Even my freezer is “Woke”

What if it was on to start with? Is the act of turning it off not “work?” Do you wait until tomorrow to do anything if your house is on fire?

Off is usually the same as on.

On fire gets a bit complicated and it depends what’s at risk, purely monetary loss then possibly still can’t do anything directly, any chance of life in danger then do whatever is needed asap.

a religion based upon riding bicycles

Ah yes, I was thinking of our depth of knowledge on the bicycle and riding the bicycle, the seriousness (and not) with which we may sometimes discuss it. And what that looks like to an outsider… Grown men playing on bicycles in the woods, on bikes that can easily cost, for a lot of people on STW upwards of £2k.

I (vaguely) recall learning about the Roundheads and the Cavaliers at school.

Is somewhat relevant here considering the wars of the three kingdoms kicked off with a dispute about whether the divinely mandated monarch (both sides agreed on that) was in charge of both state and church or just the former. Charles thought both and a lot of people in the Church of Scotland thought just the former.

That gave us the Scottish Bishops war and after the English parliament went “not really interested in funding that thanks” some rather ill advised moves in Ireland by Charles triggered the 1641 rebellion there. Giving us two of the kingdoms in the wars of the three kingdoms.

Then finally the English civil war started due to the political disagreements in England around the repercussions of Charles losing the Bishop wars and how to deal with the Irish rebellion.

there is a difference between mainstream religion and cults.

I laughed.

What if it was on to start with? Is the act of turning it off not “work?” Do you wait until tomorrow to do anything if your house is on fire?

There are teams of scholars in funny hats working on this issue as we speak. They should have an answer in a thousand years or so.

Anyone want to join me in a theological debate about which is the purer form of cycling – track or trials – which brings one closer to nirvana – seated pedaling cycling around in pointless circles on a track, or standing with perfect control on a funny little bike hoping over obstacles, covering virtually no distance at all?

I would question why “pure” cycling has to cover no distance. Perhaps a purer form (in that it maintains cycling’s origins as a mode of transport) would be marathon long distance cycling: as far as possible with as much suffering as possible and yet still retains the inherent pointlessness of doing anything but cycling.

hoping over obstacles

Faith is a wonderful thing

Anyone want to join me in a theological debate about which is the purer form of cycling

If it gets going I am ready to market a range of leg-wigs so shaven-legged roadies can wear shorts off the bike without attracting ridicule.

You don’t get many sandstorms outwith the Middle East

The biggest sandstorm ever was from Finland.

I think the purest form of cycling is commuting. Surely the original intent for the usage of the bicycle is as a simple mode of transport. Therefore the Brotherhood of the Wheel (that I have stolen from Malcolm in the middle) is the one true church of the cyclist. Something, something, god

I think the purest form of cycling is commuting

On an ebike? How about one you don’t have to peddle?

Also, like fridges, I understand they have an ecco mode? Can you get some scholars on it to work out how that might make a difference?

If it gets going I am ready to market a range of leg-wigs so shaven-legged roadies can wear shorts off the bike without attracting ridicule.

Will they be made from real hair?

What about gravellistas? Neither roadie not mountain biker. Where will they fit in the Cult of Hairy-Legged Riders / Cult of Hairless-Legged Riders?

an ecco mode

Follow the shoe!

Users of pedals will be damned forever, and cast out to join the heathens and unbelievers, sayeth the Lord. Only the one true path of Drasine riding follows to the truth to righteousness

On an ebike? How about one you don’t have to peddle?

Blasphemy! Only single speed with pedal backward brakes is permitted.

Like, what use is History? I (vaguely) recall learning about the Roundheads and the Cavaliers at school. For all that some may cry “what use is long multiplication* when I have a calculator?” the usefulness of knowledge of a war in the C17 is limited to pub quizzes.

If there is a value in teaching History then there is an equal value in teaching Religion. Personally, I’d like to see it rub shoulders with Greek mythology.**

I’d suggest that we are taught the wrong history – mainly of English victories in long ago wars, interesting characters like Henry VIII, or really boring stuff about Victorian legislation. What we don’t get taught is any history of our own communities – I was never taught any Welsh history – or our peer groups, the poor, common people. Obviously, if we were it may lead to some discontent about WHY we are the poor common people.

And, if we were taught history properly then we may not have to suffer dimwits trying be experts on conflicts in the Middle East which have been going on for generations but they only heard of yesterday on Snapchat. Anyway, rant over. 😀

If it happened today, we wouldn’t stand for it.

If David Blaine walked across the Thames we’d all be going “well, it’s obviously a trick.”

Do you think cynicism is a modern invention?

I’m genuinely surprised that you’re surprised. Don’t confuse a rejection of ‘belief’ with ignorance. I read plenty, and when I don’t know or understand something I’ll hold my hand up.

Hmm. I think there are still things you don’t understand but perhaps don’t realise that you don’t understand. Humans are highly irrational and illogical. When people say ‘we believe that the world was created when two gods fought and one threw stones at the other’ or whatever, it may not mean that they actually literally believe that’s what happened. Founding myths are important for a variety of reasons and actual literal explanation of things is not really one of them.

Last time I discussed this subject with SaxonRider he suggested that I consider the difference between belief and faith, which I found a pretty interesting concept.

So, as a matter of interest, in your view what would have been the content of these “very useful” RE classes ?

Well, it should be theology, it should discuss why people believe what they do, which seems to be the thing people are missing and the cause of much of the contempt.

Hmm. I think there are still things you don’t understand but perhaps don’t realise that you don’t understand.

Or, as a radical idea, possibly they do understand and it is you failing to do so?  That you confuse your experience of RE with everyone elses suggests it might be you.

Founding myths are important for a variety of reasons and actual literal explanation of things is not really one of them.

Could you get much more condescending?  You arent telling anyone here anything new although what you are doing is going in for sweeping statements.  It also fails the obvious test of when exactly we should consider something allegorical vs a statement of fact. Especially given that things tend to move into allegorical only once the evidence is overwhelming. Admittedly often with a lot of bloodshed.

Well, it should be theology, it should discuss why people believe what they do

What is your definition of theology here? Since the standard one is generally Christianity based and often from the position of belief. Which isnt exactly ideal.

If you want to teach people about why people believe what they do then you would want anthropology and psychology.

This thread reminded me of childhood holidays with the great aunts in Lewis. Old croft house with open peat fire. Although she now had an electric cooker she still kept a big pot on the fire. The water out the taps was brown with visible bits of peat so we walked 1/4 mile to get drinking/cooking water from a spring. Nearest pub was Stornaway 30 miles south. Nobody spoke English except to visitors.

Sabbath! Enough peat had to be brought in from the peat stack on Saturday night for the fire on Sunday. Incidentally the fire never went out. At night it was banked. The embers covered with fresh peat close togethjer so no air got in. In the morning move the peats blow on the fire and away it went.

The sabbath was a bit flexible in that essential work was allowed. Lambing etc or if you worked in essential services.

Well, it should be theology, it should discuss why people believe what they do, which seems to be the thing people are missing and the cause of much of the contempt.

A school curriculum to explain why people don’t open their fridge on Saturday? A winner, I’m sure.

Growing up in a village where there were several families holed up on Sundays – there were those you were not allowed to play with on Sunday for instance, it was always a mystery as to why my father and grandfather were allowed to work on Sunday (farmers) but nobody else.

Now it is hard to remember how deadly dull Sundays could be, even for us heathens. How the not allowed out except for Chapel, kids coped, I don’t know.

Anyway I want one of those Warpigs fridges.

What is your definition of theology here? Since the standard one is generally Christianity based and often from the position of belief.

Well to me theology is the study of religions generally. However I can see that it might be considered to be from a position of belief so perhaps religious studies is a better term. But what’s imporant is not just WHAT people believe but WHY they do and what they get out of it. Otherwise all you’re doing is sowing contempt and division rather than understanding.

Or, as a radical idea, possibly they do understand and it is you failing to do so? That you confuse your experience of RE with everyone elses suggests it might be you.

My experience of RE in school was completely shit, but I do not believe that the concept of learning about other people is worthless, in fact it’s quite important. This thread is evidence of this.

Could you get much more condescending?

I could, easily. However I don’t think I’m the most condescending one on the thread, because I’m not the one dismissing billions of people throughout the world and history as being credulous fools. If you’re annoyed at being condescended to by someone who might not understand your point of view, I suggest you look at it from the other side.

Especially given that things tend to move into allegorical only once the evidence is overwhelming. Admittedly often with a lot of bloodshed.

I’m interested in the timeline for this. It seems to me that you are presupposing that creation myths were always taken literally. When Genesis says that the Earth was created in 6 days – how do you know that the authors and/or the entire audience literally believed that? You seem to be suggesting that they did but I’m not sure – there has always been cynics.

We know that Galileo got into trouble with the church, for example – but why? I don’t think the Bible says that the Sun goes round the Earth. But the Catholic church had decided that it does. So they prosecuted Galileo not for promoting heliocentricism, per se, but for undermining their authority. So it wasn’t really a theological issue more a political one. Their whole power base was built on saying that the Pope is God’s representative and therefore the Pope cannot be wrong. I don’t think they much cared what actually went round what.

So rather than being forced to ‘back pedal’ on the fundamental nature of the cosmos, they have been forced to soften their stance on Papal authority. I think that is subtly different from what you’re saying.

When Genesis says that the Earth was created in 6 days – how do you know that the authors and/or the entire audience literally believed that?

This is my main issue with all this. If the authors and readers potentially don’t believe what they’ve written/read where do you stop?  If you can choose to ignore, overlook, self interpret one part, because the author may not have meant literally what he wrote, why not all of it?

How are you equipped to decide which bits are absolute rock solid biblical (Koranic etc.) truth and with can be taken with a pinch of salt?

We know that Galileo got into trouble with the church, for example – but why? I don’t think the Bible says that the Sun goes round the Earth. But the Catholic church had decided that it does. So they prosecuted Galileo not for promoting heliocentricism, per se, but for undermining their authority. So it wasn’t really a theological issue more a political one. Their whole power base was built on saying that the Pope is God’s representative and therefore the Pope cannot be wrong. I don’t think they much cared what actually went round what.

It’s not very controversial to suggest that religions aren’t built around belief but are built around power and control. It’s also not very controversial to suggest that a significant amount of people who ‘believe’ in a god, don’t really believe in that god but only pay lip service because of tradition. Church weddings or christenings in 21st C Britain being a good example.

On fire gets a bit complicated and it depends what’s at risk, purely monetary loss then possibly still can’t do anything directly,

Seriously? Your house is on fire and “it gets a bit complicated”? I’m struggling to think of anything more simple.

“My house is on fire, quick, get a bucket of water!” – “Sorry chum, no can do, it’s the sabbath. Give me a shout tomorrow and I’m all yours.”

Do you think cynicism is a modern invention?

At the risk of sealioning, did you miss my question from the previous page or are you intentionally ignoring it.

Founding myths are important for a variety of reasons and actual literal explanation of things is not really one of them.

The problem here, as I said before, is that the notion that it’s not meant to be taken literally is modern-day revisionism. When Genesis said “Day 1, create light; day 4, create light source,” these were literal explanations of creation. It’s only now when we understand – or at least, think we understand – the origins of creation that we Edinburgh Defence the New Testament Chapter One. Day 7 is still held as a literal 7th day to this day, the sabbath where we put our feet up and have room temperature food.

 the origins of creation that we Edinburgh Defence the New Testament Chapter One.

But that’s only your explanation for changes in fashions or beliefs in religious observance. You’re looking at it from the perspective of an outsider looking in on stuff you don’t have a scooby’s about. Like everything else, religions change over time, and like I said a couple of pages back, all the Abrahamic religions have been constantly changing since day two of their inception. This isn’t modern, this didn’t start because of scientific or sociological changes or breakthroughs.

Addendum:

You argue “how do you know that the authors and/or the entire audience literally believed that?” and that’s a fair question. But how do we know that they didn’t? They could have been less vague in their writings (assuming we have an accurate translation), it says “day” rather than eg. “age.” In the First Age, god created light… clear, concise. In saying “day” it’s either clear that it means one day, a reasonable interpretation as it’d basically be a demonstration of god flexing, or it’s intentionally vague in order to be millennia-old clickbait.

You’re looking at it from the perspective of an outsider looking in on stuff you don’t have a scooby’s about.

This being true and personal slight aside, educate us then.

(Also, braino, New / Old, apologies)

a reasonable interpretation

The phrase muttered by someone at the start of religious wars everywhere… probably

This being true and personal slight aside, educate us then.

**** no, I’ve no more insight than you.

It’s not very controversial to suggest that religions aren’t built around belief but are built around power and control.

But it’s also not controversial to say that alongside those things, religion has also been the wellspring of enlightenment, science, democracy and societal change. There’s a relentless focus sometimes on the one aspect as if “The Church” is a single thing that acts in concert with itself all the time. It’s true that Catholic Spain burned people at the stake, but it’s also true that The Commonwealth of Puritan England was the start of Parliamentary democracy and one man one vote.

**** no, I’ve no more insight than you.

😀 Fair.

It’s not very controversial to suggest that religions aren’t built around belief but are built around power and control.
But it’s also not controversial to say that alongside those things, religion has also been the wellspring of enlightenment, science, democracy and societal change

I understand that – I was replying to molgrips’ very peculiar style of arguing where he seems to think he’s the only person who can see these things.

It’s not very controversial to suggest that religions aren’t built around belief but are built around power and control.

Ooh I think it is. Religions start as spiritual movements and later they can become embedded into power structures – but not always. I mean Catholicism yes, Protestantism no but then yes, Quakers no, Jesuits no.

At the risk of sealioning, did you miss my question from the previous page or are you intentionally ignoring it.

Which one? Mainstream religion vs cults? I don’t know.

When Genesis said “Day 1, create light; day 4, create light source,” these were literal explanations of creation.

What’s your justification for saying this?

I was replying to molgrips’ very peculiar style of arguing where he seems to think he’s the only person who can see these things.

I can see many things, but one area where my vision is clouded is what you are on about there 🙂

Well to me theology is the study of religions generally.

Okay, wrong but okay.

so perhaps religious studies is a better term

So what is being taught now?

My experience of RE in school was completely shit, but I do not believe that the concept of learning about other people is worthless, in fact it’s quite important.

So lets do it properly with anthropology and psychology. You also failed to understand the point. It was that many people do get taught it from a point of belief.

However I don’t think I’m the most condescending one on the thread, because I’m not the one dismissing billions of people throughout the world and history as being credulous fools

Ah the appeal to numbers and your normal habit of claiming what people think. The obvious flaw here is those billions of people believed lots of different things and often considered other believers credulous fools. I suspect you wouldnt be so happy to have animism or the greek gods put back on the same level as the current religions? After all the Romans complained about those Christian atheists who didnt respect the gods.

If you’re annoyed at being condescended to by someone who might not understand your point of view,

Its mostly I find it hilarious that you talk about avoiding contempt when it drips out of every sentence you write along with clear sense of superiority and absolute inability to understand others position. I believe there is a relevant quote in the bible that you might want to consider.

It seems to me that you are presupposing that creation myths were always taken literally.

No I am not.  Again you are displaying everything you claim to be against, It really is odd. I also note that you jump to the most binary scenario rather than to have the honesty to address that quite a lot of christians did for example take genesis seriously

Their whole power base was built on saying that the Pope is God’s representative and therefore the Pope cannot be wrong.

Where did you get this from? I think you are making the common mistake about papal infallibility and assuming it applies at all times. It doesnt.

There were a couple of popes over the period. One was really opposed but the second was actually a friend and admirer of Galileo and helped shield him from the dogmatic types. However that ended when Galileo, probably accidently, insulted him in the book and also took a stronger stance than the one the pope thought had been agreed on. Personally I have my suspicions the pope agreed with heliocentrism but saw it would be a long term project against those in the church who didnt.

Religions start as spiritual movements and later they can become embedded into power structures

Are you certain it isn’t the other way around?

Which one? Mainstream religion vs cults? I don’t know.

I’m confused, sorry. You “think there is a difference between mainstream religion and cults” but you don’t know what that difference is?

I sometimes learn stuff on this forum, but it’s made a lot harder when the default communication style is hectoring.

I mean Catholicism yes, Protestantism no but then yes, Quakers no, Jesuits no.

Catholics yes but Jesuits no? Bit confused by this.

You know Jesuits are a Catholic order, right? One with a reputation (in the past anyway) of getting involved in power struggles with secular authorities. Hence why they got kicked out of many countries and were even formally shut down by the pope for a time.

What’s your justification for saying this?

A fair question. Where I’m coming from is,

1) If a holy book isn’t what it claims to be / what its followers claim it to be then it makes a mockery of the entire religion.

2) People have been killed to death over the centuries across various religions for daring to go “hang on a moment…” The spread of Christianity wasn’t down to a bloke with a satchel and an ill-fitting suit going door-to-door with his Padawan asking whether you’d heard the good news. The future wasn’t orange for non-believers, it was red.

I could be wrong. But I don’t believe I am.

It’s true that Catholic Spain burned people at the stake, but it’s also true that The Commonwealth of Puritan England was the start of Parliamentary democracy and one man one vote.

I think thats somewhat about face. Parliamentary democracy had been gaining ground steadily hence why we ended up with the commonwealth. The commonwealth werent overly fond of one man one vote hence the suppression of the levellers and diggers.

Which brings me onto one of the main problems of saying religion ” wellspring of enlightenment, science, democracy and societal change”. If that is the case then why did it only occur at those times and not prior? Or was it other factors at work and then people interpreting the bible to suit.

I sometimes learn stuff on this forum, but it’s made a lot harder when the default communication style is hectoring

and a small number of folks get stuck in a circular “but you said” back and forth till the end of time. Bit like religious factionalism really