Yes, I just put the claptrap comment in as click-bait.

Travelling with a (very) junior travelling partner one time I announced that I thought the area of the city we were visiting was really only something of a tourist trap. Half an hour later I noticed the poor bugger was treading very gingerly and wildly checking all surrounding angles with terror-stricken eyes. I had to explain that tourist traps and bear traps weren't quite the same thing.

Tourist traps and bear traps aren't exactly the same ... but he might have read his "Now We Are Six", (A A Milne) and so would assuredly know that if you stepped on the joints in the pavement the bears WILL definitely get you. Or maybe that's only in London....



Whenever I walk in a London street,
I'm ever so careful to watch my feet;
And I keep in the squares,
And the masses of bears,
Who wait at the corners all ready to eat
The sillies who tread on the lines of the street
Go back to their lairs,
And I say to them, "Bears,
Just look how I'm walking in all the squares!"

And the little bears growl to each other, "He's mine,
As soon as he's silly and steps on a line."
And some of the bigger bears try to pretend
That they came round the corner to look for a friend;
And they try to pretend that nobody cares
Whether you walk on the lines or squares.
But only the sillies believe their talk;
It's ever so portant how you walk.
And it's ever so jolly to call out, "Bears,
Just watch me walking in all the squares!"

Meles meles wrote:

Tourist traps and bear traps aren't exactly the same ... but he might have also read his "Now We Are Six", (A A Milne) and so would assuredly know that if you stepped on the joints in the pavement the bears WILL definitely get you.

That wasn't the penalty for missteping in my childhood but I couldn't possibly say what it was without sounding appallingly racist.

Heffalump is not a racist term, at least not yet as far as I believe.

But we're digressing from things religious and entering the realms of fiction and fantasy. Oh wait a minute ...

nordmann wrote:

But we're digressing from things religious and entering the realms of fiction and fantasy. Oh wait a minute ...

Nothing real changes,does it? before I wallow further in  croc tears on the pavement, I  wonder what the point is to go on here or any other thread. The Atheists United, great team players  have a tendency towards being bully boys. One wonders where they learned the game? Put it down to religion with all the other ills heaped at its door..... res hist has stopped being fun.

I very much want to say, "For Christ's sake, can we stop all this nonsense?", but I suppose I really ought to re-word that.

MM wrote:

And I also apologise for being a bit "sharp" with everyone. This thread has touched on things close/painful to my heart ...  

And that particular elephant in the pulpit must sadly be noted: one can only ruefully acknowledge that it's no wonder you want to tell the likes of me to f**k off along with all my religious stuff. And I do mean that, MM - honestly - it isn't claptrap, at least I hope it isn't. But I won't comment further - certainly not here.

Priscilla is right: this thread isn't fun anymore, and I don't know if we can make anything so again. That really does make me sad. Am I being weak admitting that? Should I really try to be more aggressive here, attack being, so we are told, the best form of defence? I find such thinking abhorrent - what on earth good does it do, for anyone?

I actually want to start a thread about Great Theatrical Disasters - including opera and ballet. Tosca once got shot by mistake instead of Cavaradossi, and an unfortunate young Russian dancing the Duke of Albrecht once mistimed  a grand jeté en tournant and disappeared spectacularly down the trap door meant for Giselle (it was her grave and very nearly ended up as his - he was probably shot afterwards anyway by the Soviet authorities: principals at the Bolshoi are not supposed to make mistakes).

But as Great Theatrical Disasters go, seems this thread could soon be heading the list - which, I repeat, is a shame, but there it is.

Priscilla, it seems, is taking a break for a while - perhaps best I do too. Never talk about religion - always ends in tears, or someone punching someone. And that's no benefit to any of us.

Read all the recent messages of the thread and I am a bit trembling   (Sp? French "trembler") to add yet another message to this thread...
Thursday evening I was preparing for the Tintin in Congo thread and my eye was catched by the discussion about cannibalism and the modern killing in this thread and I think I sent something to Priscilla or was it to the others too about the evolution of the social codes within societies...

I'll try again...

Priscilla, Temperance, Meles meles, Ferval,

when one looks at the history of mankind I have the impression that there is an evolution in social behaviour within the wider societies earmarked by codici which were by trial and error fine tuned for the benefit of the whole...? Codici of behaviour inspired by practical empiric experience or by "thinkers" which were said that they were yes or not guided by a non human "God"...?

For me prove of that evolution is for instance the latest trial for "good behaviour and codification" and yes with all its flaws and deficiencies: the United Nations...?

Nordmann, if you find back my message from Thursday evening...?

Kind regards, Paul.

There is an old adage about keeping off the subjects of religion and politics if one doesn't want to argue.  Some folks I know whose son has become religious and who definitely are not religions themselves think their son has gone nutty.  Well I don't know him well enough to say whether he has or not. I think it's best to live and let live.

If a discussion about religion (or any discussion for that matter) can be conducted without anyone who disagrees with another person being called a "bully boy", or similar personal aspersions cast on fellow interlocutors, then it is the same as any other subject and of course amenable to debate. Once one person resorts however to personal slurs and the like then it becomes uncomfortable for everyone and pretty pointless to proceed.

In principle the subject matter lent itself to discussion in an historical context as it purported to identify things in the past that have been deemed beneficial to mankind and which at least apparently emanated from a religious source. My contention that religion should be examined less as a source and more as a conduit (the actual impulse to devise the benefit being of much more naturally human origin) has simply annoyed Priscilla as it was repeated, a repetition which was a natural outcome of the point being ignored and instead further instances of supposed benefits being proffered in response with the same assumptions regarding their actual source. Now that her frustration at being invited to consider that religion itself might simply be regarded as one man-made attempt at comprehension which can incidentally lead both to benefit and great harm has triggered a rather petulant dismissal of everyone else who does not share her view as "bullies" I would consider the discussion terminated, or at least unable to proceed in any reasonable form.

Gosh! Priscilla under the flak - making many mistakes because she thought Temps's notions were under too much pressure - all that 'Well said nordmann' stuff seemed heavy. And of course Temps is well able to cope and has said so. Bully  was a word too strong but i had sensed  atheist  shoulder at the door. Hectoring, perhaps is  a better word.

And yes LIR, religion raises problems  but we ought be able to get out minds balanced on so many issues where feeling runs strongly - threads on, the Benefits from Mrs Thatcher's time, Royalty, Marmite, trade unionism, migration, meat- eating, deer culls, US politics, whale fishing, Chinese power stations, brothels and a host of other issues about which people have strong opinion could also be raised.

Like it or not there have been and still are many religions in the world. The ills that have and continue to cause  are constant - so I wanted people to consider what benefits have come through the sieve from religions. But that is a consideration too far for most to accept. And what some take seriously are just 'fable and fiction' to quote nordmann, A challenging opinion  that was not in the spirit of the intent of the thread but coming from an atheist it was constant that ought not have bothered me.

There is also stuff going on in posts that disturb - for instance, Paul says his last post is missing - he did not delete it  - and some posts have been edited after a reply has been given to it and which then leaves ones' opinion to it hanging and exposed - and usually sounding odd.
  So religion is out as a discussion on this MBoard - unless from an atheist's standpoint of absolute knowledge. And  as the season moves on, for them I assume  no cards are sent, no wishes exchanged, no gifts given, no special meals......... just like Jehovah's Witnesses, in fact - or so I have been told. I heard of that from one who had a problem explaining their stand  to their children - so I guess atheists have much the same.
In conclusion, I think there have been many benefits to mankind in the evolution of personal and communal development; atheists don't. So that's that. That is not why I said there were bullies here but for other reasons....... so now you know.

Priscilla wrote:

There is also stuff going on in posts that disturb - for instance, Paul says his last post is missing - he did not delete it - and some posts have been edited after a reply has been given to it and which then leaves ones' opinion to it hanging and exposed - and usually sounding odd.

I can assure you that no one has the ability to edit other people's posts. People can of course edit their own and this will indeed disrupt the logic of a conversation if it has already moved on. However in the case of the objections you raise (quite rudely) in this thread that has not been the case as far as I can see. Going back over the discussion as posted from all sides I have not found anything except grammar corrections done as subsequent edits. I do not think anyone can be in doubt of your stated position or for that matter your stated opinion of those also posting here.

And yes - bullying was too strong a word and I will accept your recognition of this as the nearest you care to come to an apology. It was a low and hurtful accusation against people whose principal crime appears to have been that they disagree with you.

So now you know.

Well of course we all know a lot -  can't be bothered to look back but you can tease but any one else who attempts is rude. Ho ho. 

Somewhere there you said you only used the claptrap remarks as click bait. Click bait being what? Fun?  Ah! Ha Ha! Remarks are removed or changed without reason always being given in the edit. So, no I don't  know.And not annoyed because we cannot agree. I really am short of opinion ...... my contention is that the atheists are very sure in their knowledge whereas I am not. Theories change all the time - so its not that I disagree it's that I cannot agree; disagreement needs a backup response which in our place in evolution  as yet fledglings in the light of propounding absolute knowledge is not possible.  Religions happened - fact.  I merely wondered if any benefits derived from that. It was not intended as an opportunity to bemoan that fact and debate why humanity didn't need religions. Perhaps it never did - but religions happened, fact. Now what was it you used to do when you were teasing?  
You also may be harsh sometimes but in giving like for like, I am said to be rude. And if I offended it was not in my own defence but dismay at the weight of strong opposition to anyone posting here who has a religion. You are clever with words - especially in your dislike of religion - with strong statement and to be fair, its not you fault if your followers all write "well said,nordmann"  but that's what irked me.

Priscilla wrote:

Ah! Ha Ha! Remarks are removed or changed without reason always being given in the edit.

By who? Not by me.

You are rude when you name-call. You are rude when you insinuate others are bullies when they most definitely are not. You are rude when you make claims of underhand behaviour by others when none exists. These are all depths to which I hope I would never sink in any discussion, no matter how harsh you might find any statement I make to support my argument my posts do not include false accusation, acerbic and sometimes downright nasty insinuation and - as far as I can humanly achieve it - blatant misrepresentation of the argument against which I might try to make a case. If you thought you were merely teasing I would advise you to read back over all your comments in recent days, including even the one just posted by you. They cross a line which others here have not crossed in talking to you.

You just go too far, P. There is no attempt at humour in your remarks and they often come across as extremely petulant, snide and downright offensive, made for no reason other than you are failing to convince others of any validity in your own argument. Check them again and you'll see what I mean. Well, I would hope so.

Oh so now my sense of humour is up for question? I had no idea that I had hurt you so much I have plumbed the depths of all manner of attitudes through it. I do not claim underhand behaviour of others only that posts get changed  a tad late and it makes  and that makes a nonsense of what one wrote to the original... not underhand just difficult. When looking back I have often found things I had later referred to no  longer there. 

So folks, this P.  - that's me - for you  as suffered by nordmann on Res Hist  - rude,insinuating, false claimant, accuser, acerbic, downright nasty, petulant, snide and downright offensive and unconvincing in argument. And all that whilst asking for suggestions about benefits that could have come from religions.  
Blatant misrepresentation of argument you sometimes give that I do admit to and If you can't sense a jovial windup at some of your beautifully worded bluster then it is sad. Having an atheist intellect bruised must be somewhat the same as a religious person might feel on occasion. But they are forgiving....a benefit of religion, I suppose - oops there I go again.
Well, I'm still standing and  hope you feel better in the morning. You really ought not try to troll your own message board - or is that what I am also doing? Probably. I expect to be excommunicated any moment. 
So what did happen to Paul's missing post? Not me, like him I lack the knowledge there too. Scoff on. Cheers.

I am a sucker for clumsy teasers. Consider yourself forgiven (I learnt how to this from watching Dick Dawkins in action).

I have just read these angry exchanges and I am dismayed by this, alas, very human rub of feelings.

Two people, both wise, witty and knowledgeable - and both of whom contributors whom I have admired and respected enormously - end up scrapping like two furious kids.

Two Bible texts come to mind:


Luke 2:13-14 King James Version (KJV)

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.



Secular humanists may, if they wish, omit all reference to God in the highest, and also mention of the angelic host (it must be admitted that Saint Luke did go way over the top with them, but it was a still an absolutely brilliant story with some excellent ideas and characters);


and


Proverbs 15:1 King James Version (KJV)

15 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.


Load of b*llocks? Probably, but so is all this.


I presume this thread has now been terminated with extreme prejudice which is a shame because I still have things I want to ask both nordmann and Priscilla. If we - kicking and screaming - admit the truth of what nordmann has said about all religions stemming from the human mind, does that explain why the human mind seems to be so programmed? I want to ask about the idea of dualism - all that gnostic writing (Paul was influenced by this, I think - all that "third heaven" stuff in 2 Corinthians 12?) and Manichaeism (sp.?) which, I believe, was a serious rival to Christianity? The ideas about good v. evil, light v. darkness, love v. hate - always battling it out in every conceivable human arena. Any thoughts about benefits of this or otherwise?

EDIT - oh hurrah! nordmann has forgiven Priscilla! But will she forgive him? We await the next round with baited (joke) breath.

Temp wrote:

The ideas about good v. evil, light v. darkness, love v. hate - always battling it out in every conceivable human arena. Any thoughts about benefits of this or otherwise?

I have thoughts, yes, and I have already touched on this as a demonstrable benefit of religion, or at least something that is hard to see having developed without religious belief to provide a framework in which such metaphysical concepts could be explored and a language formed in which to express them. We have moved on since our total dependency on religion for this purpose, though it still is an unavoidable ingredient in our analysis of these themes, and will always be a factor in our fellow history for its role as a crucial stepping stone (Priscilla's term for something that wasn't such a stone) towards whatever levels of comprehension are attainable today.

The problem in deducing benefit which can be ascribed to religion is that religious belief tends by its nature to assume a responsibility for the origin of nearly everything, including especially anything "good", an assumption however that simply does not stand up to scrutiny. But religion, or more specifically the metaphysics that play such a fundamental role in framing any religious concept, when judged as a very human activity related to real-world analysis shows itself to have been of crucial importance historically in establishing the nature of those things without which later scientific analysis would hardly have been possible. Things like the nature of beginning, the nature of ending, the causality behind observable natural events, the essential components of reality - all these themes are now almost totally the preserve of science (at least if one is looking for credible answers, however incomplete) but were initially conceived and developed in a purely religious context, right up to the evolution of what used to be called natural philosophy into what we know now as "science".

I know that people point to individual scientists who profess to accommodate theological belief in their work as evidence of how the disciplines are not mutually exclusive, but I see this as evidence purely of a progression in how credibility is adduced. Religion plays an increasingly smaller role in framing metaphysical theory, but still plays an important role for many in how they should be introduced to the complexities of that field of study. It will be a long while yet before it loses that role, and in fact I would be one of those who would be distrustful of its sudden absence should that occur, but that is not the same as saying that it works any more as a credible and fecund source of answers. In fact I am grateful to be living in an age where it has been more or less relieved of that role, so terribly bad were the answers it tended to settle on.

Does that mean we can go on again? Are we there yet? Apart from my adding clumsy to the above list of my failings it seems we can. 

Whereas I understand all the above (well almost) in the OP I think I wrote religions - even ancient ones that may have benefitted their societies, faiths of The Book(s) are not the only ones  up for trial. But perhaps that has been covered.

I thought nord's last para  above most eloquent  but now wonder how I can say so without him finding out.

Thanks Temp for the coolant  post - but who are you calling brawling kids - huh? We are being very growed up!

If you start up on the metaphysics  you go it alone, Temps. But give it a bash - and prepare for fallout. Apart from the metaphysical poets' contribution - debatable, it depends if your daughter had them for A level, - I think a topic way out of my league.

I assume we are back in the  same fold - me in my little sheep in  big wolf's clothing mode and the shepherd with a glass in each hand?

Temp wrote:

If we - kicking and screaming - admit the truth of what nordmann has said about all religions stemming from the human mind, does that explain why the human mind seems to be so programmed?

If this is asking why our species seems to have what has been described as a 'God generator', I would contend that this is an example whereby facilities that have afforded the survival of our species have been taken a bit too far and we have slipped over the edge.

Those facilities are; the understanding of causality, the concept of agency and the ability to discern patterning. Evolution being non-directed takes unwise turns sometimes. Look at the panda.

Rather than subjecting you to my stumbling efforts to expand on this, here's a brief summation, I know it's a just a blog and there's more robust information on line but the argument presented accessibly here seems to cover the main points.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/hyperactive-agency-detection/

Priscilla, I don't think that I have argued that the benefits you have mentioned were not beneficial but rather that they were expressions of innate human creativity or examples of our experiments in ways of living in communities and so forth and not solely derived from religious impulses much though they have been encouraged, financed, maintained and disseminated by the the structures of various religions.

At the risk of being accused of being one of your followers, ferval, (what quaint notions religious people utilise) there is a theory well known to students of epistemology called "rational ignorance" which basically states that knowledge of no discernible benefit need not therefore be acquired - the benefit from remaining ignorant already having been established. Your post reminded me of this specious theory from long ago in my education. It is one of those propositions that apparently makes sense at face value and one which religion uses to the full extent of its epistemological insinuation.

However it doesn't actually make sense, and of course it never can. For a start, if the knowledge is not acquired then who is ever really in a position to judge the comparative benefit to be derived from either state - ignorance or knowledge? The actual effect of acquiring knowledge, as we well know, is often way more unpredicatable than it is predictable. But more to the point, the presupposition that the benefit can be anticipated and dismissed before even the knowledge is in place is itself detrimental to the notion of ever acquiring knowledge at all. Once such presupposition is not only encouraged but enforced through communal pressure - and this is what religion in any of its forms excels at - then you cannot fail to create a society dedicated at least to a large extent to ignorance and the avoidance of knowledge.

Where religion tends to come into the picture big time is in placing an unproven value on the supposed benefit of avoiding knowledge through the simple expedient of just calling the alternative "knowledge" anyway. That way it protects itself against accusation of encouraging ignorance while simultaneously making it very difficult for others to propose epistemologically sound alternatives to that so-called knowledge it has defined and assumes to protect.

When ordinary people get embroiled in these affairs the effect has always been a threefold thing - one section of humanity takes it at as standard and obligingly limits inquiry to areas unaffected by the rulings imposed through the maintenance of conjecture as fact, one sector seeks to explore within the rules and in a sense "beat those imposing restrictions at their own game" by simply extending their scope of inquiry using the epistemological constrictions already in place but to draw alternative conclusions, and the third elects to operate completely outside the restrictions (this is often where new religions crop up, but it is also where scientific inquiry has replaced religion where it has, and it is traditionally where philosophy has been distinguishable from theology, which lies firmly in the second category). The motivation for this third group has almost always been that they simply do not buy into the principle of "rational ignorance".

For what it's worth all we main contributors on this thread, as far as I can see so far, are in that third group. So there's hope yet.

Back on the tight rope. So the above  - as my mother said of many things in all manner of contexts, is better out than in.

Trying to simplify all above for the Bots that look in, you mean that progress in  human concepts in  communal behaviour and theories of enquiry would evolve without the 'middle man' of divine direction.

Probably not what you and ferv said at all. Add confusing misunderstanding to my tariff of fault above.

It also takes my mind no further forward in wondering if the ancient Egyptian notions on religion  had any benefits.... other than providing industry for an after world scenario  - and useful writing on the wall.

Temperance,

"I want to ask about the idea of dualism - all that gnostic writing (Paul was influenced by this, I think - all that "third heaven" stuff in 2 Corinthians 12?) and Manichaeism (sp.?) which, I believe, was a serious rival to Christianity?"


Yes Temperance, on the old BBC board I made once a thread about similarities between Zoroastrianism and what I learned seven years old at the Roman-Catholic nun school

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism
Not read yet the wiki while I am in a hurry to contribute to the Tintin in Congo thread and just ended on Historum: "what if France 1940 stays in war?"
And extended to the Catharism of the South of France which wouldn't have been a real dualism...

Kind regards, your friend Paul.

PS: In fact every's friend...

Thank you, Paul - also ferval for your link: haven't had time to follow anything up yet, but I will.

Just found this, ferval, which I'm sure you know all about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=0

I wonder if I've got that God gene thing?    Is there a test you can have? So it's not all my fault then - I was just born that way?

Got a very busy weekend coming up, so can't reply properly now. We'll see how it goes, but may respond tomorrow night, but don't hold your breath, which I'm sure you won't anyway.    

Kind regards to everyone from your little sunbeam friend with the flawed DNA.

Temp.

In great haste.

Priscilla wrote:

Trying to simplify all above for the Bots that look in, you mean that progress in  human concepts in  communal behaviour and theories of enquiry would evolve without the 'middle man' of divine direction.

Probably not what you and ferv said at all. Add confusing misunderstanding to my tariff of fault above.

Consider it added.

I am at a loss to understand what "divine direction" might be when it's at home. People might feel themselves divinely directed in what they think and how they behave, but as far as I can see that rarely ends well for anyone at the receiving end and even when it does those divinely directed still seem to be thinking and doing more or less what they wanted to anyway.

Also I have been at pains to point out religion's contribution historically to critical analysis and our present abilities, language and concepts when tackling metaphysical interpretation of the universe. I have even said that it is doubtful if such complexities could have been attempted to be understood, let alone understood, without the provision of a framework within which the study could be made. Traditionally it was theology (independent as it is from logic, reason and sense when the occasion suits) which was first and best at providing this framework. That may no longer be true, but while it was it represented a hugely important advance in our collectively cognitive skills.

Our knowledge of ancient Egyptian religious belief is actually quite limited. We are pretty much au fait with how it applied to attitudes towards human death - not surprising given the extant artefacts from which we draw our conclusions. Its impact and importance elsewhere is not so easy to deduce, though lately Thebes has been used as possible evidence by some historians to promote the notion of the "common soul" belief also found in some other religions in which not only individuals but the communal collective in which they live has its own spiritual identity in congress with the divine. The role of Egyptian gods seems to have been to hold the divine structure together and the rules obvious. People were subject to these rules and therefore condemnation and reward were almost automatic processes undergone by people as they failed or succeeded in fulfilling their socially applied roles here on earth. The lower your status here on earth the more you invested in the common soul, the one shared by others of the same caste, and the more likely you were to make it to an agreeable afterlife either all together or not at all. Some mobility within this "weighted salvation" scale was possible for the individual, but it corresponded almost exactly to that which the individual enjoyed in society anyway, which wasn't much.

As society advanced through the sequence of kingdoms in which different dynasties interpreted the leaders' function in influencing these rules to different extents there appears to have been a gradual shift of emphasis to individuals' own unique congress with the divine, a notion closer to the Abrahamic religions' notions, and this is used as a possible suggestion as to why the more complex and "modern" Egypt became towards the end of its time at the forefront of the development of civilisation the less able society was to reproduce the fantastic building achievements etc which had been possible before and, it is reckoned, must to a large extent have been facilitated and motivated by religious belief shared by those contributing the labour.

You're back really to your dilemma regarding ascribing "benefit" to religious cause. On the one hand, if the above assumptions are correct, the great pyramids could be defined as benefits of religion. But one could equally argue that the absence of pyramids in later kingdoms also points to a benefit of religion, those subscribing to beliefs current at that time seeing the scope for individual salvation being of more benefit than that which their ancestors had enjoyed.

deleted

nordmann wrote:

You just go too far, P. There is no attempt at humour in your remarks and they often come across as extremely petulant, snide and downright offensive, made for no reason other than you are failing to convince others of any validity in your own argument. Check them again and you'll see what I mean. Well, I would hope so.

On further reflection of the above remark - and more above it, there seems little point in trying to either continue this thread - or take part in any other discussion and hazard using  what is referred to further on as as my clumsy humour. I never expected to convince anyone of my views - only to state them. But my form of wit does not pass muster and my resilience seems to irk. So over and out.

Priscilla wrote:

nordmann wrote:

...........
You just go too far, P. There is no attempt at humour in your remarks and they often come across as extremely petulant, snide and downright offensive, made for no reason other than you are failing to convince others of any validity in your own argument. Check them again and you'll see what I mean. Well, I would hope so.

On further reflection of the above remark - and more above it, there seems little point in trying to either continue this thread - or take part in any other discussion and hazard using  what is referred to further on as as my clumsy humour. I never expected to convince anyone of my views - only to state them. But my form of wit does not pass muster and my resilience seems to irk. So over and out.

Priscilla,

and now that I wanted to start sparked, by Gilgamesh of Uruk, "the great colonial debate", as the reasons of the feeling of "we" and "the others, the foreigners" (nationalism, jingoism and all that)...I  will try to bring our friend from Jiglu here the ex-colonial, ex-Dutch Dirk Marinus and perhaps our Tasneem Tas the British/German/Canadian/ American Indian...perhaps Shifvan and Minette's brother...
As this is even more touchy than for instance the Western/ Muslim contradictions, I will try to be strictly neutral although with my research of the last two days it will be difficult I guess as I am also part of that "westerner" thinking manner...

I hope that we can continue on these boards and forget some paragraphs written on this board...and ultimately if you don't find one reason to continue...do it for me, who know you already that long from the old BBC messageboards...

Paul.

Priscilla wrote:

On further reflection of the above remark - and more above it, there seems little point in trying to either continue this thread - or take part in any other discussion and hazard using  what is referred to further on as as my clumsy humour. I never expected to convince anyone of my views - only to state them. But my form of wit does not pass muster and my resilience seems to irk. So over and out.

That's a pity, and I mean that.

However before you disappear here's one pretty BBC Canadian-centric answer to one of your questions. It's quantum physics for dummies, and doesn't even scratch the surface of what that discipline has thrown up by way of hypotheses, but it shows what happens when mathematics is applied to the quandary of before the Big Bang (or better phrased "outside" the concept).

Some last words from me on this thread.  Definitive? Well, re the above knowledge, to quote a musical thought on progress, "They've gorn about as fer as they can go, yessir!  They 've gorn about as fer as they go - they even built  a skyscraper 7 storeys high... about as high as buildin' orter go, yessir ! They've gorn about as fer as they can go!" Time will tell.....mmm?

A benefit of this thread has been getting myself sorted..... and defined. Since I with giants have fought, I suppose I am an Openminded Christian  Agnostic - closed minds on either side of the theist debate being a trial.

So, a bit early,  I send sincere, warm Christmas Greetings to those to whom it really means something - and Seasoned Greetings to the others.  - Do you others send cards and exchange Greetings or just reap the benefit of food, drink gifts and all the trappings? Just askin'  P.

Priscilla,

"So, a bit early,  I send sincere, warm Christmas Greetings to those to whom it really means something - and Seasoned Greetings to the others.  - Do you others send cards and exchange Greetings or just reap the benefit of food, drink gifts and all the trappings? Just askin'  "

" I send sincere, warm Christmas Greetings to those to whom it really means something - and Seasoned Greetings to the others. "
Priscilla for me it are the "greetings" which count as we have such a tradition of greetings on whatever occasion, especially in Belgium...

"Do you others send cards and exchange Greetings or just reap the benefit of food, drink gifts and all the trappings? Just askin'  "
Priscilla, as it is a tradition many people see it nearly as an obligation to send Christmas and New Year cards to each other and would be offended if one don't do it. Yes social obligations...of course there are also those who send "sincere" greetings without social pressure...

Sincere Christmas Greetings from your friend Paul.

Paul,

Oprechte beste wensen voor Sinterklass Daag, en vergeet niet de wortel voor Slechtweervandaag of Zwarte Piet zal niet geven u elke snoepjes.

 

Of is het Sinterkloas in Vlaams? And of course best wishes to everyone else on St Nicholas' Day too.

Grootjes!

Is that a recipe for stollen or something?

As a Christmas bread, stollen was baked for the first time at the Council of Trent in 1545, and was made with flour, yeast, oil and water.

I bet you didn't know that, MM.

Meles meles wrote:

Paul,

Oprechte beste wensen voor Sinterklass Daag, en vergeet niet de wortel voor Slechtweervandaag of Zwarte Piet zal niet geven u elke snoepjes.

 

Of is het Sinterkloas in Vlaams? And of course best wishes to everyone else on St Nicholas' Day too.

Grootjes!

MM, thank you for your aimable réplique.

Greetings from Belgium.

Like a lot of Christians I will be enjoying the Saturnalian aspect to the feast, especially the giving of presents bit, something for which we can only be grateful to the Romans for insisting on keeping as a crucial part of the whole affair even after it had been taken over by the lads.

Well, well, well, so  everyone here - mainly atheists - seem to be on the Benefits take and enjoying it - and based on religions (assorted).
 Have a card here about 'Peace on earth and Goodwill Towards all Mankind' I wonder where the Christians got hold of this tag in their selective compendium of quite good products to publish as it turns out.  They chose well. I really am off and out now.

I did specifically say it was the giving of presents I looked forward to. Always a joy for me, it being simply a bonus that it connects me historically to the pre-Christian ethos of the festival. Though admittedly I have many Christian acquaintances who, at least from what I can gather from listening to them already, look forward to the receiving, right enough. Even more so to carping about what they receive.

Well, well, well (as they apparently say).

You intrigued me though about the "Peace on earth, goodwill" bit too, so I went looking. It seems we have good King James to thank for broadening the field to include all men (the women had to wait until the happy-clappy bibles came out in the recent past and even then they are poorly represented indeed). Before that the Man Upstairs was being quite specific about who should receive good will from their Christian neighbours, and it seems in the USA He still is;

New International Version
"Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests."

New Living Translation
"Glory to God in highest heaven, and peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased."

English Standard Version
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

Berean Study Bible
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men on whom His favor rests!"

Berean Literal Bible
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased!"

New American Standard Bible
"Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased."

King James Bible
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.   (one up for King Jimmy!

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace on earth to people He favors!

International Standard Version
"Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth to people who enjoy his favor!"

NET Bible
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among people with whom he is pleased!"

Aramaic Bible in Plain English“
Glory to God in Heaven, and upon earth peace, Good News to the children of men.”  (Leave it to the Aramaians - wasn't Jesus one of them? - The Good News is just for the kids, bless'em!)

GOD'S WORD Translation
"Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those who have his good will!"

New American Standard 1977
“Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”


Jubilee Bible 2000
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will in man. (Obviously based on Jim)

King James 2000 Bible
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (Jim again)

American King James Version
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (and again)

American Standard Version
Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased. (Crikey - not even a little pleased! Has to be rather total approval from the big man here or else one can simply forget the goodly will!)

Douay-Rheims Bible
Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will. (The only Aristotelian one among the lot - I like it!)

Darby Bible Translation
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men. (what? Is this the kinky bible?)

English Revised Version
Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased. (Yawn)

Webster's Bible Translation
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men. (Wahay! Webster is a Jimmite!)

Weymouth New Testament
"Glory be to God in the highest Heavens, And on earth peace among men who please Him!"

World English Bible
"Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will toward men." (James again resisting American tribalism, though still not sexism)

Young's Literal Translation
'Glory in the highest to God, and upon earth peace, among men -- good will.' (Love the pregnant pause there, though ironically leaving out women again - for them a pregnant pause obviously means something else).

As a clumsy expression of agape or the Hebrew ahev it isn't of course a patch on earlier pronouncements from less partisan quarters. Aristotle argued that peace was the natural product of exercising one's innate capacity for agape, while Homer reckoned even just philios alone would do the trick. Both were adamant that subjectively applied favouritism, as in the Christian versions above, would simply destroy the whole effect. And I'm inclined to agree.

Sadly peace and good will is in short supply for the children of the Arameans today. Much good God's favour has done them but at least Old Sol will return to shine on them as they shelter from the rage of men. I'm happier to celebrate that phenomenon, one that has never betrayed the trust of men, rather than the long list of ideologies that have consistently proved untrustworthy.

Sorry to sound so bitter but I'm struggling to find any other light at the minute other than the promise of the solstice.
And William McIllvanney has died and I find myself thinking that a world I knew and cared about has died with him.

deleted ..... 'twas an unnecessarily cynical comment.

What about Tyndale? His version  always gets missed out of any list.

And streightwaye there was with the angell a multitude of hevenly sowdiers, laudynge God, and saying: Glory to God on hye, and peace on the erth: and unto men reioysynge.

I wonder what the original Greek actually said?

I'm sad at the moment too, ferval - I quite like the idea of peace and goodwill to all men - and women - and anyone else. Little hope of it though, the human capacity for bitterness and hatred being what it is. The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and all that? I once saw, around Christmas time many years ago, "F*ck off, you cat w*nkers" scrawled on a subway wall in Manchester. Not nice, but it seemed like a message for our times.

Poor old Tyndale, scribbling away furiously by candlelight, fretting about his ploughboys' reading material. I bet he wouldn't bother today. But then again, maybe he would. I like to think so anyway.

But I'm rambling as usual. Over and out.

Tyndale obviously wasn't thinking of Christmas card potential.

The Greek “δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας" is problematic, and even more so apparently when "eudokia" only apparently became "eudokias" in the 19th century revised Greek editions of the Bible onwards. The "s" makes it genitive and therefore gives rise to either the Aristotelean "to all men of good will" or the rather horrible "to all men of (God's) favour". Received texts up the 16th century all agreed on "eudokia" which allows its use as nominative, hence the "good will to all men" of which Calvin so approved and which made it into the King James. This however still doesn't preclude a dative case so even Calvin had to admit that his contemporaries who chose to regard the word as meaning "in God's favour" had a grammatical point.

But the 19th century amendment was made on the evidence of ancient codices and the theologians who made the change also had a very good point. As with all things theological, there is simply too much at stake for interested parties to agree to differ and then just leave it at that. Here, for example, the Codex Sinaiticus (Greek from the 4th century) shows rather obvious tampering with the parchment and a sigma "C" seemingly scraped off the end of the word by a later redactor of the parchment (it's the word wrapped between the fifth and sixth lines down from the top in the right hand column). On this site the translator seemingly has no doubt that Calvin can go hang himself anyway, but it at least appears to show that even in antiquity there was disagreement about whose good will was to be given out and to whom. It would appear that the Calvinist interpretation, if it hadn't been for its inclusion in the KJV, might well have disappeared altogether.

Hallmark (and hippies) must be delighted that it hasn't.

nordmann wrote:

The Greek “δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας" is problematic, ....

Well yes... it is, err, problematic indeed.    

Blimey Nordmann, I have to say that yet again I'm struck dumb by your erudite learning.

Frankly I always had trouble with cases, and hence why my 3 years of German and a rather shorter exposure to Latin still find me floundering in those tongues. I wouldn't know whether your arguement is right or wrong but I confess I'm nevertheless mightily impressed (and I am being sincere).

Or is what you wrote just clap-trap (in the original meaning of the word of course)?

Meles meles wrote:

nordmann wrote:

The Greek “δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας" is problematic, ....

Well yes... it is, err, problematic indeed.    

Blimey Nordmann, I have to say that yet again I'm struck dumb by your erudite learning.

Frankly I always had trouble with cases, and hence why my 3 years of German and a rather shorter exposure to Latin still find me floundering in those tongues. I don't know whether you are right or wrong in your arguement but I confess I'm nevertheless mightily impressed (and I am being sincere).

Yeah, makes you sick, doesn't it?

But it'll be useful stuff for me to come out with to The Message-reading fundies next week at the 4-Parishes Christmas do. That'll shut them up - well for a bit at least. Just wish I knew how to pronounce "δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας". I don't want them thinking I've started speaking in tongues - they might start rejoicing and praying over me.  

And with that charitable little post I shall log out.

Using the Roman alphabet, Temp, it reads "Doxa en hupsistois theo kai epi ges eirini en anthropois eudokia(s)"

Its absolutely literal translation (or transliteration) therefore is:

Glory/dignity/honour/praise/worship in/to supreme/most high God and on earth peace/prosperity/rest in/to men (of) satisfaction/kindness/desire/purpose/good pleasure.

Luke's placement of the "eudokias" at the end was actually very bad Greek, no matter what he was trying to say, as in Greek the order might not be as important as in Latin or English but the proximity is everything. Stuck out at the end like that all alone it can refer to any of the preceding substantives or nouns. To a Greek teacher it would merit a little circle in red pencil and an instruction to try harder. To theologians it merited two thousand years of quibbling about what the hell he was getting at.

I should add that nowhere in the original schoolboy Greek of Luke either does it refer in any way to shepherds washing their socks. Though if it had then it would have been "ενώ οι βοσκοί πλένονται κάλτσες τους" (everything looks classier in Greek).

Well even if it is 'clap-trap' ... I'm still applauding from the stalls!

Actually I'm quite chuffed that whist having only a degree in a STEM subject (rather than doing a 'proper' degree in classics) I see that I can still actually read/pronounce the Greek almost correctly ... I dunno what I might be saying, but at least I can still say it! 

But though I briefly feel quite pleased with myself, I have to admit that it is still (mostly) all Greek to me.

 

nordmann wrote:

I should add that nowhere in the original schoolboy Greek of Luke either does it refer in any way to shepherds washing their socks. Though if it had then it would have been "ενώ οι βοσκοί πλένονται κάλτσες τους" (everything looks classier in Greek).

It does indeed look classy. I would quite like to have that on my gravestone. No one would know what it meant, but they would think I must have been terribly intellectual.

I didn't know the Greeks wore socks, but if there's a word for sock, they must have.

I believe the Greek of all the New Testament writers was a bit suspect: Saint Paul's was especially dodgy. Pope Clement VII told the theological students in Rome never to read him, as it would spoil their style.

EDIT: I have been informed that the Greek poet Hesiod wrote of piloi, socks made from matted animal hairs. How did Hesiod work "sock" into a poem, I wonder?

Pronunciation Temp is

"δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας"

"Doxa en hupsistois theo kai epi gis (not ges, typo above) eirini en anthropois eudokia(s)"

Thoxa (heavy th as in that, o as in orange) en ipsistis (i as in kit) Theyo (light th as in think) ke (e as in ent) epee yis (i as in kit) irini (i as in kit) en ahnthropee evthokeeah(s) (th as in that again)

That would be the modern Greek pronunciation but I don't suppose the church group would know the difference. Or for that matter, I don't suppose that anyone knows today exaxtly the ancient pronunciation/accent. It certainly sounds quite different when the priests are at it in church anyway.

Temperance wrote:

I have been informed that the Greek poet Hesiod wrote of piloi, socks made from matted animal hairs. How did Hesiod work "sock" into a poem, I wonder?

Ο Αλέξανδρος κέρδισε pilois του,
Oταν δολοφονήθηκε Philois του

(Alexander earned his hairy socks
When he murdered his father's advisors)

A semi-accurate poem historically - but it certainly loses a lot in translation

Apparently - according to nordmann - and dispute that at your peril - the church was responsible for bringing a standard order to keeping time as we now use it re hours, midnight etc. That counts as  benefit in the context of this thread.

It played a role or, better said, it played a role already defined back in Roman times which it continued for purely its own reasons. In terms of modern standards, and in terms of communal good however, the city guilds and then the railways probably played a greater one.

nordmann wrote:

It played a role or, better said, it played a role already defined back in Roman times which it continued for purely its own reasons. In terms of modern standards, and in terms of communal good however, the city guilds and then the railways probably played a greater one.

It crossed my mind too when I posted today on Paul R's "month" thread that accurate time-keeping was a possible benefit of religion. In particular clocks, clockwork mechanisms (which I had already specifically mentioned on this thread), and the associated demands of intricate gear-making for precision instruments etc ... undoubtedly owe some gratitude to the finnicky demands of the monasteries and their largely esoteric demands for accurate time-keeping. But outside of the religious houses, accurate clocks were of little interest or benefit to the average European for the next 500 years or so ... until trans-oceanic sea navigation and trade, stage-coaches, and then the railways and telegraph, demanded accurate, precise and standard time-keeping over large geographic distances, by which time simple monastic clocks had been completely surpassed by the current needs of science and engineering.

In the 13th century, the monastic houses' excessive fussing over the exact timing for nones and lauds didn't really lead to any immediately useful spin-offs, or at least none that would be of any relevance to the rest of society for at least another few hundred years ... by which time the demands of war, central government, industry, local business and international trade would have, and indeed did, of their own necessity lead to the development of clockwork/gearing/springs/metrology/calculus/etc.