Forum menu
Ta
Yeah, not really how Christianity came to Norway.
Most of the historic record doesn't have huge angry screeds of Viking leaders imposing Christianity on their subjects violently. Mostly as that's not how those societies were constructed. Viking traders pretty much started saying "Oh yes; Christians? that's us all right" as a way of carrying on trading with the Germans to the south and the English to the west. They said exactly the same things about being Muslim as well as they encountered them in the Ottoman Empire.
there was also lots of bribery involved, and lots of vikings, like a lot of other folks like the Lithuanians - the last Kingdom to officially convert, just kept up with Thor and Frig alongside Christianity. I imagine that they weren't the only ones. By 800BCE or so (archaeology on grave goods, or lack of them dates it to around then), most of the Scandinavian area was Christian. In Denmark, for instance, there was no recorded major violent imposition. That's because if you ignore the revolutionary aspects of what Christianity was saying and instead just concentrate on the hats and stories, you miss the point about why people were mostly happy* to convert.
* Once again, I'm NOT saying this didn't go very very badly in some places, it absolutely did. But again "within a framework of their social constructs at the time" they mostly believed that what they doing was for the best.
Good shout @SaxonRider - i'd be well up for this. I've felt for a long time that there has been a war being waged on spirituality. Maybe you can help answer my questions?!
That’s is the fundamental reason why so many religions try to convert people
Christianity is pretty much the only proselytising religion. Most make it quite hard to convert.
To or from?
Both And as far as i know
I have not read the whole thread but I have debated religion with you before Saxonrider
I am not sure what you hope to get from this?
I find it vaguely entertaining to debate religion but as a rationalist / scientist I find it all bunkum - and thats despite an Anglican upbringing
I can certainly present you plenty of debating questions but at the end of the day its dancing on the head of a pin. either you have faith or you have not.
Some quality religion driven oppression happening here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/uliq2y/music_makes_you_gay/
I find it vaguely entertaining to debate religion but as a rationalist / scientist I find it all bunkum – and thats despite an Anglican upbringing
If you like science there's plenty of psychology and maybe some neurology going on here depending on your viewpoint.
I have not read the whole thread but I have debated religion with you before Saxonrider
You have indeed, and I have appreciated it!
I am not sure what you hope to get from this?
Interesting conversation and camaraderie. That's it.
I am, as I've said many time before, interested above all in accuracy. And in the midst even of the discussion above, there has been much inaccuracy. Not because of any sort of ill-will on anyone's part; just because the history and nature of religion is a topic that often engenders much discussion but less real and rigorous study. So, a round-table discussion or pub night or whatever, in which people can throw their ideas and/or questions and/or arguments onto the table, and I can try to answer them honestly and openly seems like it could be a good thing.
I find it vaguely entertaining to debate religion but as a rationalist / scientist I find it all bunkum – and that's despite an Anglican upbringing
Fair enough. I, of course, don't think there is any contradiction inherent in having faith and believing in rationalism and science, but may obviously do.
I can certainly present you plenty of debating questions but at the end of the day its dancing on the head of a pin. either you have faith or you have not.
This final sentence is probably one of the most important premises uttered in this entire thread.
To those people they all (for the first time) believed in the same God.
I’d be willing to bet that a fairly large number of people throughout history thought it was all bollocks and just went along with it for an easy life. There are probably historical figures who thanked god in texts and only did it because it was the done thing.Thankfully it has become more acceptable in some parts of the world to not be religious.
I agree with the fundamentals of Jesus’ teachings but it would appear that some branches of the religion he birthed don’t. Catholicism is particularly bad for this. When the figure head dresses like a Gangsta rapper and has a bulletproof, pimped out ride I don’t think he’s up for the meek inheriting the earth.
Basically it all boils down to don’t be a dick doesn’t it. The fact that we’ve had thousands of years and lots of religions to attempt to explain that one simple concept says a lot about us as a species. Especially when we’ve done a thoroughly shit job of it.
The fact that we’ve had thousands of years and lots of religions to attempt to explain that one simple concept says a lot about us as a species.
Not sure it's been that many. Lots of religions don't say much about being a dick or not.
Most people's views on here are very Euro-centric, or Christian-centric 🙂
Lots of religions don’t say much about being a dick or not.
Which ones? Most I know of seem to have some sort of code of conduct required to be a good chap ( or chapess)
Most people’s views on here are very Euro-centric, or Christian-centric 🙂
Very much so. Im vaguely interested in religion as a phenomenon and guess I know more than most of the population but I still know far more Christianity than anything else.
there is an awful lot more than the monotheastic religions.
Its part of my troubles with religion. why is one god right and true? Why chose one bunch over another? Who throws the best parties?
Here is a thesis for you. rock concerts and sports matches on a large scale are utilising the same parts of the human mind as big religious events Reasserting tribal identity, sing a song or two, be part of a mass of people all doing the same thing and feeling the same emotion. Religion just taps into this poart of the psyche
We are just a bag of impure water running on chemical reactions.
Not sure it’s been that many. Lots of religions don’t say much about being a dick or not.
Seems to be at the core of the newer monotheist religions, especially so Christianity. They just go about it in a ridiculously roundabout way. The Ten Commandments pretty much equal don’t be a dickhead to each other.
Lots of religions don’t say much about being a dick or not
I tend to place Rule No.1 within the scope of the ethic of reciprocity. Its expressed in the positive (the golden rule) and also in the negative (which is basically Rule No.1 ) in many faiths/philosophies and there is quite a bit said about it tbh. The religious tolerance website lists many examples, for instance:
Bahá'í Faith:
"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf. 1
Brahmanism:
"This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "Buddhism:
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
"All men tremble at the rod, all men fear death:
Putting oneself in the place of others, kill not nor cause to kill.
All men tremble at the rod, unto all men life is dear;
Doing as one would be done by, kill not nor cause to kill.""One should seek for others the happiness one desires for oneself."
Christianity:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version."And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that circulated among the early Christian movement, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
Confucianism:
He appears to have been the first person to record the Golden Rule in its negative form. This is sometimes referred to as the "Silver Rule."
Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Doctrine of the Mean“What I do not wish men to do to me, I also wish not to do to men." Analects 15:23
What a man dislikes in those who are over him, let him not display toward those who are under him; what he dislikes in those who are under him, let him not display toward those who are over him! This is called the standard, by which, as a measuring square, to regulate one’s conduct. 6
"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
He also expressed the Golden Rule in its positive form:
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4"There are four things in the moral life of man, not one of which I have been able to carry out in my life. To serve my father as I would
expect my son to serve me: that I have not been able to do. To serve my sovereign as I would expect a minister under me to serve me:
that I have not been able to do. To act towards my elder brother, as I would expect my younger brother to act towards me: that I have
not been able to do. To be the first to behave toward friends as I would expect them to behave towards me: that I have not been able
to do. 6Ancient Egyptian:
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written. 2Hinduism:
"This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517The religion of the Incas:
"Do not to another what you would not yourself experience." Manco Capoc, founder of the empire of Peru. 6Islam:
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 3Hadiths are writings by Muhammad. There do not appear to be any verses in the Qur'an that explicitly state the Golden Rule.
Jainism:
"Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2."In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
horizontal ruleJudaism:
"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) Leviticus 19:18"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 4
Native American Spirituality:
"Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.
I’ve (informally yet intensely ) studied religion, the occult, primitive art, esoteric psychology, folklore, superstitions, myths and legends and general anthropology since around 15yrs old. I was a bit of a weird kid and I managed to get my hands on ‘The Golden Bough’ (illustrated) as a young teen and was completely sucked in.
Native American Spirituality and Taoism attract me most of all, although the mysteries of Megalithic and Bronze Age Europe also fascinate me. Life is too short! Or is it… 🌌
Here is a thesis for you. rock concerts and sports matches on a large scale are utilising the same parts of the human mind as big religious events Reasserting tribal identity, sing a song or two, be part of a mass of people all doing the same thing and feeling the same emotion. Religion just taps into this part of the psyche
@tjagain, you're nailing it this evening. Seriously. Your thesis is one that I have thought of many times, but from the opposite point of view: that a rock concert (or other, similar events) is representative of the human longing for communion (inter-personal), and the transcendent. I see that as the human religious impulse. I am not trying to prove anything by saying that; only acknowledging your excellent point, and suggesting that while I think you are right about it, there is another way of interpreting it.
why is one god right and true? Why chose one bunch over another?
This is something I always wondered. I've heard some folk following a faith "just in case". Which is a bit like making a promise with your fingers crossed, but anyway. Assuming there is a god, so you spend your whole life being (say) a devout Catholic and then you check out and find yourself face to face with Allah for your reckoning... do you reckon he's going to be more pissed off with an atheist or someone who's devoted their life to worshipping a false god?
a rock concert (or other, similar events) is representative of the human longing for communion (inter-personal), and the transcendent.
Is that a world apart from what I was scratching at earlier regarding an innate desire to fit in? (Genuine question, I'm not sure if that's what you mean.) 'Tribe' is an excellent term.
Is that a world apart from what I was scratching at earlier regarding an innate desire to fit in? (Genuine question, I’m not sure if that’s what you mean.) ‘Tribe’ is an excellent term.
No, I think you’re right. It’s just that ‘fitting in’ refers only to the first half (that is, the ‘communion’ side), and doesn’t acknowledge the second half, which I would posit is ‘transcendence’.
My current view that modern organised religion at best does a lot more harm than good, and at worst is extremely toxic to large portions of the world’s population.
It follows that to then consider an evening of debate about the history and practice of religion, while perhaps illuminating and thought provoking, holds, to me, a moral equivalency to a night with perhaps an expert torturer or scammer, discussing their methods and results.
Which ones? Most I know of seem to have some sort of code of conduct required to be a good chap ( or chapess)
I was speaking from a general impression so I'll roll that back until I've done more reading.
It follows that to then consider an evening of debate about the history and practice of religion, while perhaps illuminating and thought provoking, holds, to me, a moral equivalency to a night with perhaps an expert torturer or scammer, discussing their methods and results.
Honestly that's absurd.
Perhaps to you, but not to me.
rock concerts and sports matches on a large scale are utilising the same parts of the human mind as big religious events Reasserting tribal identity, sing a song or two, be part of a mass of people all doing the same thing and feeling the same emotion. Religion just taps into this part of the psyche
Organised religion for sure, but lots of people call themselves religions or spiritual, or say they believe in God, yet don't do this.
Perhaps to you, but not to me.
You're telling me that the old dears singing along on a Sunday morning then having a nice chat and some cakes with the vicar are in fact gangsters? Are you saying that lifelong believers whose religion gives them great happiness are the same as victims of torture or crime?
a devout Catholic and then you check out and find yourself face to face with Allah
Same Bloke if you're a Catholic so no problem there.
It follows that to then consider an evening of debate about the history and practice of religion, while perhaps illuminating and thought provoking, holds, to me, a moral equivalency to a night with perhaps an expert torturer or scammer, discussing their methods and results.
Agreed.
Are you saying that lifelong believers whose religion gives them great happiness are the same as victims of torture or crime?
Absolutely not. I am saying they are the torturers and criminals.
They are willingly engaging in a practice that in essence says “we are the chosen ones, those who don’t join us are, and always will be, lesser”. If you believe we are all truly equal, that cannot be good for any society.
modern organised religion at best does a lot more harm than good
At best?
Sure there are and have been great injustices done in the name of religion, but to claim that even at best religion scores minus marks is frankly rubbish.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59651954
Same Bloke if you’re a Catholic so no problem there.
You know what I mean though. Odin, then, or one of ten thousand others.
They are willingly engaging in a practice that in essence says “we are the chosen ones, those who don’t join us are, and always will be, lesser”
Really? I don't think that's mainstream Christian preaching, not sure who you've been listening to.
And churchgoers aren't being tortured, in the main. That's why they like going.
I listened to my priest.
I'm sorry to hear that.
is representative of the human longing for communion (inter-personal), and the transcendent. I see that as the human religious impulse
Looking at it from another direction and getting a different answer. Trouble is to me one of your assumed basics is wrong. Its not a religion that gives rise to these feelings and mass emotion - other things do as well. The capacity for man to behave like this and extract enjoyment from it exists worldwide in many forms. Religion uses this. Ritual taps into it and the bigger and more exciting the better.
Molgrips - its not that that is all religion is. Its that religion taps into this part of the psyche. Religion would not be the same without its ceremonies but there are other parts to religion indeed solo devotion is sometimes a part ( sensory deprivation leading to hallucinations?)
This appears all over the place. I bet the nearest thing to a religious experience many of may generation have had is a rave with a head full of pills. MDMA tickles many of the same parts of the brain. Its all about neurotransmitters running around this squishy bag of impure water.
And churchgoers aren’t being tortured, in the main. That’s why they like going.
Apart from the hymns and terrible organ playing I agree.
Really? I don’t think that’s mainstream Christian preaching, not sure who you’ve been listening to.
Its a key part of christianity. People offering to prey for you.
@midlifecrashes, can I make a book suggestion?
The venerable political philosopher, Larry Siedentop’s ‘Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism’ is superb, and suggests that the very notion of the ‘individual’ and that each has a fundamental integrity, is a Christian idea without which there would no Western Civilisation.
Now, I have no idea if Siedentop is a Christian or not (I suspect from his surname that he is Jewish), but he is a philosopher who has earned his stripes, and I would be interested in what you make of his historical argument.
Whatever you make of it, it’s a great book.
It follows that to then consider an evening of debate about the history and practice of religion, while perhaps illuminating and thought provoking, holds, to me, a moral equivalency to a night with perhaps an expert torturer or scammer, discussing their methods and results.
I wouldn't go quite so far but that sums up my misgivings about entering this thread. Hmmmmmmmmmm
I see a magnificent church and one of the things I think is "there is loads of homes that didn't get built" What a waste of surplus capacity.
although the mysteries of Megalithic and Bronze Age Europe also fascinate me.
That needs more notice. WTF were they up to? Inexplicable things with rocks. Put a lot of effort into it as well. Stone circles and cup and ring rocks blow my mind
Its all about neurotransmitters running around this squishy bag of impure water.
Yes there's a lot of neuroscience about this, a little of which I've read.
I struggle with the very basics of religion and certainly Christianity. I can’t say I’ve looked in any detail at others. The problems I have are
The bible was written so long after the alleged events to place then there is little chance of anything being accurate. Indeed we know the gospels were picked to suit a narrative and others, the so called agnostic gospels, were ignored because they didn’t suit the sort the church wanted.
The behaviour of the organised church is so far removed from its own teachings that it’s hard to take them seriously. I have clergy lie to me and try to damage my career upto the well publicised criminal behaviour of some.
The 2 big Christian churches have made a huge fortune from their story and as a result have vast powers and wealth that they can control and influence events. Why does the church not use this money to deliver on the teachings it promotes
People offering to prey for you.
No use to me as a vegetarian.
People offering to prey for you.
Bastards.
Preying on the elderly no doubt?
Preying on the elderly no doubt?
this poor befuddled old man anyway.
The bible was written so long after the alleged events to place then there is little chance of anything being accurate. Indeed we know the gospels were picked to suit a narrative and others, the so called agnostic gospels, were ignored because they didn’t suit the sort the church wanted.
This is known and understood by a lot of Christians. The ones you tend not to hear about on the news though.
The behaviour of the organised church is so far removed from its own teachings that it’s hard to take them seriously.
This goes back to the point I always make on these 'religions are evil' threads. People do bad things all the time, with or without religion being involved. Therefore we can conclude that it is bad people who are bad, rather than it being anything intrinsic to religion.