Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 10-31-2012, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But this was already by then a 400 year old plus argument. The Battle of Marathon was between a group whose philosophy was priesthood of all believers

Got from Israel.

Clivedurdle · 11-01-2012, 02:44 PM

Quote:

For the very earliest of the true men that we know of were probably quite talkative beings. In that way they have differed from the Neanderthalers and had an advantage over them. The Neanderthaler may have been a dumb animal. Of course the primitive human speech was probably a very scanty collection of names, and may have been eked out with gestures and signs. 7

There is no sort of savage so low as not to have a kind of science of cause and effect. But primitive man was not very critical in his associations of cause with effect; he very easily connected an effect with something quite wrong as its cause. “You do so and so,” he said, “and so and so happens.” You give a child a poisonous berry and it dies. You eat the heart of a valiant enemy and you become strong. There we have two bits of cause and effect association, one true one false. We call the system of cause and effect in the mind of a savage, Fetish; but Fetish is simply savage science. It differs from modern science in that it is totally unsystematic and uncritical and so more frequently wrong. 8

In many cases it is not difficult to link cause and effect, in many others erroneous ideas were soon corrected by experience; but there was a large series of issues of very great importance to primitive man, where he sought persistently for causes and found explanations that were wrong but not sufficiently wrong nor so obviously wrong as to be detected. It was a matter of great importance to him that game should be abundant or fish plentiful and easily caught, and no doubt he tried and believed in a thousand charms, incantations and omens to determine these desirable results. Another great concern of his was illness and death. Occasionally infections crept through the land and men died of them. Occasionally men were stricken by illness and died or were enfeebled without any manifest cause. This too must have given the hasty, emotional mind of primitive man much feverish exercise. Dreams and fantastic guesses made him blame this, or appeal for help to that man or beast or thing. He had the child’s aptitude for fear and panic. 9

Quite early in the little human tribe, older, steadier minds sharing the fears, sharing the imaginations, but a little more forceful than the others, must have asserted themselves, to advise, to prescribe, to command. This they declared unpropitious and that imperative, this an omen of good and that an omen of evil. The expert in Fetish, the Medicine Man, was the first priest. He exhorted, he interpreted dreams, he warned, he performed the complicated hocus pocus that brought luck or averted calamity. Primitive religion was not so much what we now call religion as practice and observance, and the early priest dictated what was indeed an arbitrary primitive practical science. 10

http://www.bartleby.com/86/12.html

mod note: source H.G. Wells (1866–1946). A Short History of the World. 1922. XII. Primitive Thought

sotto voce · 11-01-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

For the very earliest of the true men that we know of were probably quite talkative beings. In that way they have differed from the Neanderthalers and had an advantage over them. The Neanderthaler may have been a dumb animal. Of course the primitive human speech was probably a very scanty collection of names, and may have been eked out with gestures and signs. 7
There is no sort of savage so low as not to have a kind of science of cause and effect. But primitive man was not very critical in his associations of cause with effect; he very easily connected an effect with something quite wrong as its cause. “You do so and so,” he said, “and so and so happens.” You give a child a poisonous berry and it dies. You eat the heart of a valiant enemy and you become strong. There we have two bits of cause and effect association, one true one false. We call the system of cause and effect in the mind of a savage, Fetish; but Fetish is simply savage science. It differs from modern science in that it is totally unsystematic and uncritical and so more frequently wrong. 8
In many cases it is not difficult to link cause and effect, in many others erroneous ideas were soon corrected by experience; but there was a large series of issues of very great importance to primitive man, where he sought persistently for causes and found explanations that were wrong but not sufficiently wrong nor so obviously wrong as to be detected. It was a matter of great importance to him that game should be abundant or fish plentiful and easily caught, and no doubt he tried and believed in a thousand charms, incantations and omens to determine these desirable results. Another great concern of his was illness and death. Occasionally infections crept through the land and men died of them. Occasionally men were stricken by illness and died or were enfeebled without any manifest cause. This too must have given the hasty, emotional mind of primitive man much feverish exercise. Dreams and fantastic guesses made him blame this, or appeal for help to that man or beast or thing. He had the child’s aptitude for fear and panic. 9
Quite early in the little human tribe, older, steadier minds sharing the fears, sharing the imaginations, but a little more forceful than the others, must have asserted themselves, to advise, to prescribe, to command. This they declared unpropitious and that imperative, this an omen of good and that an omen of evil. The expert in Fetish, the Medicine Man, was the first priest. He exhorted, he interpreted dreams, he warned, he performed the complicated hocus pocus that brought luck or averted calamity. Primitive religion was not so much what we now call religion as practice and observance, and the early priest dictated what was indeed an arbitrary primitive practical science. 10

http://www.bartleby.com/86/12.html

"See? I can go earlier than you!"

No, you can't, Clive. Neither can you claim that Greeks contributed to Christian thought unless you can show that Greeks pre-dated Genesis.

You've read this before, so why don't you write something constructive?

Clivedurdle · 11-01-2012, 03:02 PM

Quote:

show that Greeks pre-dated Genesis.

Genesis? You mean the documents "discovered" by a king returning to Jerusalem after the exile?

But the OP is about xianity being anti-priest. As I understand it this debate is millennia old, going back at least to the first settled communities, and probably much much earlier in the mists of time.

I understand xianity to have both themes, pro - and anti priest, and would argue it is almost in built in our psyches, almost a developmental issue, of father figures and becoming adult.

sotto voce · 11-01-2012, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

show that Greeks pre-dated Genesis.

Genesis? You mean the documents

You should know far better than that by now. Oral transmission ruled, remember.

Quote:

As I understand it this debate is millennia old

There's no debate, though this absurd, cockamamie thread is about 24 hrs old.

PhilosopherJay · 11-02-2012, 04:00 PM

Hi Clivedurdle,

What I am suggesting is that there are no theological issues discussed seriously in Early Christian writings including the NT. There are just political attacks aimed mainly at Jewish Priests.

The Jewish Priests are accused of ever shifting crimes, like killing the prophets or killing Jesus, or misinterpreting scripture, and pissing off God, or hiding the keys to the keydoms. These are political charges, not serious theological discourse.

They are like the absurd charges being hurled at President Obama now by Republicans that he was responsible for the killing of four Americans in Benghazi. He is responsible because his policy failed, because he did not respond, or he didn't respond fast enough, or he didn't respond when begged directly for help, or he didn't provide enough information, or he attempted to cover up, or he didn't know what was going on, or he lied, or...

We may see the early Christians as a purely political group that shifted to being an improvised religious group in the Second Century when their political policies proved disastrous and left them without support among Jews in Syria Palæstina.

Warmly,.

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

show that Greeks pre-dated Genesis.

Genesis? You mean the documents "discovered" by a king returning to Jerusalem after the exile?

But the OP is about xianity being anti-priest. As I understand it this debate is millennia old, going back at least to the first settled communities, and probably much much earlier in the mists of time.

I understand xianity to have both themes, pro - and anti priest, and would argue it is almost in built in our psyches, almost a developmental issue, of father figures and becoming adult.

sotto voce · 11-02-2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Clivedurdle,

What I am suggesting is that there are no theological issues discussed seriously in Early Christian writings including the NT. There are just political attacks aimed mainly at Jewish Priests.

The Jewish Priests are accused of ever shifting crimes, like killing the prophets or killing Jesus, or misinterpreting scripture, and pissing off God, or hiding the keys to the keydoms. These are political charges, not serious theological discourse.

This is mind-boggling stuff, honest. How can misinterpreting scripture, pissing off God (whatever that is), and hiding the keys to the kingdom of God be political? President Obama hid the keys to the kingdom of God, and must not be elected? Is skepticism so hard up for a foothold that is must resort to farce? What is this place coming to? It's not April.

It's mega-trash anyway, even if it is admitted that the charges were religious, not political. The one 'special' section of the Jewish population that was not criticised was the priesthood. This was doubtless something to do with the fact that it was the only one that was legitimate. The others really were made up of political animals, to lesser or greater degree. It was the illicit, self-appointed Pharisees, who liked to be called rabbis, who were 'a nest of vipers'; not priests, who were not once criticised as a group.

Zechariah, the father of John the Baptiser who prophesied about his own son and Jesus, was a priest. Jesus actually commanded healed people to report to priests. And of course many priests became Christians. Priests were actually the 'goodies'. Chief priests were mentioned for their nefarious activities, but they were actually political appointees in those days.

So, dear reader, mind what you read on the 'net. It may be intended as spoof. It certainly may be inversion of the truth, if taken seriously.

aa5874 · 11-02-2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

...So, dear reader, mind what you read on the 'net. It may be intended as spoof. It certainly may be inversion of the truth, if taken seriously.

You must admit that your own statements on the "net" may be "inversions of the truth" if what you say is true.

Iskander · 11-02-2012, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Clivedurdle,

What I am suggesting is that there are no theological issues discussed seriously in Early Christian writings including the NT. There are just political attacks aimed mainly at Jewish Priests.

The Jewish Priests are accused of ever shifting crimes, like killing the prophets or killing Jesus, or misinterpreting scripture, and pissing off God, or hiding the keys to the keydoms. These are political charges, not serious theological discourse.

They are like the absurd charges being hurled at President Obama now by Republicans that he was responsible for the killing of four Americans in Benghazi. He is responsible because his policy failed, because he did not respond, or he didn't respond fast enough, or he didn't respond when begged directly for help, or he didn't provide enough information, or he attempted to cover up, or he didn't know what was going on, or he lied, or...

We may see the early Christians as a purely political group that shifted to being an improvised religious group in the Second Century when their political policies proved disastrous and left them without support among Jews in Syria Palæstina.

Warmly,.

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Genesis? You mean the documents "discovered" by a king returning to Jerusalem after the exile?

But the OP is about xianity being anti-priest. As I understand it this debate is millennia old, going back at least to the first settled communities, and probably much much earlier in the mists of time.

I understand xianity to have both themes, pro - and anti priest, and would argue it is almost in built in our psyches, almost a developmental issue, of father figures and becoming adult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

serious theological discourse

What is a serious theological discourse?

sotto voce · 11-02-2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Clivedurdle,

What I am suggesting is that there are no theological issues discussed seriously in Early Christian writings including the NT. There are just political attacks aimed mainly at Jewish Priests.

The Jewish Priests are accused of ever shifting crimes, like killing the prophets or killing Jesus, or misinterpreting scripture, and pissing off God, or hiding the keys to the keydoms. These are political charges, not serious theological discourse.

They are like the absurd charges being hurled at President Obama now by Republicans that he was responsible for the killing of four Americans in Benghazi. He is responsible because his policy failed, because he did not respond, or he didn't respond fast enough, or he didn't respond when begged directly for help, or he didn't provide enough information, or he attempted to cover up, or he didn't know what was going on, or he lied, or...

We may see the early Christians as a purely political group that shifted to being an improvised religious group in the Second Century when their political policies proved disastrous and left them without support among Jews in Syria Palæstina.

Warmly,.

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Genesis? You mean the documents "discovered" by a king returning to Jerusalem after the exile?

But the OP is about xianity being anti-priest. As I understand it this debate is millennia old, going back at least to the first settled communities, and probably much much earlier in the mists of time.

I understand xianity to have both themes, pro - and anti priest, and would argue it is almost in built in our psyches, almost a developmental issue, of father figures and becoming adult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

serious theological discourse

What is a serious theological discourse?

Very rare.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.