few bother to look at the evidence and see if Im right, because they know Im wrong.
Open and tolerant societty shoudl always weigh the evidence.
I also think Local flaviur shoudl exist, I just wish you;d not lunp all Christains togather, or think Secular means teaching Humanist values and no other.
( I realise you didnt say this but you get my meaning.)
Unlike most humanists, the last thing I want is some bland autocratic world government turning us all into identical machines while blaring some hokey message about us being beautiful unique snowflakes. 9_9 Yeah, right.
Well that also comes from Humanisms history. Humanism is linked o Socialism, because most of the Early Humanists, such as H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russel, and W. Frank Swift where all Socialists. THey linked Socialism to Humanism in the same way that they linked Science to Atheism, and the cultural trend previaled.
They all saw Socialism as the next step in Human Evolution, and sw a massive state carign for all and redistirbutign the wealth as a step towards the ideal of COmmunism.
Since the Early Humanists tended to also think that Human perfection was attainable throguh select breeding, Eugenics was also big with them, until WW2.
But they
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uh... Christians DON'T believe in Creationism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
All creationism says is that a person believes the word and everything living on it was created by a creator. In western creationism, this specifically refers to Genesis.
Christians don't believe in Genesis? Or if not straight out of the bible creationism, then at least an interpretation of it that allows for God creating the world and laws, and allowing things to then evolve?
On a different topic, what would you envision as a neutral school?
Also, I think you need to be careful about lumping socialists all together. I consider myself socialist, but I do NOT support a giant government to enforce socialist policies. You also need to be careful about making the leap making the Communist manifesto equivalent to the Humanist manifesto, because I would argue that communists aren't necessarily all humanists, and vice versa. And neither are all socialists communists!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uh... Christians DON'T believe in Creationism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
All creationism says is that a person believes the word and everything living on it was created by a creator. In western creationism, this specifically refers to Genesis.
This is a misunderstanding of what I said. I said not all Christians are creationists. I di dnot say that htere are none that are.
But if you think that all Christians are creationists, you are in error, as many accept Evolutionary theory, including the Catholic Church.
Christians don't believe in Genesis? Or if not straight out of the bible creationism, then at least an interpretation of it that allows for God creating the world and laws, and allowing things to then evolve?
Theistic Evolution is not considered "Creationism".
That said, Genesis is a long book, and only the firts two Chapters specifically deal with Creation. Three at th emost debending on what you count.
The rest doesn't.
Still, my point remains. Christians do not universally oppose Evolutionary theory.
On a different topic, what would you envision as a neutral school?
Well as i said, I'd prefer them to teach all religions and why they beelive as they do, not favouring one over the other, rather than try to remove them all, and end up teaching a single point of view.
Also, I think you need to be careful about lumping socialists all together. I consider myself socialist, but I do NOT support a giant government to enforce socialist policies.
You'll have to forgive me on thta point, becaue socialism has only ever been used in the soruces I use or peopel I speak to as a centrally planned society. That woudl rewuire some form of massive Government.
You also need to be careful about making the leap making the Communist manifesto equivalent to the Humanist manifesto, because I would argue that communists aren't necessarily all humanists, and vice versa. And neither are all socialists communists!
While not all Humanists are Communists, and marxist Communists are Humanists. They classified themselves as such. The Enturety of Soviet Philosophy rests on the same premise as foudn in the Humanist Manifesto. This was not coincidental, as many of the Foudners of Soviet Philosophy signed the Manifesto, and worked with develioping Humanism.
Soviet Philosophy is overall a Subset of Humanism.
And Marxism in general emerged as a conglomerate of the ideas in Ealry Humanism.
Now, again, nt all Humanists are Communists, but if we are usign he word COmmunist to describe thigns liek the Soviet Union, and MArxism, then yes, all fo them where Humanists and said so themselves.
That was the great unifyign ideal to begin with.
Also, I ddnt lump all Socialists in with COmmunists, but told you of a general trend. The Ealry Humanists where Socialists, and tended to favour a Communist outcome. They saw Socialism as a step towards Communism, not as the end result.
Bertrand Russel wrote extensively on this, as did Wells.
The whole Utopian Vision was a aprt of their beleif system to begin with.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
True enough. But just remember that the founders of humanism weren't all the same, neither were the founders of socialism and/or communism, and probably not all of them necessarily supported the other ideology in tangent with theirs.
That's the same logical problem as saying that in the United States, all of the venerated founding fathers were precisely the same in idealogy, and method, and where they wanted to go with everything. They might have all been liberal and products of the enlightenment, but their ideas on how they might put those principles into effect and how best to build a society were very different.
It's one of my pet peeves, when someone starts talking about the Constitution and the Forefathers as almost divinely inspired and their work as a collaborative group never to be questioned or altered. They weren't all the same, they were human, and they produced a document with flaws.
The same is true of the early supporters of a number of ideologies. Socialism AND Humanism AND Feminism among them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
True enough. But just remember that the founders of humanism weren't all the same, neither were the founders of socialism and/or communism, and probably not all of them necessarily supported the other ideology in tangent with theirs.
No one said they where all the same. However, they did all tend to share basic views on things. That said, I'm posting a breif history in an internet message box for a thread on a message baord. I dont think you'd want me to write a book and post it in this same box.
Obviously Im going to shorten it an dleave out some details.
That's the same logical problem as saying that in the United States, all of the venerated founding fathers were precisely the same in idealogy, and method, and where they wanted to go with everything. They might have all been liberal and products of the enlightenment, but their ideas on how they might put those principles into effect and how best to build a society were very different.
They wheren't all Liberal and none of htem where the products of the Enlighenment.
The Enlightnment began intellectually a decade after the American Revolution, and the French Revolution follwoed suit.
I know it sppular o think of Americas foudners as Enlightement thinkers, but they wheren't. THey simply got their ideas form the same palces as the Enlightenment, but wth the exception fo Thomas Paine, and ot some minor extent THomas Hefferson, none of them actually ascribed to the principles of the Enlightenment regarding Religion, human reason, and Fraternity. If you read Jeffersons vision, you'd see that, liek yours he wante dsmall local Tribes. The difference is they'd all be subject to a generally agreed upon set of rules, which wher eintentionally vauge. This was shared by all other US FOudners, and diverged form the Enlightenment which wante dot impose a Universal standar don all areas.
They also had no antipathy towards Christianity. yes I know, internet quotes, but with the exception fo Paine they all counted themselves as Christians. (Even Jefferson, who never claiemd ot be a Deist, though thats his reputaiton. In fact he declare dhimself Christian.)
I also dont think Washington codl be seen a s"Liberal" in any sense, and neither could Franklin in most of his policies.
Madison and Adams definitley wheren't. Adams wa sa Monarhcis who regreted the revoltion but saw it as "The will of Heaven" and inevitable, and Madison wanted ot preserve as much of British Common law as possible. Liberal? How?
It's one of my pet peeves, when someone starts talking about the Constitution and the Forefathers as almost divinely inspired and their work as a collaborative group never to be questioned or altered. They weren't all the same, they were human, and they produced a document with flaws.
Yes. Agreed.
But then again, I am a Loyalist, so...
The same is true of the early supporters of a number of ideologies. Socialism AND Humanism AND Feminism among them.
And Christainity, and Judaism, and ISlam, and Buddhisam, and everything else.
Which is why when I hear how bad Christausn are then the usual list of "The Inquesition and Crusades" blathere don endlessly, I wonder why the speakers think all Christains are repsoncinbel for what Cahtolisism did 1000 years ago.
As I asked before, why shoudl the Orthodox be blamed when thy didnt participate? Or the Lutherans when they didnt even exist?
Perhaps we can blame the Anglicans. I'm sure Rowan woudl apologise, and offer to run the Church according to Shariah Law.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oops. Well, then, I guess they were even more different than I originally thought.
I think I can agree to try not to generalize Christians, or any group, in the modern times, at least so much as I am able to. As this conversation has shown, there's a lot I don't know about the ideas and history of the groups.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME