Forum menu
Alas, just Latin and Greek. Syriac, which is a still-used version of Aramaic, features prominently in my field, but I have always had to work with it in translation.
As for Hebrew, I started learning it, but couldn't hack it. I can still say "shalom alechem mi melech", but have to admit it's not very useful. 🙂
EDIT: Just re-read the above and realised how much of a not-very-humble humble-brag it is.
“shalom alechem mi melech”,
Could you send for the hall porter, there appears to be a frog in my bidet?
I find all religeon to be equally unbelievable and over the passage of history the cause of huge amounts of evil from the crusades to the current extremist end of Islam. Given that all say the only way to redemption is via thier belief system then every religion is full of non belivers in everything else so condemned to hell by them. It's a complete nonsense
EDIT: Just re-read the above and realised how much of a not-very-humble humble-brag it is.
Only because most (non-immigrant or descendants thereof) people in this country can't speak a second language beyond "two beers please." It's all relative.
Useful to know that you know Latin, that might come in handy at some point.
You can get degrees in homeopathic medicine
I'm not sure you can, you know.
I find all religeon to be equally unbelievable and over the passage of history the cause of huge amounts of evil from the crusades to the current extremist end of Islam.
I used to think much along the same lines, but it's in complete contrast to every person of faith I ever met - people have done terrible things in the name of religion but that doesn't, for me, mean that it's representative of that religion. Much feeding of the homeless has been done over Christmas in Birmingham (and goes on with no fanfare during the rest of the year) by numerous groups of a broad variety of faiths - the Quran says the path of rightousness includes giving money to the needy and the homeless, seems to me that's much closer to the overall intention of the text than instigating civil war and commiting acts of terrorism.
Alas, just Latin and Greek.
Slacker. Get on Duolingo.
Only because most (non-immigrant or descendants thereof) people in this country can’t speak a second language beyond “two beers please.” It’s all relative.
I'll have you know I'm fluent in at least seven languages 😉
dos cervezas por favor
deux bières s'il vous plait
dvě piva prosím
twee biertjes alstublieft
zwei Bier bitte
due birre per favore
@pondu. If religions are supposed to help the poor and needy why do they keep so much wealth for themselves? It is often individual congregations who do good work in the community using thier own money or what they raise, rarely does the church use its own vast wealth.
Ga i cwrw os gwelwch yn dda?
The question is the problem in this thread as both yes and no are the right answer. Jesus was a real person and Jesus is a fictional character.
I find all religeon to be equally unbelievable and over the passage of history the cause of huge amounts of evil from the crusades to the current extremist end of Islam. Given that all say the only way to redemption is via thier belief system then every religion is full of non belivers in everything else so condemned to hell by them. It’s a complete nonsense
I don't really know where to start with this. Your argument conveniently ignores/dismisses all the good done by religious people, all the charity work, the community and social benefits of organised religions.
To simply point to the extremes misses much of the point. No one claims that there aren't flaws, and when things go wrong, the effect can be off the scale, but to claim that religion is in itself a source of evil is very wide of the mark.
Whether or not you believe in God as such is immaterial, and if you strip away the (seemingly) anachronistic commandments/hadiths/teachings you find a simple message of "love thy neighbour as thyself" or in other words, "do only good". As for redemption, think along the lines of conscience. If a believer can go to their deathbed safe in the knowledge that they will be rewarded for their past life in a form of paradise, then so too can a non-believer spend their life with a clear conscience and the satisfaction of knowing they have never intentionally harmed anyone, and that can't really be a bad thing can it?
Yes, blind faith can be ridiculed, the favourite sport of the intellectual atheist, but if you just pause to think about Mrs Smith who attends church every Sunday and does her best to be nice to folk, ridiculing her because of holy wars or jihad is a bit of a stretch.
Historically speaking father Christmas was a fly agaric mushroom that reindeers ate, then the far northern reindeer herding communities ate the piss soaked snow and tripped balls. True story. So technically there is merit in the historical study of father Christmas. Just ask Jesus.
You can get degrees in homeopathic medicine
I’m not sure you can, you know.
It's true, it'd seem:
https://www.ucas.com/ucas/after-gcses/find-career-ideas/explore-jobs/job-profile/homeopath
Google also threw up this commentary from the FT:
https://www.ft.com/content/e2772e34-45a0-11de-b6c8-00144feabdc0
Is that a suggestion that I pulled my etymology off the internet? If so, you know those manuscripts I have spent my life reading? Guess what language(s) they’re in…
Latin is not relevant today and the word science has a different meaning to the latin word that it is derived from.
Saxonrider I posted this last night but think it got missed in a load of bickering and a page turn.
The nature of the evidence should be stronger in this case as Jesus is believed in without question by so many throughout history that the assessment of the evidence must be fraught with difficulty.
Just read your post saxonrider, so do you “”believe” in jesus christ as well as the existence of jesus? If so how do you put one view aside to asses the evidence, not trying to have a dig just think its an interesting conundrum. I really couldnt care less if he did or didnt have have no strong opinions eithercway.
What I find more interesting is whether he existed and said all those things. I mean, in those days God's were all about being powerful and smiting enemies if you flattered them enough. But Jesus's message was entirely different. Being nice to each other, thinking about yourself and loving your enemies. It seems normal to us now but that's cos we are from a Christian country whose whole society is based on those ideas. Back then, it was revolutionary. The Romans were totally baffled at first. Compare Jesus's teachings with Roman theology.
Much of his sayings are also not compatible with maintaining entrenched power. They are in fact pretty rebellious, and early followers were defiant against the authorities. So divine or not he would have been an incredible and fascinating person, and entirely worthy of study. If he didn't exist, then there would have had to have been a pretty impressive conspiracy to create such a powerful revolutionary idea - but there was no obvious reason for doing so. After all Christia ity predates states that would exploit it by three hundred years.
Aren't most of the parables in the Bible lifted directly from Buddhism?
and early followers were defiant against the authorities.
Hmmm, right up until the point at which they became the authority, then they tended to indulge in quite a bit of revenge smiting. The history of the very early Christian church once it got its hands on the levers of power within the Roman Empire isn't a happy one. It's estimated that we have as little as 10% of philosophical writings, plays, undamaged statuary etc from the "classical" world, mostly thanks to the wilful damage inflicted by early Christian sects.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one for religion bashing, but it should be more widely discussed that as well as Roman emperors happily feeding Christians to the lions, the Christians did much the same thing in turn (and on a vastly more destructive scale)
Hmmm, right up until the point at which they became the authority
The early Christians were long dead by the time this happened. And it's not as simple as you make out. The book I put down to pick up my phone is talking about Basil, Gregory and Macrina who were pushing the charity aspect of it pretty hard in the 360s. The establishment wanted to exploit the popularity of Christianity, sure, but there were and still are plenty of people inspired by their faith to do good. Seems unfair to condemn the entire religion because some people are abusing it.
Aren’t most of the parables in the Bible lifted directly from Buddhism?
sorry, I’m at dinner right now and will respond later to some of the above, but to this? The answer is “no”. Pure and simple. There may well be some overlap in terms of ideas, but not textual sharing at all.
but there were and still are plenty of people inspired by their faith to do good.
Sure, there were many many early Christians who would file this sort of destruction under "doing good" There are any number of these littered all over the Roman world.
Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha were all 'gods' who weren't about 'smiting', had teachings similar to those you describe, and pre-dated Christ. It was only revolutionary for Jesus if you discount all those who previously said similar things.
Seems unfair to condemn the entire religion because some people are abusing it.
Agreed. And it's equally wrong to praise a religion just because some people in that religion do good.
I think the word's 'mythical' rather than 'fictional', with some probable factual roots, albeit no contemporary sources. So I'd probably not had allowed this in the OP's game had I been umpiring. And like most people on here I have a PhD in something both useless and irrelevant which I don't like to mention. Hth.
the Christians did much the same thing in turn (and on a vastly more destructive scale)
It really does depend on what you mean, and what period you are talking. The Inquisition, for example, is a hideous mark on the history of Christianity, but it was quite culturally and regionally-specific. In this respect, I would always warn against historical caricature.
Latin is not relevant today and the word science has a different meaning to the latin word that it is derived from.
@poah, I can't tell if you're just being oppositional or not, but to say that Latin is not relevant today is just bizarre. Classicists, historians, linguists, theologians, philosophers... all would be incredulous at such a suggestion. Or are you one of those people who think that the only things worth studying are the sciences?
And as for science carrying a different meaning today than the word from which it is derived: what are talking about? Traditionally there is are two types of study: liberal arts and servile arts. the liberal arts involved free enquiry while the servile arts were directed at specific ends.
So, for example, grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy (all of which should be understood in their most inclusive possible sense) were liberal, or free. Medicine, architecture, engineering: these were servile. They were derived from the free, but limited by their application. The "sciences", as we now call them, were originally just the different avenues of "natural philosophy". They came into their own right post-Enlightenment, and took on the name "sciences" simply to distinguish them from the other free arts. In classical terms, they are still "arts".
Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha were all ‘gods’ who weren’t about ‘smiting’, had teachings similar to those you describe, and pre-dated Christ. I
Buddha Does Not smite. Not even his "enemy(s)" Go read up on Pali scripts (Theravada (Pali) Not Mahayana (Sankscript which is the latter school) and find me teaching of Buddha that smites. Buddha has never taught anything about smiting but rather explained the karmic consequences to those that inflict on others. The harshest reprimand Buddha handed was once calling a person "silly" after the person steadfastly refused to accept logic without knowing his own karmic infliction.
As for the other 'gods' they might smite but you need to understand why they smite and for what reasons. I doubt they smite for no reason.
--- (@easily ... apology for the above as I misread above in response ...) ---
--- (response below for everyone ... )---
The earliest form of "religion" or belief are those of Animism which involved the "worshipping" of the nature (Five elements) and to some extend the spirits of the ancestors (as a sign of remembrance and respect). Animism can be found all over the world and predated all religions or teachings. Are they wrong? Of course not because that is their belief.
If you take the pluralistic views then they all right in their own ways. But when you start to dismiss those that are not aligned with your views then you are essentially endorsing the "living god" views like those of the ruling elites of the Egyptians or Romans or etc. The equivalent in the modern society can be those in power that insist on their way and their only logic.
When the well known phrase like "Everyone is a Buddha" is mentioned, this does not mean that everyone is a Buddha or "living god" but rather the person has the ability to do good and progress in the right path by doing no/lesser evil.
In addition to knowing oneself (religion/belief etc) it might also be helpful if a person can truly understand others (religion/belief etc) to complete his/her view (religion/belief etc).
Aren’t most of the parables in the Bible lifted directly from Buddhism?
It is universal so rather than saying "lifted directly" there are matters that are universal to all. Buddha merely emphasised them in more details to "awake" the people via his own experience. The rest is up to them.
Buddha Does Not smite.
Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha were all ‘gods’ who weren’t about ‘smiting’,
Isn't that exactly what @easily said ?
It was only revolutionary for Jesus if you discount all those who previously said similar things.
It was revolutionary and more importantly seditious in the Greco-Roman world.
And it’s equally wrong to praise a religion just because some people in that religion do good.
I'm not praising it. All I ever want is a fair treatment of the subject.
"Look at the bad stuff these Christians did" isn't a fair reason to condemn the entire faith, purely from a logical standpoint.
For those who are new to STW religion threads I should make it clear that I'm an atheist.
Thanks @leffeboy, you are right, I meant they didn't smite. I didn't construct my sentences very well: "had teachings similar to those you describe" can be read in various ways. I was referring to the 'christian' teaching that molgrips mentioned
Just read your post saxonrider, so do you “”believe” in jesus christ as well as the existence of jesus? If so how do you put one view aside to asses the evidence, not trying to have a dig just think its an interesting conundrum. I really couldnt care less if he did or didnt have have no strong opinions eithercway.
You're right to ask.
Yes I do and yes I do is the answer. The thing is, from the time I began studying theology academically, I was never scandalised by the possibility of challenge, errors, developments, etc.
I suppose I don't have a crystal clear answer as to why, but whereas some of my classmates were so shocked by what they were encountering they either lost their faith or became entrenched and somewhat fundamentalist, I, together with a good many others, were more like our completely secular colleagues who were only studying the subject out of pure interest: we weren't bothered in the least, and loved the challenge of wrestling with all the questions theology raised and that were raised against theology.
In this respect, I suppose it was all just good academic training. You simply learn to test your theories and beliefs, and those that pass, you re-appropriate for yourself. My own faith was never of a fundamentalist sort, and I was always taught - both at home and in formal study - to take questions seriously and follow where they went.
I suppose the only thing that ever bothers me about these sorts of threads are the assumptions made by some that their objections are new, and that no person of faith has ever considered them before. Even Prof Dawkins acknowledges in private that he sits among equals when he is with people like Rowan Williams. Meaning that he knows faith is never a black and white question.
Ultimately, because faith is not the same as knowledge, it is not necessarily beset by challenges to the knowledge bank that informs it. But to be clear, and as many philosophers contend, although faith is not a knowledge category, that does not make it de facto anti-intellectual.
Does that answer your question?
It is universal so rather than saying “lifted directly” there are matters that are universal to all.
Well said, @chewkw.
At the behest if those in power who want to adapt it to their whims. Would we be Protestants if Fat Harry hasn’t wanted to divorce Catherine?
Fat Harry remained a Catholic to the end.
The central thought behind Luther was to push back against the obvious corruption of the Catholic Church
molgrips
It was revolutionary and more importantly seditious in the Greco-Roman world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism#Beginnings_of_Roman_Mithraism
Mithras was known to the Romans, and some Romans worshipped him, either before or contemporaneously with the beginnings of Christianity. Mithraism has similar teachings.
I'm not trying to deny the importance of Christian teaching here, but it wasn't unique or especially original - it just happens to be the religion that took hold in Rome and so the Roman Empire. Because it survived in Europe we know more about Christianity than other religions of the same time. If Mithraism had been the one that became ingrained you might be here arguing that it was revolutionary and seditious.
@chewkw
No problem, I'm enjoying the discussion and knew where you were coming from.
Does that answer your question?
Kind of, I may have to read it a few times though!!
Does the theological literature become polarised between believers and no believers at all?
I was an ecologist and used to get right pissed of with environmentalists using the science all wrong for example.
Animism slowly disappeared when religions were introduced or come into being.
Remember people once called those who practised Animism as barbarians?
There are several arguments to this.
1. The practice of animal or human sacrifice become too painful for the society because the ruling class forced it upon them. Some ruling class considered themselves as the "elements".
2. Society rejected them because family were forced to give up their love ones for sacrifice or even livestock (costly) and people slowly rebelled against the idea.
3. Their teachings were inconsistent i.e. different places worship the elements differently.
3. The "gods" of animism themselves were incomplete and some considered them as lower "gods".
Nothing to do with conquest then?
Nothing to do with conquest then?
That too but that is minor because their belief were Not dislodged externally but coming from within. i.e. their own people. Remember, if it was Not sacrifice it would be force labour in the name of the "living gods".
SaxonRider
I don't think poah is being deliberately confrontational. It seems to me that poah is referring to the modern 'scientific method' rather than any traditional Latin meaning. (Poah forgive me if I get this wrong) poah is saying that the Latin meaning of 'science' is not relevant in this discussion, rather than saying Latin is itself irrelevant; and that the scientific method is what is important in deciding what is true, rather than any methods referred to as science in ancient times.
Does the theological literature become polarised between believers and no believers at all?
All theological literature will presuppose the existence of God, but you might imagine the scope of the literature to be similar to the Political Compass. In other words, you might divide it into quadrants on a scale of Catholic -> Protestant and Liberal -> Conservative. But this doesn't account for the Eastern (Greek and Syriac) theological world, which is quite different.
What's tough is explaining to the non-theological world how questions about God's existence are not theological. At best, they are philosophical - and even that only when they are properly cast.
I suppose the biggest problem faced by theologians, though, is just bad, or strongly denominational, theology.
Also when religious leaders (some) talk loudly about " ... speaks the truth ..." (took me a while to understand this ... a bit slow me), what they might have missed or perhaps misunderstood is the meaning of "truth" themselves which relates to universal logic. (my understanding based on comparing various religious views ... )
The problem with these religious leaders (some) is that they don't know how to explain the meaning behind the term "truth" and practically stopped at the text.
A good religious leaders (someone to be considered very knowledgable in the past) should be able to explain and articulate the points clearly.
That too but that is minor because their belief were Not dislodged externally but coming from within. i.e. their own people. Remember, if it was Not sacrifice it would be force labour in the name of the “living gods”.
????
The Romans essentially cleansed the druidic tradition in the occupied parts of Britain. They even documented it fairly well.
The same happened elsewhere, in fact the Romans were infamous for coopting local religions into their culture effectively homogenising them.
The main religions are differentiated by their desire to convert. Lots of religions don't encourage conversion as they are more closely associated with the genetic identity of the followers.
The Romans essentially cleansed the druidic tradition in the occupied parts of Britain. They even documented it fairly well.
I suspect it was the people (own) that gave up on their own tradition as the alternative provided by the Romans were either too attractive or the people gave it up themselves due to "modernisation" (force upon or genuine improvement in lifestyle). Remember it was a belief. You can't exactly force people to change what they belief in other than offering them alternatives to help them forget/give up their own belief. Therefore, my view is that the damage was done more internally.
The same happened elsewhere, in fact the Romans were infamous for coopting local religions into their culture effectively homogenising them.
How do you explain those Romans in Asia minor who became Buddhist? They did not manage to convert the locals but instead they went native. The Roman loved Buddhism so much they even created the "first Roman" Buddha image.
The main religions are differentiated by their desire to convert. Lots of religions don’t encourage conversion as they are more closely associated with the genetic identity of the followers.
The desire to convert can be due to several reasons: politically motivated, self-interest or to educate the "barbarians" (human or animal cost). The latter is with the help from the people themselves who discard old ruling belief.
Re Druids, this:
The desire to convert can be due to several reasons: politically motivated, self-interest or to educate the “barbarians” (human or animal cost).
AIUI Druids were the ruling class which is why they had to go. Romans didn't need all their subjects to believe in their religion, AFAIK.
The main religions are differentiated by their desire to convert.
Christianity and Islam have form on this but I'm not sure about Judaism, Hinduism or the others.
You can’t exactly force people to change what they belief in other than offering them alternatives to help them forget/give up their own belief.
You can however convince them that they aren't wrong and you just see their gods in a different way and it's the same thing really. Hence Christmas being Saturnalia/winter solstice - as SaxonRider explained to me.
Christianity and Islam have form on this but I’m not sure about Judaism, Hinduism or the others.
I suspect the starting point of spreading the teachings was all with good intention. i.e. like educating the masses (region specific) in hygiene both in thinking and way of life. BBQ-ing human for food is no good and sacrificing another being only bring more hatred and sorrow etc. But as time passed the spreading of teaching become a competition in the amount of "members" you have in the flock, because the larger the flock the more elevated the person becomes. Power and greed slowly Crept in. Then the competition becomes nasty and certain practices cross boundary. For example, the funeral practice where in hot climate human body decades rather quickly (those with kidney problems or internal organ problems decade even faster) so the burial needs to take place rather quickly to avoid spreading of disease but in colder climate the burial does not take place immediately ... This is not a very good example but something that is regional specific but as the teachings spread they become common practice whether the people like it or not.