NOGO

We all believe that we have the truth otherwise we would not think the way we do. Nobody says "I know this is wrong but I want to believe it".

However, to actually state this so openly as you have makes me wonder what exactly you hoped to achieve. Are you saying that you are right and we are wrong and that this is obvious?

"only liberal Christians such as Bede and I, and a few of the more enlightened atheists here, are capable of actually accepting the evidence as it stands"

I am very curious, please tell me why these "enlightened atheists" are not Christians?

NOGO

I wish to test this.

Matthew 23:29-33
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, "If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. "Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?


Please explain these statements

"you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets."

How so?

"Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers"

Are people responsible for the acts of their parents?

"how will you escape the sentence of hell?"

... and get punished for it?


I accept the evidence as it stands.
Jesus is saying that scribes and Pharisees are guilty simply because their forefathers killed prophets and that they will go to hell for it.

Where do you stand?

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Tercel

NOGO,
In presenting evidence on an issue, Fundamentalist Apologists often have a tendency towards biased and misleading statements, misrepresentation of the evidence etc... in other words: Propaganda.
I have discovered to my disgust that Atheist Apologists are little better, and generally present propaganda in about the same amounts and to about the same degree.

That anyone would feel the need to present propaganda as opposed to simply presenting the evidence as-is, implies that their position can't actually deal with the evidence as-is.

I don't see how you can "test" this by asking for my thoughts on a Bible passage...

I think what's being said here is that in the Pharisee's saying that they wouldn't have killed the prophets like their forefathers did, they are admitting that they are descended from those who killed the prophets.

I don't think so. I think the Gospel of Matthew's got some good anti-Pharisee polemic going here though.

I think it's a reference to more than just this last crime. The passage you quote comes from near the end of a much larger anti-Pharisee rant:

Matthew 23:1-36
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

I say the Gospel of Matthew presents some very interesting anti-Pharisee polemic here. I don't doubt Jesus taught against the Pharisees, but some parts of this passage, eg
look suspiciously like a later addition by the writer of Matthew, which makes me think the writer of Matthew has combined Jesus' actual words with later Christian beliefs.

Tercel

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Bede

Is this really fair on the last dynasty of pharoahs or even the great astronomer. Polemic against the Ptolemiac family seems a tad uncalled for in this context.

B

Vorkosigan

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."

I find this phrase intriguing. Did the Pharisees actually travel over land and sea making converts?

Vorkosigan

Stephen T-B

I don't mean to interrupt what's going on here - it's just getting so good - but back to the original question for a moment: cats
I've read that in Medieval times, the Church preached that cats were the work of the devil, consequently priests and their lackeys went out on cat hunts, the cats they caught being put in baskets which were hung from posts and set fire to.
And to change the subject again - and with no intention of causing a diversion - I am always irritated by the statement that morality flows from Christianity. We have seen enough here to know the falsity of this claim.

Bede

Stephen,

Well, not really. The famous essay by Robert Darnton called <a href="http://www.geocities.com/pashathecat/History/Cat_Massacre.html" target="_blank">'The Great Cat Massacre'</a> covers a good deal of the folklore about cats and how they got victimised. What is clear is that the anti-cat attitudes were not clerically driven but village and lower class traditions. Clerics wouldn't approve of such extra-liturgical rituals on church feast days at all.

Also, you say 'Middle Ages' but this was an early modern and enlightenment practice. If they did it in the Middles Ages too, we have no records.

So, you are blaming something on the Church they actually had nothing to do with and, if anything, opposed. You are also wrongly assuming that because it seems barbaric it must happen in the Middle Ages and not the enlightenment period. Perhaps a little bit of scepticism into what you read and some research of your own would not go amiss.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bede:
[QB]

Stephen,
What is clear is that the anti-cat attitudes were not clerically driven but village and lower class traditions. Clerics wouldn't approve of such extra-liturgical rituals on church feast days at all.

Also, you say 'Middle Ages' but this was an early modern and enlightenment practice. If they did it in the Middles Ages too, we have no records.

Well, we have at least one record from the Middle Ages, that of Pope Gregory's Papal Bull Vox in Rama, which apparently maligned cats as satanic, and caused a crusade against them. No doubt the villagers and lower classes forced poor helpless Pope Gregory IX to issue that Bull naming those dastardly cats. It must have been at the promptings of those selfsame villagers and lower classes that the Knights Templar were charged with worshipping the Devil in the shape of a great cat in the following century. According to <a href="http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/cat_domesticcats.asp" target="_blank">Encyclopedia.com</a>, "Cats were venerated in the ancient Egyptian and Norse religions; they have also been the object of superstitious fear, especially in the Middle Ages, when they were tortured and burned as witches," but no doubt Bede knows more than a mere encyclopedia.

In actuality, Darnton's book is about a specific event of the 1730s and neither supports nor refutes Stephen's original point. It is a collection of essays on cultural history.

We've covered the typical Bede cycle of Pointing out Church Evil -- Bede Rushing to Defense By Claiming Attacker Knows Nothing -- Bede Shown to Be Spouting Nonsense or Non-sequitor....so I guess the next step must be for me to be told to grow up now that Bede has put his foot in it.

In the future, before issuing patronizing remarks like "Perhaps a little bit of scepticism into what you read and some research of your own would not go amiss," Bede, you might take your own advice first.

Vorkosigan

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Bede

Michael,

Stop being such a hypocrit.

Firstly, Darnton covers lots of the ritual and background to cat killing which he can find from the records. He makes no mention of priests and no mention of Christian motivation. Why not? Because he is a good historian and can't find it in his sources. Read the essay.

You, meanwhile do an internet search, quote an encylopedia (for goodness sake, are you incapable of using scholarly sources), and provide no evidence of Stephen's original contention at all.

Gregory IX's bull does not launch a crusade against cats but attacks heretics in the Rhine. Demonology was certainly influenced greatly by folklore. If I can be bothered I'll look the bull up at the IHR tonight.

Find me a SCHOLARLY source for medieval cat massacres by priests. Quoting your myths from all over the net a million times is not going to make a blind bit of difference. They will remain myths.

It seems to me that Stephen is allowed to spread hearsay without evidence or sources while if I actually give a scholar who has looked at the subject and finds its not like the mythology says it ought to be, I'm castigated.

Freethought has a lot to answer for if it is responcible for your closed mind.

B

Vorkosigan

Bede:

At the coronation of Elizabeth I a wicker effigy of the Pope was filled with cats and burnt. Why was that? Was this just the villagers and the lower classes having a little fun at the expense of the Pope?

Read the essay, Bede. The "Great Cat Massacre" refers to a specific event documented only by a single person. Darnton is a cultural historian specializing in 18th century France, an important and influential writer. He is not reviewing all the problems of the Middle Ages, but situating 18th century beliefs about cats in their roots in medieval times. The essay has nothing to do with cat persecution in the Middle Ages. Later he goes on to discuss the specific event he is referring to:

• "The only version of the cat massacre available to us was put into writing, long after the fact, by Nicolas Contat. He selected details, ordered events, and framed the story in such a way as to bring out what was meaningful for him. But he derived his notions of meaning from his culture just as naturally as he drew in air from the atmosphere around him. And he wrote down what he had helped to enact with his mates. The subjective character of the writing does not vitiate its collective frame of reference, even though the written account must be thin compared with the action it describes. The workers' mode of expression was a kind of popular theater. It involved pantomime, rough music, and a dramatic "theater of violence" improvised in the work place, in the street, and on the rooftops. It included a play within a play, because L憝eill?reenacted the whole farce several times as copies in the shop. In fact, the original massacre involved the burlesquing of other ceremonies, such as trials and charivaris. So Contat wrote about a burlesque of a burlesque, and in reading it one should make allowances for the refraction of cultural forms across genres and over time.
  
  Those allowances made, it seems clear that the workers found the massacre funny because it gave them a way to turn the tables on the bourgeois. By goading him with cat calls, they provoked him to authorize the massacre of cats, then they used the massacre to put him symbolically on trial for unjust management of the shop.

You're wasting your time. In the Middle Ages cats were killed, apparently by the thousand, thanks to idiotic beliefs like Pope Gregory's. Stephen's claims were in the main correct, and you have simply confused a remarkably influential essay by Darnton with a history of persecution of cats in the Middle Ages. Just scroll down to the middle of the essay and carefully read his list of folk beliefs about cats. He says: "First and foremost, cats suggested witchcraft."

Vorkosigan

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>