http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25717923-5002700,00.html

The religious on OLO tell us that we humans were made
in God's image.

Sounds more like our European ancestors were cannibals who
preferred to snack on the children and adolescents of opposing
tribes!

At some point we'll have to come to terms with the fact that
humans are simply another species which evolved, albeit with
a slightly larger brain and vocal chords which allow for
consonants, not just vowel sounds, as with our primate cousins.

No, you god-hating infidel. Those are the remains of a type of child-shaped fruit that grew in the garden of Eden alongside the herbivorous T-Rexes, and they're only 6000 years old.

Once again, scientists, with their "evidence" and "demonstrated facts", put their souls in jeopardy by refusing to acknowledge the authority of the one true collection of Bronze Age shepherding folk stories.

If only we could come to terms with it today.
However we are little by little gaining an understanding.
We are indeed in charge of our own destiny.
Even now a city dweller camping in the bush for the first time can see why we have Gods.
The quite natural night call that sounds like child, the fear of first sight of a rainbow or sound of thunder, God explained for some
But we are growing up its time to understand life is not some ones sand box.

gabby quote<<..At some point we'll have to come to terms with the fact that humans are simply another species which evolved,>>oh dear please present proof of your THEORY...

the proof [so called] is virtualkly nonegsistant...and artistic licence...your lizard bird for egsample never had feathers...

seems they used modern chicken feathers to create that proof...lucy is an assortment of fragments[and that fish/mammel coldblood fish with 'limbs' dont have a shoulderblade.....[esential for walking[thus never 'walked' out of the sea.

and couldnt be the first mammel/coldblood/warmblood..the proof most certainly is not there...validate your proof

<<albeit with a slightly larger brain and vocal chords which allow for consonants, not just vowel sounds, as with our primate cousins>>.not to mention the hundreds of other differences..bone thickness.forhead nose hands feet...all different by far...than human

we the ONLY one got writting.concepts.curiosity ,inventivness,and hundreds of other traits NEVER EQUALLED BY ALL THE BEASTS COMBINED...you can find vague signs of copycat but nothing anywhere like we [even the dummest of us] have

if you really believe the ape delusionm fairy tale......to make it seem killing people is olny killing animals are ignorant...present real proof...and i will point out their clear errors..[if your curious

all death is wrong...
but we are light beings see last post at inteligent creator post
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2966

Dear Yabby,

Who really knows the answers to all
the questions...

Science has made so much progress and
provided us with rational explanations for
the mysteries of the universe but there
are still gaps in our understanding...

The more we learn, the more we realize we have
more to learn ..

Hmmm OUG, I wonder if you read the article that I linked to.

If you did, then did God forget to tell Adam and Eve that
snacking on other peoples children is a bad thing? :)

Another typical story built around men's imagination. The 800000 years is said with such authority and no scientific proof. I don't know who is more gullible. Is it the people who invent this pseudo science or the bunnies who believe it? Cannibalism has been part of many godless tribes and cultures even in recent history. It certainly makes for a good laugh when people have to invent this crap to keep receiving their funding. This is the kind of crap used to dismiss the obvious (a Creator). No wonder so many true scientist cringe at such nonsense. I wonder if these people still believe the aboriginals are the missing link? It would not surprise me.

Dear Yabby,

I agree with runner - cannibalism as well as
human sacrifice is as "old as the hills,"
however, I wouldn't say the people who practiced
those rites were "godless," they simply believed
in different "gods." But it's interesting to note
while on the subject of 'cannibalism," that Jesus said:
(John 6:53-56):

"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have
no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks
my blood has eternal life ..."
Roman Catholicism still teaches Jesus was speaking
literally and they hold to the doctrine of
"transubstantiation."

Interesting...

I think I found something to agree with you. My origin is from primatives and I am very proud for it! Got is late creture of human's fantacy, ignore him!

Dear Antonios,

So you're not for human rights for all people
after all ?

Only for cave men and primitives?

Interesting...

I just must remark on OUG and runner.
Those who try to convince us to purchase an Item
spend a lot of money and time looking for the right salesman.
As ambassadors these two do not sell me anything.

i have now read your link...and in a cave lies a complete[lol]human skeliton..but words..no priooof...at least the melbourne truthy hads photoes..

and plenty of bones indicating the beat up of cannabilism...in one cave..the typically truth style puff piece indicates humans must be more older than real scientists claim humand to be...

but this point isnt made..that might get real science minded to read their spin...designed to attract the mindless[not mindfull]..who question the other distortions

natursally no link is given to validate this revelation..its the equivent to them raIDING YOUR HOME GABBY AND FINDING SHEEP BONES AND YABBY moults and saying you were a sheep/yabby godhead...

its faux science presented as news for the unthinking/mindles CONsumer of tittilating discussion DESIGNED to demean you lot and confuse YOU

to blame this little caves inhabitants..acts..on god is stretching credubiliity ..but you lot just swallow your deceptions...and not even a photo..or other validation...

but like allways its a writing written for the mindless..from that high jounalistic sun herald....loll..your a lot of gullable godless/gossips

this article has nothing to do with god..revealing much about the intelligence..[or lack of it...from the poster's...as well as the bias ...that sees this as being god in action...

know where you come from..were not all raising beasts..to murder for food...needing to justify ourselves..and demean god or his creation

enough time wasted on the mindless/godless eugenisysts adgenda..demeaning human life and calling spin/speculation/distoirtions.. news...how gullable and despirit you lot are

Yabby… you must have been experiencing a too quiet a Sunday afternoon, so you decided to liven it up by doing a bit of pot stirring.

It looks like Sancho bit LOL

And runner

Not sure about UOG …his posts are too obtuse to bother to read

An Antonios has come along side… yes my ancestors were primitives too Antonios… the difference between us is … I have evolved beyond them.

And btw Yabby, re difference to other primates… you forgot the opposing thumbs

That humans sacrificed their children existed in Europe till at least 600 AD when Christianity changed that evil practise. The problem with the article is not that humans ate children it is the claim that they did it 800,000 years earlier and dropped the idea a few centuries or so later. If human sacrifice existed 800,000 it also extended till 600 AD in Europe and till 1900 AD in Irian Jaya. The problem is the credibility of the dating to exclude all dates more recent when the practise was happening.

Christianity transformed pagan European practises of them inserting a coin into the pudding fed to the children during winter solace to identify the chosen child to be sacrificed to the god of fertility and new life. Vestage of this practise remains today in the coin in the Christmas pudding and is supposed to mean a blessing to the child now spared from sacrifice.

Philo,
About the coin in the Christmas pudding. You have provided me with another piece of useless, but interesting, information to add to my brain.

Now I know why mum used to make sure ALL the kids had a threepenny bit in their pudding, under the custard. Good mother!

Philo,

The Romans objected to the Eucharist because it symbolised cannibalism. Herein, I suspect it was the remains of Latin world view that carried both Christianity and remnant customs into the seventh century Europe.

Oliver,
The Romans syncrinistic adaption of Christ teachings, is not what he said at all his teaching was not literal eating of his flesh and blood as he was with them in flesh and blood. What he meant was the partaking of his spirit in attitude and action.

I have among my friends at Church a former New Guinea citizens whose grandfather was a tribal head hunter. There has been no genetic development to now make him an intelligent educated citizen of Australia. Also I have had uni students who have boarded with me from West Papua with degrees in economics, micro-biology, nursing, business management, and teaching; whose parents still live in primitive conditions in the highlands. Whose grandparents ate human flesh as a delicacy. No dramatic genetic developments have taken place in one generation only the knowledge of Christ and their conversion.

We have the usual cries of anthropoligists who say their culture should have been left like it was. Is this evolution?

You're far too kind, Banjo.

>>About the coin in the Christmas pudding. ["pagan European practises of them inserting a coin into the pudding fed to the children during winter solace to identify the chosen child to be sacrificed to the god of fertility and new life"] You have provided me with another piece of useless, but interesting, information to add to my brain.<<

Useless, yes. Interesting? Perhaps.

True? Not at all.

You may now feel free to discard it, along with all those sightings of sightings of UFOs, those intestinal probings that occur when you are abducted by aliens (they just buy you a good dinner and discuss Jimi Hendrix. Honest) and the existence of the tooth fairy.

It's just a piece of Philo whimsy, a bit of manufactured propaganda against us pagans.

If you would like to check out a few facts on the topic, as opposed to swallowing Philo's calumnies whole, try looking into "The strange world of human sacrifice" by Jan N. Bremmer.

It's a fun, exciting, and entirely pudding-free read.

The coin was hidden in the pudding - often with other symbols, like a thimble and a ring - simply to "bring good luck" to the person who finds it.

The tradition was in fact invented by dentists, to drum up trade in the otherwise dog days of winter.

Well, all right, maybe not.

But my theory at least has the advantage of plausibility

Research the religious practises of the Germanic tribes of 1400 years ago and the writings of Saint Boniface and his life among these tribes 600 AD.

Belly writes

'I just must remark on OUG and runner.
Those who try to convince us to purchase an Item
spend a lot of money and time looking for the right salesman.
As ambassadors these two do not sell me anything.'

Sounds very much to me that you would rather and 'angel of light' than the truth told as it is. One makes you feel comfortable in sin while the truth offers mercy and forgiveness.

Salvation certainly is not something you or any other person on earth have enough money for. The price has already been paid though it takes humility to accept that.

Is this supposed to be the reference for the great Christmas pudding furphy, Philo?

>>Research the religious practises of the Germanic tribes of 1400 years ago and the writings of Saint Boniface and his life among these tribes 600 AD<<

It is polite to offer a proper source when trying to support your story, Philo.

Issuing an instruction that someone else goes on this particular wild goose chase doesn't cut it, and would be mildly offensive if it weren't so obvious that you have no evidence to offer.

C'mon, admit it.

You found a vague unsupported reference someplace, and thought you'd pass it off as fact, didn't you?

No shame, we've all tried it on at sometime. But big people confess when they're called on it.

Take your courage in both hands and say after me...

"It was a good story. But it is most likely apocryphal".

For your information - and to save Banjo having to scurry off to the library - human sacrifices in the Germanic tribes was almost invariably the ritual murder of the "first fruits of war", along the lines of when Goths were sacrificed by King Theudebert in 539.

No record exists of children being sacrificed at the winter solstice, let alone the practice of feeding them crunchy puddings.

I know it makes you feel all gooey and virtuous when you hear these things about those horrid pagans who had to be "converted" from their wicked ways.

But it helps if you stay within the bounds of reality.

My mum used to do the thrupny bit thing in the xmas pud when I was a littlun. The dirty business of getting them back for her put me off pudding for life.
Strangely, other members of the family weren't that fussed on using the same thrupences year after year, either.
I seem to remember human sacrifice was mentioned, once or twice.

Dear yabby,
Have you any idea what it means to be made in Gods image or is your lack of knowledge showing.

Richard, Christian Diet and the Third Crausade:

“This lighthearted Christian attitude to anthropophagy reappears in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century… in which crusade cannibalism is attributed to the king himself. In the Holy Land … inspired by the Blessed Virgin, remembers both the ample supply of Saracen prisoners of war, and the possibilities of spice and a little culinary skill… Believing he has consumed the pork necessary for his recovery, the king recuperates rapidly, until he is well enough to demand the head of the pig. When he is shown the head of a Saracen, instead of expressing the horror and disgust one might expect,Richard is delighted at the fact that Saracens are so tasty, and at the fact that this discovery means the defeat of famine in the Christian camp. In fact, Richard finds a further way to capitalize on his innovation. Shortly thereafter, he invites representatives of the Saracens to a feast, ostensibly to broker a peace agreement, but before they arrive, he has the most noble of his prisoners-of-war killed…”

“Faced with the English king carving the head before him and eating heartily, in addition to the carefully labeled grinning horrors on their own plates, the Saracen ambassadors flee, and Richard warns their retreating backs that, compared to Saracen meat "ther is no fflesch so norysschaunt/Vnto an Ynglyssche Cristen-man" and that the English will leave only when the Saracens ‘be eaten euerylkon")."

"The Saracens immediately return to their Sultan, and the story is reiterated once more in the form of their outraged narrative, which includes their description of Richard, truly lionhearted, tearing into the human head before him: ‘With teeth he grond the flessch ful harde,/As a wood lyoun he ffarde,/With hys eyen stepe and grym…’ " –

-Source: Price: Consuming Passions: The Uses of Cannibalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe.

Philo,

Thank you the explanation. From what I have read, Christians were not cannibals during the period of six hundred years after Christ. There were however instances of early Christians dismembering and collecting parts of Martyrs in the Roman era (Fox).

Pericles,
Your rudness calls for an apology. When "she who must be obeyed" calls for dinner. Time is of the essence which makes it impossible to give detail. I assumed if anyone was interested during my absence they might check it out and give URL references. Though I have researched the origins of Christmas traditions in the past I do not have them readily available. But since you insist I might take the time to relook at them.

Child sacrifice was practised in ancient times as offering to the Ammonite god Molech a worship of natural fertility which was forbidden by the laws of Israel. See Leviticus 18: 21; 20: 1 - 5; 1Kings 11: 7; 2 Kings 17 17; 21: 6; 27: 10; Jeremiah 32: 35; Ezekiel 16: 21. Tradition ascribed to Sanchuniathon stated that the Pheonicians sacrificed children. the practise of Mlk ocurrs in Ugarit texts and has been ascribed by Gordon as a kind of child sacrifice (C H Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook 1947 edit page 246)

I grew up 70 years ago in a family of seven and when we would meet with my auntie and her five children at Christmas, her husband's influence being of European heritage there was only one coin in the pudding and the child that had the coin was prayed a blessing over; of thanks to God. However it was not long before the practise was changed to insert coins for all and a prayer was made for all children.

Dear Philo,
So that is where man started to missunderstand the word of God. I always believed it started in genesis chapter 3 verse 1 where the serpent deceived Eve and Adam chose to follow his wife and the rest is the history of the human race in a cursed world. Thank you for your informative information but you havn't changed my mind.

Sorry Philo my post was directed at Oliver not you.

I'm not sure you will get one, Philo.

>>Pericles, Your rudness calls for an apology.<<

Especially given your excuse.

>>When "she who must be obeyed" calls for dinner. Time is of the essence which makes it impossible to give detail.<<

Since when is it reasonable to make your problem someone else's?

And this doesn't exactly help matters along, does it?

>>Child sacrifice was practised in ancient times as offering to the Ammonite god Molech a worship of natural fertility which was forbidden by the laws of Israel... Tradition ascribed to Sanchuniathon stated that the Pheonicians sacrificed children. the practise of Mlk ocurrs in Ugarit texts and has been ascribed by Gordon as a kind of child sacrifice<<

Nowhere does the concept of any form of lottery to select the sacrifice appear. Let me remind you of the statement in question.

>>pagan European practises of them inserting a coin into the pudding fed to the children during winter solace to identify the chosen child to be sacrificed to the god of fertility and new life<<

Unless you have decided unilaterally to declare Ammonites, Phoenecians etc. as "European pagans", you still haven't got close to justifying the calumny.

Apology?

I think you should take some responsibility for your errors, and 'fess up.

Your Auntie was following the tradition that I described to you earlier. A token is mixed into the pudding, to bring luck, wealth or romance to the finder.

In case I haven't made it clear: no record exists of children being sacrificed at the winter solstice, let alone the practice of feeding them "surprise" puddings to determine which one goes for the chop.

Oh, and while I am here, Philo.

I thought you were intending to quote St Boniface?

What happened to him?

Richie10,

Are you sure you intend to address me? If so, you may need to expand your comment please.

O.

Grim,
The idea is to chew your food before swallowing. Bet your mum told you that. We kids all enjoyed finding the 'tray' bit in the pudding anyway and it was not until older we found out mum made sure we all got a coin. Even after decimal currency came she kept the 'tray' bits for christmas pudding, its about the coin being silver, and made sure the grandkids got one each. Good memories.

On canabalism, I believe that it was practised in China during the great famine 1958-62. Maybe that famine saw the beginnings of some of the other unusual culinary practises of the Chinese.

The latest event I know of was the survivors of a plane crash in the Andes. Did not the Papuans call human flesh 'long pig'

The claim made in the article is the bones are 800,000 years old and genetic evolution changed this habit to a more civilised society. The fact is the genetics are the same as modern man not some prehistoric link. It is my claim that evolution had nothing to do with the abandonment of this practise, because the practise was carried on in recent times. Conditions drive people to take drastic measures to survive. Living in a cave in ancient times would be an acceptable place to escape to heavy snows of a more recent ice age.

From the German history, http://en.allexperts.com/e/g/ge/germanic_paganism.htm
St Boniface, some of whose emblems are the oak tree and the axe. Information gleaned from Catholic sources during his missionary journeys to the Germanic tribes, he after witnessing their outrageous pagan religious ritual of child sacrifice and gathering around a dormant giant oak to witness its first buds of spring. He decided to take an axe to the tree and cut it down. This created outrage to the locals but from its base grew an evergreen pine and from that he was able to teach God does not sleep during the winter, but is eternally alive. The area was heavily wooded but covered with meters of snow which made food gathering difficult to feed their families in the middle of winter.

Where and why did the horrific story of Hansel and Gretel originate and why is it told to children? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansel_and_Gretel
The Druids; http://www.bilderberg.org/sacrific.htm

Reports of child ritual sacrifice in Northern India;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4903390.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/05/india.theobserver

Human sacrifice in Canaan:

http://alencon13.blogspot.com/2006/06/human-sacrifice-in-ancient-canaan.html Abram while passing through pagan territory was faced with their practise of child sacrifice and was tempted to sacrifice his own son Isaac but through a revelation from God withheld and took a ram instead Genesis 22: 12 – 14.

Human sacrifice to appease gods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_paganism

The feminist movement on abortion has links similar to child sacrifice of unwanted children. It has been women that have been attributed with the killing of children in religious rituals.
http://www.forerunner.com/champion/X0039_Child_Sacrifice_in_t.html
(Press Ctrl + click to open links)

Sheesh Philo, you continue to try and make out that the early
Xtians were a civilised and intelligent lot, through those
rosy coloured glasses.

I wonder if you watched tonight's ABC programme "Tony Robinson's
Crime and Punishment" ?

Its sounds like those Xtians in Britain had it all worked out.
They would let god pass judgement, via trial by ordeal or trial
by battle.

If you were unfortunate enough to be accused of a crime, you'd
be forced to hang on to a red hot poker iron and depending on how
fast your wounds healed, god would seemingly decide on your innocence
or guilt.

Trial by battle was easier. You'd fight the other guy and if he
killed you, then you were clearly guilty of your crime!

Perhaps I'll just stick to the secular way after all :)

Yabby,
Where in the teachings of Jesus does he encourage such behaviour. What man will do to each other it does not suprise me but if you claim it is the teachings of Christ then please identify where he taught such.

Dear Philo,

You have just followed the same scenario that I have seen played out many times.

A Christian sings the praises of Christianity as a civilising influence.

A sceptic such as Yabby than points out that secular society has curbed the nasty practices of Christians.

Then the Christian claims that Jesus never advocated such practices.

If Christians behave in a nasty manner what difference does it make whether or not Jesus advocated such behaviour? Yabby's original point that Christianity is not a civilising influence has not been answered.

You can stop ducking and weaving now, Philo, the jig is up.

It is just as I thought.

According to you, St Boniface...

>>after witnessing their outrageous pagan religious ritual of child sacrifice and gathering around a dormant giant oak to witness its first buds of spring. He decided to take an axe to the tree and cut it down<<

Forgive my cynicism, but I think you just made that up.

Here is the "authorized version".

http://www.eldrbarry.net/mous/saint/bonfmain.htm

Not one of the sources you provide mentions St Boniface, by the way.

Not one of the sources you provide mentions child sacrifice.

>>Where and why did the horrific story of Hansel and Gretel originate and why is it told to children?<<

According to the reference that you yourself provided, "[m]any critics have posited that the tale likely stemmed from historical instances of abandonment caused by famine."

Not one of your references mentions the random selection of the victim.

Not one of your references even gets close to mentioning puddings, let alone Christmas puddings with coins inside.

I think it might be time to confess that you simply passed on an apocryphal story, that you couldn't be bothered to check, simply because it added a frisson of glamour and intrigue to Christmas pud.

Once more, to be absolutely clear, this statement of yours is utter nonsense.

>>pagan European practises of them inserting a coin into the pudding fed to the children during winter solace to identify the chosen child to be sacrificed to the god of fertility and new life<<

You do know how to say "I was wrong", don't you?

Go on, give it a try. It will do you good.

Philo

This is one of those rare occasions where I agree with Yabby. Tony Robinson's "Crime and Punishment" should be required viewing for fundamentalist christians like yourself.

No, Jesus did not preach "trial by ordeal" but since when has the formal religion of Christianity ever followed Jesus' teaching? Your dodging and weaving is a parody of the avoidance taken by Church leaders on the issue of paedophilia.

Since the time of Constantine, Christianity has been nothing much more than a tool for power and politics.

Why can't you just be a caring human being without all the religious baggage?

It's easy. And you don't need to read a book, where you have to completely ignore the nasty bits (like a vengeful god) or apply doublethink to your brain. You just treat other people as you would like to be treated yourself. Its not rocket science.

Marx's view of religion as the 'opium of the
people,' perhaps was too narrow a view as
religion can be involved in social conflict
in other ways as well as including ways that
challenge the status quo.

This is because societies that are hostile
to one another often use religion as an
idealogical weapon emphasizing differences
in faith in order to justify conflict.

Wars fought on religious grounds are often marked
by extreme bloodiness and fanaticism, but religious
differences are not necessarily the causes of the wars,
even though the participants themselves may think they are.

The medieval Crusades, at first sight may appear to have
been a purely religious conflict in which European
Christians were trying to recover the Holy Land from Muslims.
A closer analysis suggests an additional reason. The
European nobility launched the Crusades partly to gain
control of the trade routes to the East and partly to
divert widespread unrest among their peasantry.

Similarly, the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the
Middle East may seem to arise from religious differences,
but the tension is really over competing claims by two
different ethnic groups, the Israelis and the Palestinians,
for the same homeland. In much the same way, the conflict
in Northern Ireland seemed on the surface to be one
between Catholics and Protestants, but its roots lie much
deeper in ethnic and class divisions between Irish of
native descent and those descended from British settlers.

Sometimes a group may actually be inspired by religion to
challenge the existing order. In many of the highly unequal
and impoverished societies of Central and South America,
for example, the Catholic Church has long been associated
with the military, social, and economic elite. Yet in recent
years, a minority of priests and nuns have embraced
"liberation theology," which blends Christian compassion
for the poor with explicit commitment to political change
through class struggle.

The basic tenet of Christianity after all is - "that you
love one another as I have loved you." Religion can't
be blamed for the actions of what people do or don't do.

Foxy

<< Religion can't be blamed for the actions of what people do or don't do. >>

Disagree completely.

Religion creates an "us" and "them" world view, for example on OLO Peter Sellick's view of non-Christians lacking humanity and imagination.

If being a follower of Christ is so positive, why don't His teachings temper the behaviour of paedophile priests?

or

Provide the values of empathy and compassion to George Pell?

Also you referred to "Christian Compassion" does that mean my compassion for others is different? Inferior? Please explain the difference between Christian compassion and human compassion.

One doesn't have to be a nun, religious or even Christian to work towards peace, equity or love.

But what you are saying, Foxy, is "don't blame the religion (Christianity) blame the individual". I am sure that sufferers from religious persecution the world over will understand. Whether religion is used as a tool for power or whether some people find succour in the idea of a supreme being, is irrelevant.

To paraphrase: one doesn't need religion to do good, but good people need religion to do evil.

The Crusades were more a device to divert widespread unrest among the nobility than among peasantry. The system of primogeniture left all but the oldest son landless and equipped for nothing except making war.

The conflict in Israel/Palestine is not between two ethnic groups. DNA testing has shown that the Israelis and Palestinians have a shared ancestry. They are the same ethnic group separated by religion. The separate claims for the same territory are due to religious differences. The linguistic and cultural differences are subsidiary.

It is the same in the former Yugoslavia. At one time they were almost all Orthodox Christians. After the Islamic conquest of the Balkans most of the upper class became Muslims. When part of the territory was conquered by the Austro-Hungarian Empire some became Catholic. Serbs and Croats speak the same language but use different alphabets.

The Irish descended from British settlers are almost all Scots. Like the Catholic Irish they are Celts. Before Christianity there was little to differentiate them. They have a common heritage and separate religions.

Although religious differences are not necessarily the causes of wars, they sometimes are, and they exacerbate the hatred of the Other even when they are not the cause.

farcical..<<Religion creates an "us" and "them" world view,..Peter Sellick's view of non-Christians lacking humanity and imagination.>>.IM CASTING STONES NOW...one olo poster..means were all black...RIGHT?...whho is your us>factiler

<<If being a follower of Christ is so positive,..why don't His teachings temper the behaviour of paedophile priests?>>>..define an olo POSTER...some..are not like..all of you...WE ARE/not all the same...yet..we can all claim to be posters...

some get it..some dont get that..any claimining belief..only to acces the sheep,lied about their be;lief..[it dont mean jesus is wrong only that liars lie/fools/fool/posters post

<<Please explain the difference between Christian compassion and human compassion>>a christian helps you either because thats what christ would do or to know god better by serving thy neighbour...by works

human compassion..is when we feel sorry for all them starving kids..then watch dancing with the stars..[footy/cricket/tennis..[or bigest looser].

<<One doesn't have to...to work towards peace, equity or love..>>they live their walk....those who dont talk the talk

<<..I am sure that sufferers..from religious persecution the world over will understand...>>>im sure they dont....lol..see brto the same global order issues all the oprders...controles all religions..controles banks/law/finance.movie/media/factories...people..dictators...you name it

just the idiots havnt woken up to the wizard bnehiond the curtain

YES<<<..Whether religion is used as a tool for power or whether some people find succour in the idea of a supreme being,is >>COMPLETLY relevant....someone is teaching them...to have faith in scienc/faith in god/faith in govt/faith in law...faith in each other///its all about selling us...on...what we must/think

<<To paraphrase:.....>>..wrongly

<<one doesn't need religion to do good,
but good people need religion to do evil>>>.
...doing eviil is as simply as doing nothing
talk is cheap

Dear Oliver,
My first comment was to Yabby when I asked what he meant by Gods image. I still await his answer. My comment to you was about sin and lawlessness which didn't come in after Jesus paid the price for your sin and mine but when Adam chose to follow his wife instead of following God. We chose to follow who we trust. So if I tell you that I know all would you believe or would you check it out for your self. In my life time I have found most talk is about self propigation not truth for we are all capable of mistakes. The only source about who is God is found in his word and it is not easy to understand at a casual read as most experts on OLO seem to believe it is not worthy of a second glance. Baby sacrefices have been around
long before Jesus and are still going on to this present day.
My bible tells me that if the spirit of Jesus the Holy Spirit doesn't live in you you are not a christian at all but many on OLO would have us believe that mass murderers like the Nazi's are christian and it does not fit the discription.

I agree with Foxy, although I can see the word 'religion' being the sticking point.
For instance, when I read the New Testament, I get a picture of a good bloke; a carpenter who can't post on OLO, but thinks he has a handle on how to make the world a better place. In a society of 'eye for an eye' and revenge/retribution, clearly the only way to break the cycle is to love your enemies.
Or at least, try to forgive them.
Can we blame the alleged Jesus for how his words have been interpreted/misinterpreted by his so called followers?
But Jesus isn't 'The Religion' is he? 'The Religion' I think even a lot of Christians would agree, is a human construction, and as such inevitably involves human flaws.
I recommend the bible as a good read for anyone, along with Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Terry Pratchett...
Just forget about the Church.
Philo, you are so outgunned I'm seriously tempted to take your side, just to even things up.
...
...
...
No, sorry. I've got nuthin.

Grim Thanks!
EXTRACT FROM:
http://www.write101.com/christmas-traditions.htm

Christmas Pudding
Here's another tradition we've pinched from the pagans ... Caught in the middle of a long, cold winter, it's no surprise that people often feared the sun would never return, so they tried to ensure the fertility of their fields and animals by preparing sacred meals. One such was a pudding that was originally made from wheat boiled in milk.

Early Christians adopted this meal to break their fast on Christmas Eve; then it became part of the main feast on Christmas Day and was jazzed up with the addition of eggs, prunes and occasionally meat and was served as a side dish.

Later, the meat was removed and more spices and flavourings were added to make the sweet plum pudding of today.

The coins in the pud have a more macabre background and are leftovers from one of the rituals of the Saturnalia when human sacrifice was called for to ensure the gods would prevent the sun standing still (the meaning of 'solstice').

They decided to leave it up to the gods to choose the sacrificial victim, so a coin was mixed into the pudding and whoever found it was seen as the gods' choice! (And surely that's not why we always hide coins in the children's portions of pudding ...)

EXTRACT FROM:
http://www.hohohochristmas.com/The%20HoHoHo%20Factor%20Chapter%204%20-%20Christmas%20Trivia%20-%20Wow%20Everyone%20This%20Christmas%20-%20Sample.pdf

Christmas “Tree of Life” Legend
"There are many legends re the Christmas tree. One story tells of an
English monk who became Saint Boniface. One day he found
himself in front of an oak tree surrounded by pagans who were
preparing to sacrifice a child. Pagans revered oak trees. Saint
Boniface stopped the sacrifice and saved the child with one blow of his fist which flattened the oak tree. A small fir sprang up in its place.
Saint Boniface declared to the pagans that is was the Tree of Life and
represented the life of Christ."

St Boniface emblem is an axe and an Oak tree. This extract does not give the full details but it notes the child sacrifice.

Dear Fractelle,

A few things, - firstly it's not religion that creates
a 'them' and 'us' view - it's prejudiced exponents of
religion that does that.

Secondly, - you ask:
Why doesn't Christ's teachings temper the behaviour of
paedophile priests or provide the values of empathy
and compassion to George Pell? Again these people
choose their behaviour - they are accountable for their
own actions - you can't blame religion for the behaviour
of certain people within it.

Thirdly, you've taken my reference to Christian
compassion for the
poor, out of context. Please re-read that paragraph.
I was referring to the basic teachings of Christ's empathy
for the poor and it certainly wasn't meant as a reference to
some sort of 'superiority.' Only as an example that there
were people who chose to practice what Christ taught.
It in no way means that it's superior,
or that you have to be a nun or a priest to work towards
peace, equity or love.

You also wrote that, "One doesn't need religion to be good..."
That goes without saying.
However I disagree with your statement that, "Good people
need religion to do evil." If they use religion to do
evil - then they are not 'good people.' (by anyone's
definition). Again, I repeat - religion should not be
blamed for the acts of individuals supposedly practicing
that religion.

Enjoy your evening.

Foxy,
To your last post I say exactly!

To those people who say "good people need religion to do evil" obviously they fail to be good; because they if good claim that it is religious belief that makes them evil, and so they must therefore be by nature evil.

Foxy and Philo I refer you to my last post, and urge you to consider the distinction between the (alleged) words of Jesus, and 'Religion'.
I suspect at least some of the problem can be attributed to the simple fact that a lot of people aren't keen readers. I find it easy to imagine many 'good Christians' who aren't keen readers, sitting in Church and listening to the words of the preacher. Instantly, they are dealing with an interpretation, rather than the 'Word'. Next, they may not be totally attentive, and so only pick up on certain keywords, which will of course relate to their personal beliefs, and thereby reinforce them.
This is 'Religion'.
There are an amazing number of websites and churches around the world which promote Christian Prosperity and wealth.
I cannot believe the followers of these cults could possibly have read the New Testament.

Philo, I am lost for words.

I have this image of you scrabbling through the Internet, searching for the tiniest scraps of the vaguest rumour that you might actually be right...

...and this is what you come up with.

write101.com

That well-known repository of historical accuracy and precision, that is dedicated to helping you:

" find out how to conquer your fear of the Demon Apostrophe, when to use 'who' and when to use 'whom,' how to distinguish between 'its' and it's,' and answers to all those language questions that have plagued you for years!"

I hate to break it to you, but this is merely another passer-on of hearsay material.

They actually mention St Boniface, by the way, but omit any mention of human sacrifice. Also, their account of his oak-tree-related activities differs from other versions.

Did this not ring alarm-bells for you?

And if that is not enough by way of incontrovertible evidence, you manage to unearth a copy of:

"The HoHoHo Factor!"

(Their exclamation point, not mine)

An ezine that is not exactly world-famous for its attention to fact-checking. As indeed, it would appear, are you, Philo.

Although I suspect its target audience may not be scholars of eighth-century pagan ritual, given the information emblazoned on its front cover:

"FREE Bonuses including - Wish Manifestation Tools for the smart man & woman in 2000's! - Complimentary one Year subscription for Protection from an Angel in Training & more!"

I have left in place all the relevant Capital Letters and exclamation points. Although I wholeheartedly recommend that anyone wanting a good laugh should follow the link you provide, as I did.

It's a classic, and I thank you for bringing hysterical laughter and bemused wonderment to my morning.

However, seriously.

How difficult is it to say "ok, I was wrong"?

We're not talking sackcloth-and-ashes here, just a simple acknowledgement that you mindlessly perpetuated a piece of nonsense, in order to make your point.

It's not as if anyone will be hammering on your door at 3a.m to drag you off to a gulag...

"The HoHoHo Factor!"

Ho ho ho indeed :)

Another classic Pericles post!

Philo, my advice is quit whilst you are well behind, for you are
slipping back further and further with every post.

More seriously, and just slightly off-topic, Philo's excursion into the back-blocks of the internet in search of rumour support needs more attention than just my gentle chiding.

The second "source" he quoted - that HoHoHo ezine - is an unfortunately glaring example of how the mindless dissemination of idle chit-chat can develop into "it's a fact, I read it on the Interweb thingy"

This one is a classic of its genre.

HoHoHo reports:

"Attempt to Ban Carols in Shopping Malls in Australia!" [they really do like those exclamation points]

"In 2003 the Australian Trade Union Federation, representing 100,000
workers, claimed that the non-stop playing of Christmas carols in
shopping malls was 'psychological terror'."

They even provide a link to a BBC news article as an indicator that they have done their homework

Except that the BBC News article talks about.... [drum roll]

Austria.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3291889.stm

The quote was from Gottfried Rieser, "spokesman for the Austrian Trade Union Federation".

Of course, it is immediately obvious to an Australian that the article is garbage, because we don't even have a "Trade Union Federation" in Australia, we have the ACTU.

Interestingly, it is also clear that the BBC have been slack too.

Surely, it is highly unlikely that the peak Union Federation in a major European country will have only 100,000 members?

Let's check.

It turns out that unser Freund Gottfried might not belong to the Federation, but actually be a member of the Austrian Union of Private Employees.

According to The Age, that is

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/03/1070351647301.html

Far more likely.

But who is to know for sure? I suspect that an extract from a respected Austrian journal-of-record, in its native tongue, would be close to being regarded as a "credible source" for a trivial item such as this.

What this little item does illustrate is the power of the Internet version of Chinese Whispers.

And does underline the need for the individual to do a little rudimentary checking before bursting into print.

Dear Foxy and Philo,

Whether people are by nature good or evil is moot. I believe we are born with a clean slate neither good nor evil. Quite possibly I have that idea from my religious training that did not accept the idea of Original Sin. We are born with certain propensities that may be encouraged or discouraged by various influences. One of the influences is religion. Both Philo and Foxy seem to maintain that religion is a force for good. I disagree and maintain it can be a force for good or evil.

Some religions maintain they have a truth denied to other people and try to push their religion on other people. That is evil. It is not evil for them to merely tell people about their religion and demonstrate it by their good life.

Maintaining that religion is a force for good is often by a process of denial. Where religion is bad religionists may claim that is not 'real' or 'true' religion or that Hitler or others who actions they don't approve of is not a 'real' follower of their religion.

The Christian Zionists who block peace in the Middle East because they want all Jews to go to Israel, the rabbis who support driving Palestinians from their land because God is a real estate dealer, the Muslims in Afghanistan who throw acid in the face of schoolgirls and burn down their schools, the Buddhist clergy who support the atrocities committed on the Tamils and the Hindu mob that burned the Christian missionary and his two sons to death in their car have all been inspired by their religion to commit or support acts that have added to human suffering.

However, the process by which evil is denied in religion is a simple one. Religion is good. Therefore when evil stems from religion it must not be real religion. I don’t buy it.

"For instance, when I read the New Testament, I get a picture of a good bloke; a carpenter who can't post on OLO, but thinks he has a handle on how to make the world a better place." - Grim

Yes,Jesus seems to have been a great teacher and humanist. Up there with the best eighteenth century liberal thinkers and twentieth century humanist psychologists.

He was also mendicant. One hopes he was not a complete trickster. He seems to so much to offer. Mabye, he was like Oprah, who seems have some shows for the general audience for popularity in order to leverage more serious endeavours. Mozart did this too. The Magic Flute for the populous and Requeim for the serous music lover. Else put, Jesus maybe performed "tricks", whilst trying to develop a social agneda and perhaps even a political agenda.

Being a representaive of the House of David he would have been given the task of being a missionary to the Godfarers, who were Gentiles converting Judaism. He spoke of a Kingdom of Heaven and may have over stepped the make with regards both Roman and Jewish authorities.

Hollywood would have Jesus, the carpenter, framed as a worker of wood. Maybe a sot with Jesus working on a small wooden item in a bench. Yet, in Roman times a carpenter was a principally a wheelright. The words cart and carpenters have a common etymology. Also, a carpenter could be a odd-jobs man. He may have indeed worked with wood but necessarily as commonly depicted.

Given Jesus lived hundreds of years after the Royal House David, there must have thousands of people genetically related to the ancient (too the Romans too) king.

If Jesus was as portrayed in the NT. He was not Joseph's child, and, because of the virgin birth not related to David through Mary, either. Assuming he started his wider Ministry at 35 (not 30), beforehand, he may have indeed been a tradesman or a member of an Essene cult and a relunctant Pharisee (A Martin Luther of his day).

Hey Oliver, good post. Might I recommend "the forbidden gospels" (can't remember where I found it, but it was a free download). My favourite was I think the Gospel of Thomas, which supplied some details of Jesus' youth. Highly entertaining.
For instance, Joseph was recorded as being 'not a very good' carpenter. He was commissioned to build a throne for the King, but after spending a year or so on the job, discovered the throne was too small. Luckily, he had a very talented son, who instructed him to grasp one side of the throne while young Jesus grabbed the other, and between them stretched the throne out to the right proportions.
Joseph was also recorded as complaining about having to move so often, because whenever a playmate of child Jesus offended him, the playmate would be struck down.
It (the gospel) actually depicts a very believable child of superhuman powers.
Which just proves -yet again- good story tellers have been around for a very long time.

I suggest we return to the topic.
For original writing on human sacrifice in Europe read the letters of Boniface.

Boniface faced a divided and sometimes heathenized church and pagan religions, including Bortharians who worshiped Thor, the god of thunder. There was idol worship, fortune-telling, sorcery, and even human sacrifice among the pagans (Letters XX, XXIX, XXXIII).

I guess you have to get marks for persistence, Philo.

But once again 0/10 for accuracy, I'm afraid.

Not to mention a big black mark for plagiarism.

You simply copied your “evidence”, word-for-word, from blog-by-the-sea, didn't you?

http://blog-by-the-sea.typepad.com/blog_bythesea/2006/06/about_st_bonifa.html

“Boniface faced a divided and sometimes heathenized church and pagan religions, including Bortharians who worshiped Thor, the god of thunder. There was idol worship, fortune-telling, sorcery, and even human sacrifice among the pagans (Letters XX, XXIX, XXXIII)”

Verbatim.

That's quite naughty, you know. Even in the freewheelin' world of the interwebs.

And it's not even real evidence. Let's look at the source material for a moment.

http://elfinspell.com/Boniface1.html#Boniface

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/boniface-letters.html

I'll even throw in Willibald

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/willibald-boniface.html

This latter was written shortly after Boniface's death, and records – for the very first time – that old chestnut (sorry!), about Boniface and the Gaesmere oak.

Note, there is no mention of human sacrifice, let alone any mention of children being sacrificed. You would be forgiven for thinking that a scribe, who had zealously collected the information from Boniface's disciples, would have been extremely remiss, if he were to suppress a story of such significance.

I'd certainly take his word over that of "The HoHoHo Factor!"

Wouldn't you?

You suggest that “we return to the topic.”

Let's do that.

>>That humans sacrificed their children existed in Europe till at least 600 AD when Christianity changed that evil practise... Christianity transformed pagan European practises of them inserting a coin into the pudding fed to the children during winter solace to identify the chosen child to be sacrificed to the god of fertility and new life. Vestage of this practise remains today in the coin in the Christmas pudding and is supposed to mean a blessing to the child now spared from sacrifice.<<

On sober reflection, that was rubbish, wot you wrote.

Wasn't it?

Foxy & Philo

I echo Davidf's point:

<< However, the process by which evil is denied in religion is a simple one. Religion is good. Therefore when evil stems from religion it must not be real religion. I don’t buy it. >>

I don't buy it either, because this twisted little argument is used time and time again to denigrate anyone who does not follow religious dogma - in your case, Christianity.

Nor are these arguments any more "off topic" than Philo posting an edited portion of the "history of human sacrifice in Europe".

I don't expect any more from Philo - his self evident superiority for being a Christian rivals Peter Sellick's, but Foxy I am very hurt that you believe the same. Follow the good you can find in your bible, but remember there are many other worthy books and philosophies available from which to consider the human condition.

Besides if you really believe that religion makes no difference to people behaving for ill, then why bother at all? Obviously formal religion doesn't work, is a waste of time and our taxes.

Why not just behave with respect to people instead of this:

"I am a Christian, therefore holier than thou."

My assumption is that the writers of the OT wrote an allegorical story the same vein of similar religions of the period: In short creation and flood stories. I would have thought that lawlessness has been with us before and after Jesus’ life.

My observation is that believers “indwell” (Polanyi) in religious performance and have their beliefs reinforced by reference groups, which give a feeling of belonging and being right. In assessing facts we tend to search out convergence of ideas on a construct and show that the construct is distinct and can be discriminated from other (belief) constructs. [Something Philo said was nonsense, when I raised it earlier.]

Three people believing in Yahweh (only), the Christian trinity and Apollo respectively, each will by association and conditioning establish their own world views.

Agree that there have been human sacrifices and cannibalism thoughout the ages.

Siege cannibalism practised by the Christians between the eleventh and fourteen centuries was matched by similar behaviours in Central Africa and some Island States. The Aztecs and Incas practised sacrifices,as you would know.

The Judeo-Christians before the Nicaean Christians, practised what some modern historians call “volunteering”. They would try to have the Romans arrest and sacrifice them, so they could become martyrs and be assured of a place in paradise (but no seven virgins).

It is reported that when one Christian pleaded with a Roman governor to be killed, the Roman replied to the effect, “no, go away, don’t you have any cliffs around here?”.

Pope Innocent VIII had three young boys sacrificed to provide him with blood transfusions before he died (1492).

It is not that Hitler and many NAZIs were not Christian-like, they were not Jesus-like in their behaviour. Christianity has a black history. Alertnatively, Jesus didn't act like historical Christians.

Hello Grim,

I must study Thomas. I believe it is an early text and less subject to the Chinese Whispers of Oral Lore. It is good that Clark Kent was better behaved in Smallville than the Jesus of Thomas, lest FBI would have a serial murderer wuth superpowers on its hands :-).

Just for the record - I do not have a "Holier than
Thou" attitude as far as religion goes. Quite the opposite
- I'm still
searching and learning - I have never thought that my
personal beliefs were in any way superior. And I have
never had a 'missionary complex' of wishing to convert
anybody. I have always respected other people's
beliefs - and my attitude has always been - to
each his own - and whatever gets you through the night.

To me -
The world has become man-centered, meaning-centered and
the individual measures the traditional truths in terms of
personal value. But that does not mean to infer that my
beliefs are in anyway superior or that someone else's are
inferior.

Dear David f,

You forgot to mention while citing the "religious
atrocities," that they were all committed by
fundamentalists (extremists) be they -
Christian, Jewish, Muslim Extremists, Buddhist,
or Hindus - the fact remains the majority of
people who practice those religions do not commit
the acts you described. And, as history has shown
fundamentalists use religion as a vehicle to achieve
their own ends.

A historian can establish
that an act took place on a certain day, but this,
by historical standards, constitutes only chronology
or 'factology.' The moment the historian begins to
look critically at motivation, circumstances, context,
or any other such considerations, it of course becomes
unacceptable for one or another camp of readers.

People are often reluctant to modify their judgements -
which often leads to the questionable practice of
stereotyping and counter-stereotyping. Religion is good,
religion is bad, that of course excludes the ones that
don't claim any affiliation with any religion - who do
good and bad. The question of what is good and what
is bad is interpreted by those upon whom the good or the
bad is done. A fundamentalist killing people - is
convinced he's doing "good," in the interests of his own
group.

Foxy wrote: "You forgot to mention while citing the "religious atrocities," that they were all committed by fundamentalists (extremists) be they - Christian, Jewish, Muslim Extremists, Buddhist,or Hindus.

Dear Foxy,

I did not forget to mention it at all. Sometimes I forget things, but I did not forget to mention that.

If we define those who approve or carry out religious atrocities as extremists then we let everybody else off the hook. However, often the 'extremists' are in the majority. Most of the German churches and most of their parishioners supported Hitler because the years of the Jew hatred promoted by their churches conditioned them to accept it.

I am familiar enough with Sri Lanka to know that the majority of Buddhist clergy there supported the bloody suppression of the Tamils. I cite Buddhism because that has been promoted as a religion of peace, and some are very peaceful. However, the Japanese officer corps in WW2 were almost all Buddhists, and they were a most violent group of men.

The Christian Crusades were not carried out by a minority. The mass of Christians supported them.

I recently read a book called "The Elephant in the Room". It is about the culture of denial that exists to some degree in all societies. These are the open secrets that everybody knows but nobody admits. I started the string about the very poor in Australia as I think there is a culture of denial concerning that. There is also a culture of denial of the evil inherent in religion.

foxy and david f,

The popes have much to answer for with regards to Christian Wars. In the case of the Crusade of 1096, the Pope said the Crusaders would be forgiven all their sins were they to die at on the way to Holy War. Those sins were to include killing and roasting babies and cannibalism. Also, killing Jews in addition to the target Muslims and, some fellow Christians too.

From the percusions of the pagans in the fourth century through to Ku Klux Klan and beyond Christianity has been very dark. I guess the original Judaic Christians before Nicaea did not share the post Constantine histories.

Richie 10,

I replied to your post earlier today, and apologise for missing the salutation to you.

Foxy

I consider you to be the most enlightened of any of the Christian posters on OLO. However, when you spoke of "Christian compassion" that phrase pressed one of my buttons.

Compassion is a human value, I do not see any religion as having exclusivity to human virtues such as charity, respect, empathy and so on.

I agree with Davidf on the culture of denial of the potential for evil within any religion. I know we would still have evil, obscene acts by humans without religion. I also know that religion does not prevent evil.

I am very interested in Buddhism and find the teachings resonant to my own values. However, I do not for a second believe that all Buddhists are peaceful and tolerant. Like all religions the ultimate leaders are all male. Only early pagan religions revered the female and that was a long time ago, nor do I believe that in spite of being a matriarchy, pagan religions were better or worse than the religions today.

Therefore, I observe all religions in an objective rather than subjective manner. At the foundation of all religions is the golden rule of treating others as you would have others treat you. And they have all failed. Christianity has had 2000 years to achieve peace on earth - I don't see this happening ever. If human beings ever do learn to cooperate with and accept each other, it won't be because of religion. My hope is that through evolution more peaceful humans will be born than aggressive, but that is far in the future, if ever.

Dear David f and Fractelle,

Professor Tor Hundloe in his book,
"From Buddha to Bono: Seeking sustainability,"
says it much better than I seem to be able to
express:

"Religion has proven to be an extremely powerful
force in human endeavour and in particular in
how we relate to nature and to each other.

For a small minority religion overrules everything else-
etnicity, naionalism, science, and even family. It is
not only in the distant past that belief in the
supernatural overrode natural thinking...

The war of ideas in the early 21st century is not between
'the West' and 'Muslims' as we are led to believe.
Neither are unitary concepts and there is little
difference between the strictly religious west and
fundamentalist Islam.

There is a small, but extremely powerful fundamentalist
religious west, and, similarly, there is a small properly
larger - fundamentalist Islam. There are also, we shouldn't
forget, fundamentalist Hindus.

It is possibly the case that in all religions there are
those who are rooted to the literal word of their
'god-given' tomes. This was what fundamentalism meant
when it first arose within sectors of US Christanity.
They have, what has come to be called, the "God gene."

Fundamentalists wage war on the secular, as well as those
who believe in a different religion.

I personally respect Zoroaster's 'golden rule,'
"do unto others as you would have them do to you."
I think in all its simplicity it still remains the
best guide humans have to a happy social life.

cont'd ...

Dear David f,

You wrote:

"Most of the German churches and most of their
parishioners supported Hitler because the years
of Jew hatred promoted by the churches conditioned
them to accept it."

That is not an accurate statement.

If you were to google "German Churches under Hitler,"
you would learn the following facts:

The "Barmen Declaration," 1934 was a call to resistance
in Germany against the theological claims of the Nazi
state.

Many Christians in Germany including Lutheran and Reformed,
Liberal and Neo-Orthodox opposed totally the encroachment
of Nazi idealogy. At Barmen, this emerging "Confessing
Church," adopted a declaration drafted by Reformed
Theologian Karl Barth and Lutheran Theologian Hans Asmussen,
which expressly opposed the Nazi theology.

Many Christians resisted the regime. People like Protestant
Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Roman Catholic Priest
Bernhard Lichtenberg (just to name two) were arrested
and executed in concentration camps.

The spirituality of the Barmen Declaration profoundly
influenced many of the first generation pastors and
lay people who in later years formed the United Church
of Christ.

As I wrote on another thread - there were numerous
courageous men and women who refused to participate
in the subjugation and destruction of the targeted
groups and individuals. There were Jews who interceded
with their lives to save persecuted Christians, there
were Christians who died in their attempts to save Jews.
They died, some along with their entire families, or
accepted their fates in concentration camps rather than
betray their fellow men. These heroes embody human
nobility in its highest form and stand as beacons in
the other wise bleak history of World War II.

Dear Foxy,

My statement is completely accurate. I never claimed that all Christians followed Hitler, but the great majority went along. Christians like to mention the few like Niemoller, Barth and Bonhoeffer who resisted, but they were a small minority. It was natural for most Christians to go along since the highest figures in their churches sanctioned Hitler. German Christians were mostly Lutherans or Catholics. The founder of the Lutheran religion was a great Jew hater whose hate statements could be printed verbatim in the Nazi papers. The Vatican signed a concordat with the Nazis and never excommunicated Hitler or even put Mein Kampf on the index.

One heroic figure was Franz Jaegerstatter an Austrian peasant who was a bit of a hellraiser when young. He headed a motorcycle gang and got a girl pregnant who he refused to marry after her condition became obvious. Finally, he married another woman and became active in his local Catholic Church.

Although he had military training and was a sergeant in the reserve he refused to serve when called up for duty. He thought that what the Nazis were doing was wrong and said so. They offered him the chance of serving in the medical corps as a non-combatant, but he refused to serve in any capacity. He was an embarrassment to the Nazis since he was racially 'pure' and belonged to no political organisation. They were concerned that others
might follow his example. They got his wife, his priest, members of the Catholic hierarchy and others who knew him to try to persuade him to go. Jaegerstatter refused to cooperate in any way and eventually was beheaded. He defied the authority of the Church in addition to defying the authority of the government. "In Solitary Witness" by Arnold Zahn tells his story. However, he was the only Austrian layman who defied the Nazis openly to such an extent without the backing of any organised group after the anschluss. He was completely alone.

Pericles: Regardless of the actual foundations of the coin in the pud biz, Philo is not the only one who has made that claim. For example:

"Here's another tradition we've pinched from the pagans ... Caught in the middle of a long, cold winter, it's no surprise that people often feared the sun would never return, so they tried to ensure the fertility of their fields and animals by preparing sacred meals. One such was a pudding that was originally made from wheat boiled in milk....

.... The coins in the pud have a more macabre background and are leftovers from one of the rituals of the Saturnalia when human sacrifice was called for to ensure the gods would prevent the sun standing still (the meaning of 'solstice').

They decided to leave it up to the gods to choose the sacrificial victim, so a coin was mixed into the pudding and whoever found it was seen as the gods' choice! (And surely that's not why we always hide coins in the children's portions of pudding ...)"

http://www.write101.com/christmas-traditions.htm

http://www.santas.net/thecoininthepudding.htm

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Ce1m7EtK2k4J:www.sciaga.pl/tekst/zalacznik/14608/+christmas+pudding+coin+and+pagans&cd=27&hl=all&ct=clnk

Just some general info on the civilizing influences of Christianity:

http://www.answers.com/topic/infanticide

It's fascinating how 'Religion' tends to wander away from, or around the written word.
Moses came down from the mountain with 10 fairly straight forward Rules, straight from the Man Himself. Asimov, in speaking of his 'guide to the Bible' remarked on how, in just a few short decades, these 10 commandments had evolved into over a thousand Laws; strictly defining what it means to 'work', etc.
When I read the Gospels, I get the impression of Jesus, the Law reformer. He seemed to argue that when the law becomes too strictly defined, people tend to confuse conformity with the Law, with it's original intent, or spirit.
My interpretation (as vulnerable as any other) is that Jesus (assuming he existed) tried to recover the essence of the Law, by stressing just one Law, as Foxy mentioned.
This I would think makes Christianity exceptionally vulnerable to interpretation; except 500 or so years later, Mohammed took it back the other way. He was very specific on religious observance, and still there is disagreement between the largely peaceful majority, and the extremists, as to who is most accurately interpreting the words of their Prophet.
My problem with Theism is not the Word, or the religion, but the underlying basic tenet that everything is God's Will; therefore people have no responsibility to each other, despite what the Word says.
Once again, not everyone interprets their religion thusly; but the overall state of the world tends to indicate more than enough do.
Another 'elephant' David?
Of course, many non religious feel the same way about responsibility, and how far it extends. This essential Tribalism is a slightly different discussion, I think.

Dear Foxy,

There are books that give overall pictures of the churches under Hitler. They reveal a picture of cooperation and even enthusiastic support.

I credit the Lutheran church with examining its own dark past. Much of what I know about Lutheran antisemitism is from books such as "The Roots of Anti-Semitism: In the Age of Renaissance and Reformation" published by Fortress Press, a Lutheran publishing house.

The following is a review of a recent movie on the subject.

From: http://www.vitalvisuals.com/?q=node/19

Theologians Under Hitler
Aug 6th, 2009 by sdmartintn

In the days after World War II, a convenient story was told of church leaders and ordinary Christians that defied the Nazis from the beginning. Recent research has uncovered a very different story. Rather than resisting, the greater part of the German church saw Hitler's rise in 1933 as an act of God's blessing, a new chapter in the story of God among the German people.
This film, based upon groundbreaking research, introduces the viewer to three of the greatest Christian scholars of the twentieth century: Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch, and Gerhard Kittel, men who were also outspoken supporters of Hitler and the Nazi party. In 1933 Althaus spoke of Hitler's rise as "a gift and miracle of God." Hirsch saw 1933 as a "sunrise of divine goodness." And Kittel, the editor of the standard reference work on the Jewish background of the New Testament, began working for the Nazis to find a "moral" rationale for the destruction of European Jewry.

This provocative film asks: how could something like this happen in the heart of Christian Europe? Could it happen again? How does the scholarship of this period affect the church today? Does the church of today retain the ability to recognize profound evil?

Appearing in "Theologians Under Hitler:"

Robert P. Ericksen, Pacific Lutheran University; author, "Theologians Under Hitler"
Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth University
Doris Bergen, Notre Dame University
Harmut Lehmann, Goettingen University
Hubert Locke, Washington University
Joerg Olemacher, Greifswald University

You make my point perfectly, Pynchme, thank you.

The first reference you provide is one that I referred to earlier - write101 - a site that is dedicated to:

"...how to conquer your fear of the Demon Apostrophe, when to use 'who' and when to use 'whom,' how to distinguish between 'its' and it's,' and answers to all those language questions that have plagued you for years!"

Not, as I pointed out, considered one of the more reliable historical sources for information on pagan rituals. Merely another vehicle for the transmission of rumour and hearsay, it turns out.

And is the site that - most likely - provided Philo with his "information" in the first place.

With your next two references, you brilliantly expose the ability of a rumour to be summoned as fact, by a subsequent browser.

The first is from "Santa's Net", which, you will notice, has a sister site called ToothFairies.net, which should give some indication of their tenacity for veracity.

The second seems to be an excerpt from a child's essay, trapped in the aspic of internet time by Google's all-seeing cache.

It had been copied, verbatim, from "Santa's Net".

Which is the exact point that I set out to demonstrate to Philo - that simply copying and pasting random stuff from the Internet doesn't constitute evidence of anything, except the ability to use a search engine.

Nobody here, myself included, has denied that infanticide has occurred throughout human history. For various reasons - socio-economic reality, religion, superstition etc.

I started this conversation with Philo to explain to him that the basis for his assertion that Christianity was responsible for the elimination of this particular nastiness, was entirely without foundation.

Philo will, I am sure, continue to choose to believe that I am wrong, and that the elimination of barbarism was entirely due to his unique form of religious worship.

And that is entirely his prerogative.

But as Banjo's response showed, contributors tend to trust information that is presented as fact.

Philo's post was a betrayal of that trust.

Bravo Pericles!

BTW for those who believe Jesus 'invented' the Golden Rule of treating others how you would like to be treated. He may have (if he existed) said these words along with a lot of other common sense teachings.

But the Golden Rule has been in use for long before Christ, it may be found inscribed in ancient texts from Egpyt, Greece and Asia. More recently in Judaism and continued by Christianity. It is also considered good sense by people who do not subscribe to any formal religious belief.

That the world's religions both ancient and (relatively) modern contain similar philosophies would indicate that our Godly origins are of our own creation rather than divinely inspired. This should bring comfort to many, because this way, there is no single 'true' religion, they all have their merits and considerable flaws - entirely human.

Foxy and david f,

FYI: A brief account by the Amercian Israeli Cooperative:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Marrus.html

Of course, there was an Holocaust event in Germany against the Jews in the eleventh century, en route to the the First Crausade.

In the earlier case, the Pope set events in motion based on the false claim that Christians were in peril in Jerusalem, when in fact the Christians were quite safe, often in administrative positions, whilst the Jews managed the finances.

In Germany, during the Great Depression, there was underclass and Germany herself was stuggling with repaying reparations, yet there was a Middle Class, with money in the Bank.

The NAZIs played on the fear the Middle Class could loss its upmanship, because of the Jews (and the Communists). I suspect the priests and Lutheran would not have been too vocal, because the NAZIs would have been seen to be acting in the interests of the wealtheir parishioners.

Dear David f,

I haven't read the book you mentioned
in your last post - "Theologians Under Hitler,"
by Robert P. Ericksen - however I did find a
review of it by Walter Harrelson of the
Vanderbuilt Divinity School in Nashville, Tennessee -
He asks:

"How can one separate theological entirely from the
political, social and cultural setting and consequences
of the thought?"

Harrelson then states that:
"Christianity is claimed by Erickson to contain strains
at once anti-Jewish and anti-modern. But some of the
German theologians with whom he deals (Barth, Tillich,
even Bultmann...) have theological constructions neither
anti-Jewish nor anti-modern."

William L. Shirer in his book, "The Rise and Fall of
the Third Reich," tells us:

"Under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler,
who were backed by Hitler - the Nazi regime intended
eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany if it could,
and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal
Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.
As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler said publicly
in 1941 - 'National Socialism and Christianity are
irreconcilable.'"

I stated in one of my previous posts - a historian
must look critically at motivation, circumstances, context,
and other considerations in order to explain events.

To set the record straight:

Yad Vashem contains the records of tens of thousands deemed
"Righteous Gentiles." These men and women risked their own
safety and that of their families to oppose the Nazis
and save Jewish lives. Corrie ten Boom, who wrote the book,
"The Hiding Place." She and her family held to a conservative
Christian theology and their faith led them to risk hiding
jews in their home. Eventually they ended up in a
concentration camp. Others like Diet Eman joined the
underground. Germany had a very strong resistance movement.

Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford who wrote, "After the Evil,"
points out that Hitler's ideology, "Was not only not Christian,
it was Anti-Christian."

David, do you really believe that were there no religions
on this planet that we would have a beautiful and harmonious
planet?

cont'd ...

The Associated Press reported that on the
28th October 2008 a new Museum opened in Berlin.
A Memorial for the thousands of World War II Germans
who helped Jews. "The Silent Heroes," Museum,
used to be a workshop for the blind in an old tenement
near the city center. Many Jews survived in a secret room,
hidden by owner Otto Weidt.

Historian Johannes Tuchel, Head of the German Resistnace
Memorial Center, which is in charge of the Museum, told
the Associated Press,

"We can't come up with a typical profile (of the recuers).
Some were workers, some academics, or devoted Christians;
others helped spontaneously or for political reasons."

As stated in "The New KGB," by William R. Corson
and Robert T. Crowley.

"There is no dispute about the enormity of Hitler's
Holocaust. But it is equally important to be aware
of the accomplishments of the Soviet secret police, which
brought death at least four times as many Russians, Poles,
Jews, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Japanese, Koreans,
Chinese, Gypsies, and Romanians as Hitler did in his
eleven years as a leader of the '1,000-year Reich."

Noted columnist Joseph Sobran expressed a similar opinion,
in the Washington Times: Mr Sobran stated that:

"Hitler, it is well to remember, was only one of the
practitioners of the Century's most ghastly
innovations...and he was not even the worst. Lenin
preceded him in numbers; Stalin and Mao killed far more
people ... Communism has proved a far more potent and
persistent evil than Nazism, which was a brief flare-up
by comparison...But this generation, my generation, the
generation that was spared the experience of Hitler,
has no right to denounce 'the Holocaust' as long as we
shut our eyes to the Holocaust in progress."
Jospeh Sobran, 'The Holocausts (plural,'
The Washington Times, April 23, 1985.

Dear Foxy,

I really don't understand your posts. You are arguing with a lot of things I have not said. We were discussing Nazi Germany. I maintained that the great majority of German Christians supported Hitler.

That does not make Communism a good thing. That does not deny that there were Germans who opposed Hitler at the risk of their lives. That does not deny that around 100,000.000 people were killed by various Communist entities. That does not say that we would have a wonderful world without religion. It does not deny that eventually the Nazis might have tried to get rid of Christianity. That does not say that some German Christians didn't oppose Hitler. That does not say one can separate theological entirely from the political, social and cultural setting and consequences of the thought.

I class Lenin with Hitler as a great monster.

However, I merely maintained that the majority of German Christians supported Hitler some enthusiastically. Instead you argue with a lot of things I didn't maintain.

If you want to disagree with what I posted you are free to do so. If you want to disagree with what I didn't post I don't understand why.

I can't bite my tongue any longer.

In regards to Foxy’s posts on this thread...

<<...it's not religion that creates a 'them' and 'us' view - it's prejudiced exponents of religion that does that.>>

Not necessarily, no. But religion does give extremists divine reasoning for their extremist beliefs. What more dangerous reasoning do you need than the promise of eternal life?

<<...you can't blame religion for the behaviour of certain people within it.>>

This is an excuse I used to use myself as a Christian, until I realised what a pathetic excuse it was.

Considering my point above, yes, religion can take a nice chunk of the blame. Without religion, what would those in power have to motivate an entire coutry's population to support evil?

<<...I disagree with your statement that, "Good people need religion to do evil." If they use religion to do evil - then they are not 'good people.' (by anyone's definition).>>

Not necessarily.

If I remember correctly, Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, mentions a pair of neatly-dressed; well-mannered; well-spoken; polite and very charitable young men who appeared to be a very decent pair of human beings.

They later went on to shoot-up an abortion clinic.

They felt they were doing God’s will purely because of their religious beliefs. Now were these boys “pure evil”, or did their religious beliefs overtake the minds of what would otherwise be a perfectly decent pair of Human Beings?

It’s like my favourite saying goes: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” (Steven Weinberg)

So true!

Continued...

...Continued

<<You forgot to mention while citing the "religious atrocities," that they were all committed by fundamentalists (extremists) be they - Christian, Jewish, Muslim Extremists, Buddhist, or Hindus - the act remains the majority of people who practice those religions do not commit the acts you described.>>

There is nothing wrong with David F mentioning the atrocities of extremists, whether or not they are only committed by extremists, because the moderates of religion are almost as much to blame for those atrocities.

I’ve mention this before, but it bears mentioning again...

It’s like the comedian Marcus Brigstocke one said in one of his routines:

"...Now, I know that most religious folk are moderate and reasonable and wear tidy jumpers and eat cheese, like real people. And on hearing this they'll mainly feel pity for me, rather than issue a death sentence. But they have to accept that they are the power base for the nutters. Without their passive support the loonies in charge of these faiths would just be loonies, safely locked away and medicated; somewhere nice with a view of some trees where they can claim they have a direct channel to god between sessions making tapestry coasters, watching Teletubbies and talking about their days in the Hitler Youth."

Again, so very true.

Now think about this... If a God really did exist, would belief in it be so potentially dangerous?

Most unlikely.

But if religion really isn’t to blame, then I dare anyone here to introduce it to a mentally disturbed person...

Doesn’t seem like a very good idea, does it?

Think about why...

Despite Pericles disbelief that the coin in the solstace pudding identified the child to be sacrificed to the gods, my argument remains. There is enough evidence to demonstrate child sacrifice and cannabalism existed in recent history. That we do not have to go back 800,000 years and claim that genetic developments changed the practise of cannabalism.

Those that I have spoken too that have eaten human flesh say it is light and tasty. That cats and dogs are among their favourite meat. Cannabilsm was still practised in New Guinea and West Papua into the last century. It did not stop by an evolutionary development but by the introduction of the teachings of Christ; who stated "Love and forgive your enemy". Today former tribal enemies have boat races to demonstrate victory instead of bloody wars where the slaughtered would be cannabalised.

The story of the modern head hunters of New Guinea is told in the book and video of a title; "The peace Child". A child was chosen and given to the opponent warring tribe to sacrice to bring peace between them. These events happened in the last century. The book is available at Koorong Book shops.

Philo wrote:

Those that I have spoken too that have eaten human flesh say it is light and tasty. That cats and dogs are among their favourite meat. Cannabilsm was still practised in New Guinea and West Papua into the last century. It did not stop by an evolutionary development but by the introduction of the teachings of Christ; who stated "Love and forgive your enemy". Today former tribal enemies have boat races to demonstrate victory instead of bloody wars where the slaughtered would be cannabalised.

Dear Philo,

When did you speak to those who tasted human flesh?

Why shouldn’t we eat cats and dogs when we eat cows and sheep? Why did you juxtapose eating cats and dogs with cannibalism?

If cannibalism is bad why does Christianity have the symbolic cannibalism of the Eucharist?

Generally tribal wars in New Guinea from what I have read involved slaughter but generally stopped when a few were killed. They were not nearly as bloody as World Wars 1 and 2, the Wars of the Reformation or other wars where mass armies of Christians slaughtered each other and a lot of other people. Tribal cannibals may be shocked at the waste of uneaten flesh.

Since Christianity was adopted as the religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century it has promoted great violence. In the last century the Nazis inspired by centuries of Christian hatred slaughtered 6,000,000 Jews. Since WW2 Christians slaughtered Christians of another brand as Orthodox and Catholic Christians in the former Yugoslavia and Protestant and Catholic Christians in Northern Ireland slaughtered each other.

In its bloody history Christians have a horrible record of slaughtering other people especially when those people had another religion that they wished to keep rather than adopting the Christian mumbo jumbo. There are too many times when Christianity has talked of love while practicing hate and talked of peace while practicing war for "Love and forgive your enemy" to have much meaning.

Some Christians have the good grace to recognize the evil Christianity has done and ask for forgiveness. Check Evangelical Sisters of St. Mary.

Dear David f,

I assumed it was fairly obvious as to 'why,'
I was arguing the way I was.

I tried to present what I thought was a more
balanced view to the one you were presenting.
I did address issues that you were not saying.
But it was for that very reason.
By omiting to say that although a vast majority
of Christians in Germany supported Hitler - there
were also Christians who did not support him - you gave
only a narrow perspective -I simply tried to broaden
the perspective being presented. There's always two
sides to every coin. By your omission - the full picture
was not being given.

Dear A.J. Pilips,

Thank You for your input - you've made me look at both
sides of the equation. It's sometimes difficult to see
both sides of the questions. As I've stated in one of my
previous posts - quoting from Tor Hundloe's book, "From
Buddha to Bono," :

"Religion has proven to be an extremely powerful force
in human endeavour and in particular how we relate to
nature and to each other. For a small minority religion
overrules everything else - ethnicity, nationalism,
science, and even family..."

But as I also stated - Zoroaster - who was possibly
the first advocate of the 'golden rule,' (do unto
others as you would have them do to you) - this rule has
an endurance that no other has. In all its simplicity
it still remains the best guide humans have to a happy
social life.

Dear Foxy,

The question remains: If Christianity is the force for peace and love that it claims to be, why did the vast majority of German Christians support Hitler?

Foxy and david f,

The NAZIs dressed the local German Socialists as Communists as a part of their fear campaign. Strictly speaking Germany did not face a threat from a domestic Communist Party.

Lenin, when he gained power, dropped the Hegelian/Marxian posit, that there needed to be a Stage of Capitalism among the bourgeois, before creating a State of the Proletarian Soviets. The true Communists in Russia were the Mensheviks.

Mao in the 1920s through to 1949 did not adopt Communist organizational policies of working in Society from the bottom-up towards a proletarian revolution. Much his success was military, first in cooperation with Chiang Kai-shek against the Japanese, and, ultimately against Ch iang Kai-shek.

Mao between 1938 and 1953, wrote treaties based on and plagiarised from “minor Russian theorists” (Pye) But has been noted Soviet totalitarianism was not idealistically Communism.

Whereas, the Mensheviks would have had Russia build wealth by first enabling the growth of a Middle Class; neither, Stalin nor Mao, would have liberal capitalism gaining a foothold and competing for hearts and minds”, as say the Americans.

Both Mao and Lenin seemed to have linked their ideologies to party building and party consolidation & strength only to be faced with managing the increasing disparity between ideals and reality. In this vein, internal cadres acted to sustain the revolutionary ideals. As a consequence, the Leaders needed to become more and more oppressive, not to spread Clayton’s Communism, but to retain power.

As mentioned in a previous thread, the atrocity that is rarely mentioned in the history books was against the American Indian clans, wherein the Christian settlers gave smallpox laced blankets, as presents the Indians, with view of killing them off. Also, Spanish Christians looted the gold of the South American heathens.

Contrasting, the Clayton’s Communists and the New World Christians, the former seem to have gained power and used to power to sustain themselves, so the edifice would not fall. Alternatively, the New World Christians were internally strong, and unlikely to fall, and their “Manifest Destiny” was to grow and quash hindrances

Foxy

I am pleased that A J Phillips managed to convey what I failed to do on this topic a few days ago:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2994&page=0#69890

However, again you claim that the Iranian Prophet, Zoroaster was (possibly) the first to advocate the Golden Rule. As I stated in earlier posts, versions of the Golden Rule are documented way back to Egyptian, then Greek times - throughout the world the world in fact, well before Zoroaster.

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

Arguing that one particular religious thought of it first is rather like arguing about who invented the wheel. We know it was a good idea and we know that it happened and it probably came into being around the world at similar times.

But still you claim that religion has been a greater force for good rather than evil. Consider Leonardi da Vinci - inventor and thinker way beyond his centuries, wrote all his considerable thought backwards, using a mirror so he would not be executed as a heretic.

Imagine if a culture had not been in thrall to the rulings of the church and Leonardo had been able to present his discoveries to the world - centuries ahead of when these inventions came into being. Of course I could also site Galileo or Darwin. So many brilliant people viewed as a threat to religion and quite rightly so. Church leaders were not fools, for the more that humans learned about the natural world around them, the less believable religion became.

Any of the positives in enlightened thinking claimed by the religious is equalled and then exceeded by the productive rationale from philosophers; starting with ancient Greek and Chinese civilisations - way before the rise of Middle Eastern religions.

Dear David f,

You ask, "If Christianity is the force for peace
and love that it claims to be, why did the vast
majority of German Christians support Hitler?"

I suspect now that you're simply stirring David.
Because deep down you know the answer as well as
any first year student of history should.
And you've been to Oxford right?

But I'll bite.

There are a few reasons - Many Germans hoped Hitler
would bring order
to a nation suffering economic depression, mass unemployment,
social disorder and political instability.

However, after Hitler became Chancellor of Germany he turned
the nation's fragile democracy into a one-party dictatorship.
And, used the same methods to achieve his ends (as did Stalin) -
that of terror. Police rounded up thousands of
opponents detaining them in concentration camps. Hitler also took
control of the Churches in Germany. They had to be faithful to
the Nazi regime or else. The Barmen Declaration, 1934, was a
call to resistance against the theological claims of the
Nazi state.

I'm really finding that this discussion is getting extremely
tedious, and we're simply going around in circles.
I frankly can't see the point of continuing with it any
further. As I've written previously - among those who,
out of cowardice, greed, or whatever reason, chose to
collaborate with the Nazis - were Christians and Jews, Germans,
and members of all nations caught in the merciless war.
No faith, no nationality, no race was free of cowards or
collaborators. No group was spared from killers or
traitors in its midst.

I frankly don't see the point of continuing this discussion
any further - it's all getting a bit tedious.
Think what you like David -
Enjoy your week-end.

Dear Fractelle,

Catch you a bit later my dear, it's a beautiful day
and I'm going to go out and breathe in the fresh
air and catch some sun ...at the Botanical Gardens.

See ya.

Dear Foxy,

It is tedious, but we wouldn't be having this discussion at if you hadn't characterised my initial statement that the majority of Christians followed Hitler as inaccurate. It was quite accurate. Your posts go round and round in a process of denial.

You point out how terrible the Communists were, the resistance of Bonhoeffer and others and a lot of other red herrings as though they excuse what happened with the Nazis.

Hitler made no secret of his agenda. The Germans knew what the Nazis stood for.

You wrote: "As I've written previously - among those who, out of cowardice, greed, or whatever reason, chose to collaborate with the Nazis"

That sounds as though the Nazis were an outside force. Many Germans chose not to collaborate with the Nazis but to be Nazis.

No dictatorship can exist unless the dictator has a fairly significant number of followers. Hitler was not a monster from outer space. Germans revered and identified with him.

One reason that Christian Germans became Nazis or supported the Nazi program is because they agreed with it.

The world would not be a place of complete harmony and peace if there were no religions. However, I think it would be a bit better off without Christianity.

The Marxist governments were most horrible and oppressive. However, there is one great difference between those regimes and the Nazi regimes. The Communist governments had a much higher percentage of their population in the secret police and other instruments of repression than the Nazis did. The Nazis did not need as great a percentage of their population in various security forces as the Communists apparently because the Nazis had greater popular support than the Communists had.

The Nazis used the Jews as a scapegoat for Germany's troubles because centuries of Christian portrayal of the Jews conditioned the German population to accept that gestalt. One reason the vast majority supported Hitler is because their churches conditioned them to support a platform of hate of the Jews.

david f,
Please post what your culture and philisophical world view has done for World peace and harmonous development between peoples. We might have somthing to learn. It is easy to bag others demonstrate what you and your people have done and how it is bettering human relationships.

Dear David f,

I usually ignore sweeping statements and generalisations
because they don't mean anything - without facts, specifics,
and evidence(figures, percentages, actual proof et cetera).

But I responded because I was suprised at the sweeping
statement you made and politely called it "inaccurate,"
which in fact it actually was - being simply a
generalisation without any evidence.

Just a reminder, you stated:

"Most of the German churches and most of their
parishioners supported Hitler because the years
of Jew hatred promoted by their churches
conditioned them to accept it."

Supported Hitler? Support can mean a variety of things.
What kind of support exactly? This was only one of the
questions that came to mind...

Anyway, as I stated in my earlier post - I don't see
any point in continuing a discussion with someone who
sees my views as merely "red herrings."

You've had your say. I've had mine - seeing as neither
of us is willing to modify our judgements - let us
simply agree to disagree.

Dear Fractelle,

The sub-title of Paul Kriwaczek's (2002) book
"In search of Zarathustra: The First Prophet
and the Ideas that Changed the World," indicates
just how important Zarathustra was in his era.
Note 'the first prophet.' Note 'ideas that
changed the world.' I quoted Tor Hundloe in my
earlier post who tells us in his book, "From
Buddha to Bono," "Zarathustra was an early -
possibly the first - advocate of the 'golden rule'
(do unto others as you would have them do to you)...
Zoroaster's golden rule has been appropriated by the major
'modern' religions...if and we do not know with certainty
the golden rule was first formulated by Zoroaster, we owe
him enormous respect."

You cited Leonardo da Vinci - and his inventions.
What about Copernicus, when in 1543 - he proved
that the earth revolved around the sun, not the
sun around the earth. Reflecting on this today
we can contemplate what the public reaction must
have been to such an unbelievable revolution in
scientific knowledge. However - in 1543 only the
small group of educated elite were to learn of
Copernicus' discovery when it was first made.
It was centuries before the masses were to obtain
the necessary education to appreciate the
significance of the discovery.

And you're absolutely right - the difficulties
that this knowledge, and the approaching
avalanche of other scientific breakthroughs
were going to have for uneducated people
and on the influence of formal religions
(each wedded to its own specific mysticism)
can be imagined. The battle between science
and religion still continues to this day.

But don't worry too much about me dear Fractelle.
I've got a fairly level head on my shoulders -
and in my case as you know my journey of self-
discovery is still continuing - I'm not a fanatic.
I'm merely human - and when the right buttons
are pushed - I react - often to my deep regret.

david quote<<The world would not be...a place of complete harmony and peace...if there were no religions...However,..I think it would be a bit better off without Christianity.>>>funny no re-ACTION...but for jesus...who revealed..goys can go to heaven..as well as the non goy...no xtianity...then heaven would still only be taking judeans...for such is their belief..as you well should know david

<<The Marxist governments were most horrible and oppressive>>>mainly trying to extinct xtians....as the angel of fatima warned..

.<<However,..there is one great difference between those regimes and the Nazi regimes.>>>yes mainly they turned from killing[pruning the branches...and low hanging fruit...attacked the root and stem

<<The Nazis used the Jews..as a scapegoat for Germany's troubles because centuries of Christian portrayal of the Jews...One reason the vast majority supported Hitler is because their churches conditioned them to support a platform of hate of the Jews.

>>.no it was media driven...crystal nacht...remember..it allways begins by scapegoating others,like now its arabs...before that gooks/nips/...well your better versed in the name calling...i speak out against all eugenics...[past and present]...hating all the many..hollow costs

david f,
I am 70 years of age and have spoken to former head hunters who have visited my Church; and I have had the children and grandchildren of those involved in pay-back in West Papua and New Guinea live with me while studying in Australia. In fact one of the members - Figaro Sokio is of such a family he is now resident of Australia and attend my Church. If he or members of his family were to return to Papua are still sought by another tribal family for pay back because in the distant past an ancestor of his killed a member of the other tribe that has not been settled.

These highland boys could survive off the creatures of the land without western food or shelter.

Like many politicians before and since, Hitler got to power
by presenting himself as the type of leader to which the people would respond.

Nationalism and patriotism were important values of the day, and more acutely in a country that had been so demoralized after WW1.

Hitler gained leadership; and rapidly changed government to a dictatorship.

He accused the Jews of corrupting Christian teachings - he sought to destroy the Judeau-Christian ethic. For example, he believed in killing the weak and 'impure'; absolutely contrary to the teachings and life of Jesus and his followers.

Hitler's beliefs, policies and practices owed much more to his interpretation of Nietzsche than to any reading or knowledge of the Bible. He believed in survival of the strongest through domination and elimination of the less powerful in society.

For a long time he kept his expansionist and eugenic intentions low key. For years Churchill warned about Hitler and few listened. This is because much of what Hitler espoused was followed by people throughout Europe and even in the US. You will find that 'science' was being glorified at the same time; and there were many people advocating policies that babies and children with various birth defects should not be allowed to breed - some didn't want them to survive at all. There are some old documentary films of that period still around.

Again, Christianity was not the problem. It's what people do with the teachings that is problematic at times.

Btw - while Christian nations or individuals within them may be accused of all sorts of mayhem; bear in mind that it has been Christian nations that rose to quell evils - such as Hitler, slavery and the like.

I think this article by Paul E. Marek has become topical to this discussion:
http://thecomensality.com/avasay/?p=109
"Btw - while Christian nations or individuals within them may be accused of all sorts of mayhem; bear in mind that it has been Christian nations that rose to quell evils - such as Hitler, slavery and the like."
Almost all the Atlantic slavers were Christians. Christian countries have never shown any hesitation in going to war, and still don't. Rudd claims to be a devout Christian, and is still sending our children overseas to fight for American Imperialism -which is also being justified by Christianity.
Christianity has historically been 'anti science' as so many posters have pointed out; unfortunately, it still is. The statistics in the world's most powerful -and ostensibly, secular- nation suggest more than half do not accept evolution; an amazing proportion support Zionism, not only because Palestine was 'given' to the Jews (and taken away, and given, and taken away...) but because they believe Jesus will not return until such prophecies are fulfilled. These same people do not regard AGW or ecological responsibility to be a priority for the same reason.
Another reason why I am becoming anti theist. The business of "Heavenly Reward". Too many people seem to think the egregious inequalities and injustices of this world are unimportant. It's only what happens in the next world that matters.

Foxy

<< I'm merely human - and when the right buttons
are pushed - I react - often to my deep regret. >>

I hear you, lovely lady. And fully concur.

I agree that the masses of people back in the time of Leonardo were ignorant and uneducated; they only knew what the reigning powers told them. Had the church become aware of Leonardo's work and discoveries, he would've been dealt with by their authority. Of course the church could've had a more open view of science and approved and encouraged great thinkers such as Leonardo, Copernicus, Galileo and so on. But they didn't - to our loss, which impacts upon us even today with those who seriously believe in ID and other complete fabrications.

Yes, the war between science and religion continues; and I don't see why it has to remain this way. There are, as you know many wonderful Christians; both scientists or other valued professions who have no difficulties with combining the wonders of this universe to their religious beliefs - by taking the bible more as parable than as fact. What you make of people like Runner or Philo, I have to wonder. However, this is not a gossip column.

I too, am on my own spiritual journey. I call myself an atheist for lack of a suitable word. I am not agnostic, because I don't even believe in the possibility of a single deity. But (and it is a big BUT) well mine is actually rather small... sorry I can't be too serious for too long.

But I feel a connection to the world around me and beyond. I can walk outside and feel the trees, if one is quiet and there is no wind, I can hear them shift ever so slightly in the earth. I can sit in the grass and watch an echidna snuffle through the leaf litter completely unperturbed by my presence. I can go for walks and greet people and other animals. I am lucky that I seem to have a knack with animals, an immediate trust between us.

Contd

Contd

I can also look into the night sky and think how amazing it is, how fortunate that it is now I look into the sky and not 15 billion years into the future, because at the rate the universe is expanding, our milky way would be all that we see - the other galaxies having moved so far apart that we would never know they were ever out there.

There is so much we have to learn, so much we may never know. But I do know that formal religion is not needed to be ‘good’ nor is it needed to be ‘evil’.

However, where my button has been pushed (this is a result of reading Peter Sellick) is that any good which comes from, in this case, Christianity – the religion receives the kudos. But any evil is blamed on the individual. Put simply – this is a major cop-out. And I’m not buying it. Nor am I accepting the “it is only a few extremists”. There’s too many of them and they bring moderates along with them. Hence the circular arguments this thread is having regarding Hitler, the Crusades, whatever. These atrocities have all involved very ordinary people.

Would we still have ‘evil’ without religion? Of course, human beings are very flawed. Power is the great corrupter at the heart of evil, be it within religion or political ideology or any dogma that conveys to a person that they have a right to inflict their will on others – from the woman-hating rapist to the Jew-hating Nazi.

I don’t know what the answer is, apart from knowing that the more we learn about ourselves and the world around us and the more equitably humans are treated by all power structures, the better chance for everyone. The desire for power comes from feeling powerless – eliminate that, and we might have a chance.

Pynchme,

Your description of Hilter is reminiscent of Pope Gregory VII.

I wouldn’t under estimate the influence of Christianity of Hitler. From Main Kampf:

http://www.mtfreethinkers.org/essays_stories/religion/adolph_hitler.htm

Also, Christians advocated eugenics before Hitler can to power:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DrKgIIxCHVIC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=christian+eugenics&source=bl&ots=Ch0jZrq6SF&sig=QgaLaAYvFUNvAXwOMlWgqB-Trto&hl=en&ei=FaSQSv-MLcbakAWIsrm7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=christian%20eugenics&f=false

Last century, while the far left was not tolerated, the far right was accepted by many. Edward VIII had extreme right wing leanings. Also, leading US industrialists, e.g., Henry Ford. Britain did not wish intervene over Germany’s domestic behaviour. Herein, Chamberlain asserted, “peace in our times”. Britain declared war against Germany over the latter’s invasion of Poland, not over Germany’s internal policies. Curiously, Britain allowed Poland to be annexed by Russia in 1945.

Hitler viewed the Western democracies as weak and held that one day these soft democracies would be threatened by Asia.
Agree. Churchill was a rare voice recognizing the perils of ignoring Hitler. One of the few instances, he was right. I think it fair to say that Churchill was every bit as nationalistic as Hitler.

It is quite illuminating, Philo, that you cannot find in you the humility to accept that in this instance, you are in the wrong.

It reflects quite badly on your values. So I'd keep quiet about being a Christian if I were you.

>>Despite Pericles disbelief that the coin in the solstace pudding identified the child to be sacrificed to the gods, my argument remains.<<

Point #1: it is not my disbelief that is at issue here, but your blind insistence that your story is true. It is not supported by any source more serious than you'd find inside a Christmas cracker.

Point #2: your argument does not "remain". It has been comprehensively shot to pieces. Just to remind you what it was:

>>humans sacrificed their children existed in Europe till at least 600 AD when Christianity changed that evil practise... Christianity transformed pagan European practises of them inserting a coin into the pudding fed to the children during winter solace to identify the chosen child to be sacrificed to the god of fertility and new life. Vestage of this practise remains today in the coin in the Christmas pudding and is supposed to mean a blessing to the child now spared from sacrifice<<

Your claim that Christianity "changed this evil practice" fails, since the practice itself remains unsupported by any evidence.

Even St Boniface, your trump card, was silent on the topic.

This is pure internet sleight-of-hand. The reference simultaneously sounds highly impressive - hey, it's St Boniface who tells the tale, so it must be true - and is sufficiently ancient and obscure that it discourages checking.

But you were, along with a host of fellow-travellers, simply content to perpetuate a fable that supports your cause - "Christianity saved us all from cannibalism"

>>There is enough evidence to demonstrate child sacrifice and cannabalism existed in recent history.<<

So may there be, Philo.

But where's the evidence? So that we can assess whether it is of higher quality than that provided by write101.com, The HoHoHo Factor or Hansel and Gretel?

Or St Sebastian, come to that.

Boniface, that is.

Dear Fractelle,

Thank you for such a brilliant, eloquent
and well reasoned post.

I agree fully with everything you say.

I reacted strongly on this thread because
I disapprove of stereotyping.

It is very easy to assert that "most"
German parishioners got their anti-semitism from
the church. (as if any church ever taught that
blond-haired blue-eyed Aryans were the master
race and needed to get rid of the Jews to preserve
their racial purity).

If people want to know the origin of modern racial
anti-semitism they should read a little about
Arthur de Gobineau, Paul Anton de Lagarde,
Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Richard Wagner, or
Ernst Haeckel.

But why bother to do research if you only want to
attack Christianity?

What should be the obvious fact is that Naziism is
fundamentally different from, and contrary to,
Christianity.

In 1,900 years of Christianity, no Christian Church ever
advocated exterminating all of the Jews.

However having said that - I agree with you the there
have been unnecessary, bitter and bloody divisions
between people because of religious differences.
This splintering into antagonistic sects, and even
deadly religious enemies, makes a common future for
humankind an extremely difficult project to bring to
fruition. As Tor Hundloe asks,"How are we ever going
to solve threats to all of humanity (and the planet) by
climate change, over-population and other serious
environmental problems, if we can't leave our fellow
humans to safely live in peace..."

Today, if we could blend our scientific understanding
with our search for a greater meaning of life with an
ethic that regards other beings as worthy - then
possibly we could have a better world.

Pericles,
Believe what you want. Obviously verbal traditional stories of early Europe are not sufficient for you; including the conclusions drawn from the opening article because you did not see it. It is easy to be negative but that does not enhance your credibility. My point is there are options to more recent events in history of child sacrifice, that it did not take genetic evolution to stop. Have a read of "PEACE CHILD" which happened within the last century.

I choose to be no further involved negative attitude.

That's rich, Philo.

>>It is easy to be negative but that does not enhance your credibility.<<

And re-telling fiction as fact, in the cause of boosting the image of your chosen religion, somehow enhances your credibility?

I don't think so.

>>Have a read of "PEACE CHILD" which happened within the last century.<<

Fascinating. A missionary's tale of his "victory" in introducing a primitive tribe to Christianity.

Regrettably, I don't share your view that substituting one set of superstitions for another is a worthwhile occupation.

To me, it is a little like fishing.

At one end of a rod and line you have an individual with finely tuned reasoning powers, based on at least a dozen years of schooling, possibly enhanced by a load of reading, writing, conversing, discussing, going to the library and looking stuff up on the Internet.

At the other, you have a small, living creature with a strictly limited mental capacity.

The former uses his privileged education to subdue the latter.

It is an exceptionally uneven contest. Lots of fish get caught every day.

I put missionaries into the same category as those anglers.

They use their privileged education to prey on the vastly more constricted worldview of a primitive people, their generosity of spirit, and their awe of the unknown.

Why the dominant parties - anglers and missionaries alike - actually boast about their conquests remains a mystery to me. Equally, why both groups write books about how clever they are in trapping their prey.

I suspect, with your gift for inventing/perpetuating stories and relating them as truth, you are, or were, a missionary yourself, Philo. Perfect training.

Incidentally, I don't know if you noticed, but "Peace Child" makes absolutely no reference to pagan rituals in Europe, child sacrifices or Christmas puddings.

Just thought I'd mention it.

A very pretty post, Fractelle. I have come to believe the most profound question thinking Humans (at least those who accept evolution) can ask is:
when that very first proto cell managed the clever trick of reproduction, was there then 2 lives on the planet, or I life, in 2 places? Obviously, reading James Lovelock had something to do with the question.
Personally, I find it more amazing that our interpersonal communication is so imperfect, than those very rare occasions when we manage to communicate perfectly.
As someone who has lived and worked outdoors almost all my life, one thing has always bugged me.
Wagtails.
After watching so many birds and animals interact; birds perching on the backs of cattle and sheep and goats, wagtails bother me the most. They actually deliberately tease cats and dogs. I have witnessed on so many occasions, these small, cheeky birds playing with predators who would not hesitate to eat them.
Why don't they interact with Humans?
Is it possible that when we gained 'self' awareness, we lost 'awareness'?

Dear Grim,

You ask an interesting question - "When we gained
"self" awareness did we lose "awareness?"

I'm not sure - I suppose it depends on the individual
doesn't it, and how much 'self,' awareness or
'awareness,' they possess?

It reminds me of the joke:

Question: "What's he got that I haven't?"

Answer: "Awareness!"

Question: "What's that?"

CRIMM<<when that very first proto cell managed the clever trick of reproduction, was there then 2 lives on the planet, or I life, in 2 places? >>>..clearly two lives..one reality but two versions of it..you seeing me/..me seeing you...him..light/love/logic/life..seeing/sustaining...us to live

<<one thing has always bugged me.
Wagtails...Why don't they interact with Humans?>>funny you should say[one night in longreach...i was awoken by this constant chirping/wisteling/bird noise[overwelming]sounds so much so i went to check it out...

half a block away..[in one tree]...were literally a hundred[or more]100 plus willie wagtails in one tree...pretending like i wasnt there...it was a spiritual experience...like all laws of nature were in abeyance...i figured it was their version of cooroberie...and accepted the willy wagtail as my totum guide

when important occasions needed precice spiritual timming...there was my willie wagtail guide...who served even as messenger...letting my related;them to be knowing i was well..when ever one visited...they knew i was fine...for 8 years...as i went walkabout

in short i studdied its meaning...in time/..i learned that the willy is an accused liar..[never to me]./.but such is its trible recognition..that his visit portends deception/gossip...

so presume with the cat chasing...they are interacting with them delivering a mess-age

<<Is it possible that when we gained 'self' awareness,..we lost 'awareness'?>>.your meaning have we so disconected with nature...by modifying our natural being ...have we lost maybe awarness of the totality that lies outside...and gained mearly the emptyness within

that empty void is your living life giver ...dwelling in all livingsustaining all living their l;ives to live..[one life of course]...allways was..allways will be..

at-one-ment
..

Foxy thank you - I really enjoyed our exchange, because again I have learned more.

Grim

I found much in your last post that was very 'zen'.

Yes, we gained self awareness at the cost or reduction of awareness. I am sure that there are animals who perceive us as 'cloddish' - particularly the likes of a wagtail.

We may kid ourselves that by inventing the combustion engine, we have staked our claim to the peak of intelligent life on this planet. However, if the other creatures we share this eco-system could speak, would they not question the wisdom of producing a mechanism that consumes resources and only returns pollution? Are we not still cannibals by endangering our own existence with the destruction of our habitat?

Loved the question about the very first binary fission of the very first cell. Is it 2 lives or 1 life in two places? One can ask the same of cloning, was Dolly the sheep and her originator one life? For myself, I think 2 lives. This is an excellent conundrum. My belief is during that primary cell division, the very first differences occurred, so tiny as to be virtually undetectable but enough for evolution to begin.

:-)

Foxy is correct. In history, Christians usually gave the Jews the option of converting to avoid extermination. Albeit, in fifteenth century Spain, when the Jewish converts to Christianity, became socially mobile, they were killed. Alexander VI dubbed Isabella and Ferdinand with the title “Catholic Kings”, in recognition of the exiling and extermination of Jews.

Much more recently, we have the Franciscan Ante Paveliç and the Croatian Catholic Clergy. Paveliç was supported by Pious XII:

http://blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/pavelic.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Usta%C5%A1e

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/yugoslavia_catholic_church.htm

Christain origins were bloody and not only for the Jews:

In 380, Theodosius’ edict calls, “ ‘insane’ those that do not believe in the Christian god and outlaws all disagreements with the Church dogmas. Ambrosius, bishop of Milan, starts destroying all the Pagan Temples of his area. Christian priests lead the mob against the Temple of Goddess Demeter in Eleusis and try to lynch the hierophants Nestorius and Priskus. The 95 year-old hierophant Nestorius, ends the Eleusinian Mysteries and announces the predominance of mental darkness over the human race.” - Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes [Online]

Soon after, we have Christian death camps at Skythopolis:

“Maternus Cynegius, encouraged by his fanatic wife, and bishop, ‘Saint’ Marcellus with his gangs scour the countryside, sack and destroy hundreds of Hellenic Temples, shrines and altars. Amongst others they destroy the Temple of Edessa, the Cabeireion of Imbros, the Temple of Zeus in Apamea, the Temple of Apollo in Dydima and all the Temples of Palmyra. Thousands of innocent Gentiles from all sides of the Empire suffer martyrdom in the notorious death camps of Skythopolis.” - Ibid

In 580, “Christian inquisitors attack a secret Temple of Zeus in Antioch. The priest commits suicide, but the other Gentiles are arrested. All the prisoners, the Vice Governor Anatolius included, are tortured and sent to Constantinople to face trial. Sentenced to death they are thrown to the lions. The wild animals are unwilling to tear them to pieces and they end up crucified. Their corpses are dragged through the streets by the christian mob and afterwards thrown unburied in the city dump.” - Ibid

Zen? That might be refreshing after reviewing Our Christian Origins:

"The whole approach to Buddhism is to development transcendental common sense, seeing things as they are, without magnyfying what is or dreaming about what we would like to be" - Chogyam Trungpa

Yes, there is definitely a Zen aspect there, Fractelle and Oliver.
Many proponents (like Arthur C Clarke) have been adamant that Buddhism is not a religion, so much as a philosophy.
Foxy, do I understand you're proposing a rather fascinating experiment?
Are Wagtails more inclined to interact with Sociopaths, or Saints?
Perhaps we could get some volunteers, from the ranks of OLO posters.
Oh, dear, did I write that out loud?

Prompted by Foxy's accurate statement; "no Christian CHURCH ever advocated exterminating ALL of the Jews" (emphases added),above, I posted the dark history of Christian atrocities (death camps) following Nicaea and accounts of Church involvement in supporting war criminals in WWII (sanctuary and rat-lines). And there was much of the same during the 1,700 years in between. Here, I wonder if anyone can ever put Humpty together, because Humpty has never been together in the first place. The parts might not be there!

I am aware of Marx's quip to the effect that "the only difference between the Catholic Church and the Church of England is how long they roast their victims". Yet, for the good Christian laity, surely there must be an ethical alternative, somewhere. Good people, who would never join the NAZIs or KKK, happily enjoin Church organizations with no better pedigrees. I guess a Sunday veneer covers the facts.

Alternatively, to reform Christianity, is it enough to say, "physcian heal thy self"?

Dear Oly,

I wasn't going to respond any further to this thread.
But, I've once again been drawn back in.

I've come across a book review by Bill Muehlenberg
on the web:

"Christianity On Trial: Arguments Against Anti-
Religious Bigotry." by Vincent Carroll et al.

In his review Muehlenberg tell us that:

"As the Western world grows increasingly secular,
the attacks on religion in general and Christianity
in particular become ever more pronounced.
Christianity especially has long been the object of
ridicule, criticism and ostracism. Of course some of
that is earned. But much is not..."

I won't present a thesis of all the positive aspects of
Christianity - that the reviewer lists. It's not
necessary - because we know about the charitable and
benevolent societies that were developed - we know
that religion has been a supreme source of inspiration in the
arts. Some of the most beautiful buildings in the world
are houses of worship. Much of the world's greatest
music in religious. Religious stories have provided
countless subjects for paintings, sculpture,
literature, dances, and films.

During the Middle Ages, from the A.D. 400's to the A.D. 1500's,
the Christian church was the centre of learning in Europe.
Priests and monks working in churches and monastries preserved
the skills of writing and bookmaking. Illuminated manuscripts
are still held in awe... as is the Gutenberg Bible- but enough
said.

The reviewer sums up with: - "Attacks on the Christian
religion will continue. But many of the standard
objections turn out, on closer inspection, to be not so
damaging, being often based on misinformation or
selective use of the historical record..."

I am fully aware of what's wrong with certain aspects
of religion - especially with the hierarchy of the
Catholic Church - however I find I have to respond
to generalisations and sweeping statements.

"Physician heal thyself?"

Yes Olly, I fully agree - that's a good place to start!

Hello Foxy,

Please excuse my brevity. I’m midst developing a mathematical model to help evaluative cross-cultural behaviour. It is interesting work, but very time consuming.

Thank you for the excellent reference. What jumps out me from the Muehlenberg cite is, “Christianity especially has long been the object of ridicule, criticism and ostracism. Of course some of that is earned”. Herein, the word “some”, I find quite moderate. Moreover, I think that sveral major historical events would standup to inspection. We might be able to dispense with the Salem Witch Trials, but not the Inquisition.

Yes, Christianity has multiple personalities. One could readily envisage Robert Louis Stevenson, in an alternative universe, writing, “The Strange Case Cardinal Jekyll and Mr Hyde”. In St Petersburg, there are the magnificent domes of the good Cardinal, yet we learn that Mr Hydeski used prisoners on the spans, knowing scores would fall to their deaths. The contribution of the devout, to music and art, has been immense. On the other hand, if the ill-deeds are measured, and, if Christianity blankets History, the NAZIs are a mere handkerchief and the KKK a postage stamp, by comparison.

I suspect that many Christians do not have a good idea of the Christianity’s history. There might be a vague notion of the Crusades, perhaps; yet, how many would be aware of the persecutions of the Pagans, after Nicaea? Popular history books have an entire necropolis in the closet, when it comes to Christianity. Actually, I suspect many Church attending Christians are not Christians in the sense of its broader corpus.

Or, is Christianity like the Young Girl/ Old Women Illusion in many Introductory to Psychology books:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/YoungGirl-OldWomanIllusion.html

One cannot deny either face, yet one does not see the two faces concurrently.

[Not so brief after-all]

Regards,

Oly

Dear Oly,

Thank You for your eloquent and informative
response. I always enjoy your posts - I learn
so much from you.

I've got to confess I'm not one of those
'church-going,' Christians. And there's
much that I question. (I was raised a
Catholic) - however, I suspect that I'm not
a very good one

Dear Foxy,

I appreciate the effort you put into your quality posts. Thank you.

I was raised a Catholic but went to secular schools. My parents were not particularly religious and, I did on occasion go to mass without them.

I'm sure this secular humanist could do with improvement.

Oly

I have been in Sydney for a few days. That is why I have not been participating in this discussion. While I was in Sydney I attended the 80th birthday party of a Marxist. There was a lot of good food. Most of the people there were Marxist believers, but I am not. Two musicians played the “Internationale”, and most of the assemblage lustily sang along. After approximately 100,000,000 Marxist generated corpses they can still believe.

Oliver mentioned the Buddhists. Although Buddhism is regarded as a religion of peace that most violent group of men, the Japanese officer corps, in WW2 were almost all Buddhists. Currently the Buddhist clergy in Sri Lanka have backed the bloody suppression of the Tamils.

Uncritical belief in having a truth denied to others is found in both religion and secular philosophies. That sort of belief has led to atrocity. Marxist and Buddhist believers can exhibit as great cruelty as believers in God.

I also talked with a man who assured me that Prime Minister Rudd was trying to destroy Christianity. I pointed out that he has just allocated 26 billion dollars to independent schools mostly Christian. He retorted, “A big coverup.” His paranoid fantasies can be found at http://www.cosepp.com/. Click on Police Persecution, Barbarism, Tortures... of Joseph Costa, in Australia.

Went to hear a talk in Sydney parliament house by John Keane, author of “The Life and Death of Democracy”. He spoke of the tremendous devotion to democracy by poor people in India. The poorer they are the more likely they are to vote. During question time an Indian in the audience remarked that the voting turnout among poor people was simply due to the fact they got paid to vote, and they needed the money. It was evidence of corruption not devotion. Professor Keane was another uncritical believer. Nevertheless he has written a good book.

Dear David f,

Welcome back.

We're leaving for Sydney, from Melbourne on Tuesday 1st Sept.
and we'll be gone for about a week.

It's my regular 'pilgrimage,' mainly to visit my father's
grave - in Rookwood Cemetry.

I've got family in Sydney - but none of them seem to care
that much about looking after Papa's grave (except me).
I don't know what's going to happen after I'm gone -
hopefully someone will take over. I clean things up while
I'm there. It's so peaceful - and not at all morbid -
as some people may think.

Anyway, Thanks for the book reference - I'll try to get hold
of a copy.

Take care.

Dear Foxy,

Thanks for your welcome back. My mother, father, both grandfathers and my mother’s mother are buried in a cemetery in Whitesboro, N. Y. My mother’s parents loved the Adirondack Mountains, and they wanted to be buried in that cemetery because it overlooks the foothills of the Adirondacks. It’s a beautiful site. My grandfather’s coffin was taken up to his grave on a toboggan, as there was a lot of snow. His sons thought it was appropriate for his last journey, as he loved a toboggan ride. I’d like to go back there in winter.

It’s a good act to look after your father’s grave.

Dear David f,

Thank You.

Big, big hug.

"Let us make humankind, in our image, according to our likeness!"

Apologies for skipping in late.

As a trenchant secularist I have to confess I am currently thoroughly enjoying a re-examination of the Bible, particularly the Hebrew one, through older and hopefully wiser eyes.

Genesis is my playpen at the moment. My preference is to read in a sitting a particular book and see what resonates, then to seek the commentary of others. What struck me was how much as a parent, with a teenager who is beginning to deal with all the complex issues of life and sexuality, I felt for the character of God.

As a parent I see the gifts of love, a home and protection as a cocoon we strive to create for our children, our garden in 'Eden' but one we know whose currency will change, and possibly diminish when their 'eyes are opened' to new understandings. However I believe every parent that mourns a little for that innocence lost.

I see God's manner of dealing with his 'children' repeated today with parents reacting excessively to what is an inevitability with them showing their children the door, if not literally then distancing themselves in their relationships with their offspring. Many later deeply ruing their actions when near irrevocable alienation occurs.

I found myself reflecting on how many wished they could just start again and the Hebrew god seemed intent on doing just that in a brutal manner with the flood. Wiping the proverbial slate clean.

But one does get the sense of god maturing in his relationship with humanity throughout the bible one would love to ask knowing what he knows now how would he have done things differently?

There are poignant lessons on parenting throughout Genesis with possibly the largest collection of dysfunctional families in literature.

Naturally the question will be asked whether we created God in our image or vice versa and while my preference is obviously for the former I think to dismiss the teachings held within the bible and the insights gained in contemplating and discussing them would be indeed foolish.

Dear csteele,

The part of Genesis that made rejection of the God of the Bible obligatory for me is the binding of Isaac. That God demands showing devotion by atrocity – the willingness to murder one’s son. I cannot accept such a God. Apologists for that story point out that Abraham did not actually have to sacrifice his son, but later in the Bible Jepthah actually sacrifices his daughter. I do not think it right that a person should either sacrifice a child or be willing to sacrifice a child.

When I first heard of the sacrifice of Isaac I became a very frightened little boy and asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice from God commanding him to sacrifice me. My father said he would see a psychiatrist. I felt my father was reasonable, and the God of the Bible was an unreasonable entity unworthy of worship.

The story of Abraham and Isaac justifies 9/11. They showed devotion to their God by their willingness to commit atrocity.

In the New Testament God continues his evil by subjecting his own son to a horrible death.

It was an unreasonable God at the beginning ordering the primal pair not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge knowing full well that they are going to eat of the tree. He then has them driven out of the Garden because they have acted naturally. How could they know that it was wrong to disobey before they disobeyed if they lacked knowledge?

God sends a flood to punish mankind for its evil. However, a flood destroys all terrestrial life. What have sheep done wrong? Is God angry because they didn’t keep off the grass?

At first Buddhism seems more reasonable in not postulating any God. However, Buddhism sees detachment human emotion as an ideal. One can then abandon one’s family as Gautama did.

Such faith not only overrides reason. It overrides the bonds of human love. Such faith is evil in my view.

Dear davidf,

While I am apt to take from the bible much as I would from other literature like Shakespeare it is possibly impertinent of me to request the same from you as your heritage means it likely has had a far more visceral impact during your formative years than anything I could hope to comprehend.

I too have harboured a rather negative image of Abraham, from pimping his wife to the Pharaoh to his willingness to sacrifice not one but two sons. But the beauty about the writing in Genesis is that it is so heavy on import while being so frugal on detail. It invites us to fill in the gaps or rather flesh out the story.

Can I offer you a different coat to try on regarding Abraham? Think of where he was at. It was just ten generations ago that Noah was floating on an endless sea surrounded by the bloated bodies of all but a few of his fellow human beings. Noah’s behaviour post the flood, consisting of drunkenness and lewd conduct unbecoming, hint at classic PTS.

Despite the covenant from God with his promise never to wreak destruction through flood again on the human race Abraham was witness to the destruction of the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah through fire from heaven. He had done his best to negotiate the sparing of these two towns with God but failed. One might imagine his despair at their obliteration. God seemed to be on the rampage again and just what might it take to appease him?

The answer appears quite quickly, Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son, his gift from God. One gets the sense of a ‘Sophie’s choice’. One thing we know from the previous descriptions and actions of Abraham is that he quickly determines the choices set before him. There is no argument nor bargaining on this occasion. Might his actions with a different but not illegitimate reading have been heroic? Would one ever consider sacrificing a son to prevent a holocaust?

Cont..

Cont…

The telling passage in my mind is Genesis 22:12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

Note the word FEAR, not devotion nor worship nor love. I think Abraham’s actions shamed a rampaging God. Another clue for me was that God does not directly address Abraham but the conversation was conducted via an angel of the Lord.

I may be wrong but there is no indication of Abraham ever directly speaking to God again, nor indeed of him ever speaking to Isaac or Ishmael. It would have been an interesting conversation between the two when they met again to bury their father.

I am left with the impression of trauma dealt to all parties concerned but a power shift and a maturation occurs in the relationship between God and humans.

Therefore I would contend that the 9/11 perpetrators erred if indeed they were taking their cue from the Isaac story in attempting through their actions to show their devotion to God because from my reading devotion had little to do with it.

Might I address your statement, “God sends a flood to punish mankind for its evil. However, a flood destroys all terrestrial life. What have sheep done wrong? Is God angry because they didn’t keep off the grass?”

Are the actions of God here really about punishment or pain mitigation? Consider Genesis 6:6 “The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.”. Once again my impression differs from yours. Think of an artist painting over an incomplete image and starting over. A Godly reboot? The question that requires contemplation is whether the those ancient acts can be properly appraised as an evil by an evolved human moral paradigm?

The answer is possibly yes but gently.

I would like to think the concept of being able to sacrifice another comes from an age when slavery was acceptable, and even family members were considered chattel.
Sadly, it's still true that while old men cause wars, it's young men who have to fight them.
Is this an attitude we learnt from the example of our God?

Dear Grim,

I agree. Stories about Gallipolli soldiers joining at 15 years of age seemed to elicit admiration from many but reading about proud parents seeing them off even when they obviously knew their lad had lied about his age to enlist bewilders me. Sacrifices to the gods of nationalism and pride?

That is not to say the Abraham/Isaac story doesn’t have an even broader more modern resonance. How many parents sacrifice their children on the altar of ambition, pride or even calling? How many politicians upon retirement from power feel compelled to acknowledge the sacrifices made by their children? Why do so many families in Australia feel the need to have both parents working? Maybe reflecting on Abraham might give us cause to examine our own lives and the manner in which we justify our work/life decisions.

One may even see the metaphor of the ties that bound Isaac in our schools with their hours originally mimicking those of our factories. Our teachers spending more time with our children than we as working parents are able to. What is particularly sad and delusional are the justifications we use. We are doing what we need to to provide the best for our children.

Dear davidf,

Sorry if this is a little cheeky but after my post to Grim I can’t resist pointing out another disconnect.

You asked, “What have sheep done wrong? Is God angry because they didn’t keep off the grass?”

Are the sheep that grace your plate permitted to ask the same question of you?

Do you really believe the docking of an appendage is painless? If so let me try it with you? Can I place a constricting ring around your testicles? May I cut pieces of flesh from your body without aesthetic? May I round you up with dogs snapping at your heels and send you through dips then force various concoctions down your throat? Finally may I send you to the slaughterhouse tightly crammed in the rear of open trucks to face terror, death and dismemberment?

What wrong have we done to you that this is permissible? It is difficult for us to distinguish you from your deity who drowned us. Like images indeed.

Put the farmer, the slaughterman and the butcher between you and the knife and you get all sanctimonious about God and Abraham rather shouldn‘t you be standing shoulder to shoulder?

We do find it interesting that of all the creatures you might have picked to make your point you chose us sheep, or to press the point, a sacrificial lamb maybe?

Jesus davidf!

Baa!

Dear csteele,

The Bible is a narrative constructed of various legends first passed on by word of mouth. These legends were put together to at various times.

Critical exegesis of the Bible that in addition to the study of the formation of the Bible by analysing its language examines these legends by comparing it with what is known of the history at the time.

Some of the legends may have had a factual basis. Others such as the Book of Esther and the Book of Ruth appear to have no verification from other sources and are pure fiction.

Modern exegesis began in The Age of Reason in 1753 when Jean Astruc of the University of Paris published “Conjectures as to the Original Memoirs Which as it appears Moses used in composing the Book of Genesis.” Astruc had to be extremely careful as he could be accused of heresy in such a conjecture.

You wrote: “Think of where he [Abraham] was at. It was just ten generations ago that Noah was floating on an endless sea surrounded by the bloated bodies of all but a few of his fellow human beings.”

In the above you wrote assuming that Abraham had knowledge of the legend of the Flood and that the time chronicled in the Bible was real time. The world is much more than six thousand years old, but it is six thousand years old if we assume the reliability of Biblical chronology. Abraham may not have known of the legend of the Flood. If he did there is no reason to expect that he placed it in a time sequence ten generations back.

There are various hypotheses about the story of the Flood. In 1997, Ryan and Pitman from Columbia University published “Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History“, a hypothesis according to which a massive flood through the Bosporus occurred in ancient times. They claim that the Black and Caspian Seas were vast freshwater lakes, but then about 5600 BC, the Mediterranean spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosporus.

continued

continued

The King James Version translates Jehovah as Lord and Elohim as God. Many biblical scholars accept the Wellhausen thesis that the first five books were patched together from four main parts. J where Jehovah appears, E where Elohim appears, P for priestly (That contains all the begats) and D for Deuteronomy. The J document was written about 900 BCE and the E document that contains the story of the binding of Isaac about 800 BCE. The oldest part of the Bible is the Song of the Well dated about 1200 BCE. Those dates are 4,000 years later than the possible origin of the flood narrative.

Two horrible notes in the story of the binding of Isaac are that there was no reason given and Abraham did not question. God was the Supreme Fascist, and Abraham was the Supreme Order Follower.

I don’t think we have evolved in morals. It is less than two centuries that slavery was eliminated from the western world, but it still exists in other places. It is also estimated in that over 90% of the casualties in current armed conflicts are civilians. The twentieth century saw the totalitarian Nazis and Marxists take over great nations. The United States made torture illegal in the eighteenth century and brought it back in the twenty-first. According to “Torture” by Edward Peters ancient Greece, Roma and China practiced torture. Ancient Israel, India and Persia did not. Human behaviour was a mixed bag then. It is a mixed bag now. I don’t think we have an evolved human paradigm.

Dear csteele,

Why should you think that I believe a docking of an appendage is painless?

I don’t eat lobster because being dropped into boiling water is a horrid death. I don’t approve of cruelty to animals. As a child I lived in an area that abounded in deer. I disapprove of hunters going out and killing deer for sport. I see nothing wrong in killing a deer with a clean shot to feed a family.

I have nine descendents. Five are vegetarians. I eat meat sparingly.

Dear davidf,

Thank you for your response. I was aware of the J and P documents in Genesis but not of E.

Firstly my apologies for not being clear in my post. It was not I accusing you of believing that “a docking of an appendage is painless” rather the sheep were. Humour can be in the eye of the beholder. Sorry.

If we are intent on seeking the origins of the flood narrative I would have to stick my hand up for the Sumartrian text of Gilgamesh which predates any Jewish writing. I am re-reading it at the moment and the cognitive ‘starbursts’ are going off in even the first few pages. Of his creation it says “Two thirds they made him God and one third man” Wow! That’s the father, son, and the Holy Ghost right there. And the part about not leaving the “virgin to her lover” immediately forces the mind to Mary, but I digress.

I am pretty keen on taking Genesis as it is delivered as I have a confidence in the author that what he/she has included has been distilled through oral and written sources into a tightly scripted piece including the obvious repetitions.

That the words have been as evocative and powerful for so many generations stand as testament to their crafting. Would you feel it is necessary to research Scottish kings before reading and appreciating MacBeth?

I don’t want to argue about your assessment “God was the Supreme Fascist, and Abraham was the Supreme Order Follower” because it mirrored a view I held up until my latest reading of Genesis. But Job has reset my buttons (missed you on that thread btw) and I find myself far more expansive in seeking meaning relevant to me in the bible read as literature.

So when you write “you wrote assuming that Abraham had knowledge of the legend of the Flood” my response is to say well the author certainly did because he wrote the book!

Possibly the hold it has over each of us is that different as to be incomprehensible to the other.

Dear csteele,

We really can only speculate about the origin of the flood narrative. There may not have been an actual flood. The parables of Jesus in the New Testament make moral points and are not put forth as actual happenings. The story of the flood, as well as other stories, may simply be similar parables.

“God was the Supreme Fascist, and Abraham was the Supreme Order Follower” in the story of the binding of Isaac. God was not a Supreme Fascist in the Jonah story. My belief is that God is a human invention inconsistent in behaviour from one story to another.

I don't understand your sentence, "So when you write “you wrote assuming that Abraham had knowledge of the legend of the Flood” my response is to say well the author certainly did because he wrote the book!" The fact that an account of the flood is in Genesis does not mean Abraham knew the story. Stories seem to have been pieced together from different sources.

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." is incompatible with Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Man and woman are created together in one story, and woman from man in the other story.

I regard the Bible as a document that should be taken seriously as a book that has had a great deal to do with forming our society, contains moral insights along with the prejudices of its times, contains magnificent literature along with boilerplate. It has justified both good and evil. From the Bible slaveholders have justified slavery and Abolitionists have justified freeing slaves.

I don't regard it as a scientific text, a history or a reliable moral guide, but it has a hold on me.

Dear davidf,

Maybe we are not that far apart after all.

Could I reiterate the point that the oral traditions that honed these stories/myths over generations must have been sympathetic to the human condition and resonated with their audiences or else they would not have survived.

I have just purchased and am really enjoying Bill Moyers’ book Genesis - A Living Conversation which details a series of discussions held between collections of people about the book. Although none of the contributors mirror my take on Genesis, neither do they mirror each others, even when coming from the same faith.

I like English Professor Charles Johnson’s description that the “stories of Genesis are very much part of our global inheritance. They are very much like coins, two thousand yeas old. They have been passed around so many cultures, and they have the sweat and palm oil of so many individuals on them that if we open them up, we discover something of our own humanity, something of the possibilities of what we are as a species. There are so many interpretations of these stories and so much is laid upon them and they have been used so often to organise human experience that the problem is not a lack of meaning in these stories - it’s too much meaning. There’s a surplus of meaning because you are talking about two thousand years of human effort to make sense out of civilization.”

What has struck me are the differences in the Qur’an’s account of the Genesis story and how it has been remodelled with subtractions and additions. It is a startling example of how these myths are reworked with time and circumstance. A small example it tells of Abraham as a child saying “”I believe in the one true God” while those around him worshipped idols but it doesn’t detail whether it was Isaac or Ishmael whom Abraham was prepared to sacrifice.

You ask if Abraham could possibly have had knowledge of the flood.

Cont..

Cont..

Although I find it a little strange justifying a character in what we seem to agree is a myth I will do my best. I suppose I am defending the integrity of the story rather than the facts.

My understanding is that Ruth was written in response to a particularly racist part of Jewish history when unless one could prove your racial purity back 10 generations you were not permitted to reside in Jerusalem. The powerful message in the book, kept until the very last, was that Ruth, a Moabite, was part of the linage of King David thus he too would have been banished from the city. Therefore if linage could survive over this time span why should there be a problem with history doing the same.

My second contention is that the flood tale must have made its way though Abraham’s generation and on to the writers of Genesis. Would it not be probable that they touched him in some form?

However my point still holds that the author responsible for sustaining the flood narrative by penning Genesis would have had the tragedy forcing the Abraham narrative as well.

I am relaxed about Genesis 1:27 being an overview and 2:22 being specific and I’m tickled (no more than that) by the fact that the Genesis account roughly mirrors, in mythic form, how the earth and life formed. The fact that a creation event occurred called the Big Bang is only a recent scientific discovery replacing a steady state eternal universe model that until then had held sway in physics circles.

That being said I am firmly convinced that those who hold the Genesis story to be factual lose much of that power of the myth and that their attempts to push that view on others sees many turned from a rich source of contemplation and meaning.

Finally davidf, I am struggling with the thought of Abraham ‘pimping’ Sarah. I realise it must be important to the narrative because the author has him do it on two occasions. Are you able to offer any light?

Dear csteele,

I don't think it matters if we are far apart or close together in understanding as long as we have a civil dialogue. IMHO it is partially a matter of chance which stories survive. Once they have been canonized or established as traditional they will continue to survive even though they no longer resonate.

In such matters as the Big Bang or steady state universe I think Genesis is completely irrelevant to what actually happened. I think the creation stories that all or most tribal people generate are simply a function of the way their society regards time. Although at one stage of my life I was a physicist I have not gone into the physics enough to understand the evidence for the Big Bang.

I have the same understanding of Ruth as you have.

The Soncino issue of the Pentateuch with commentary by Rabbi J. H. Hertz, Late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, has this to say about the pimping:

"Once or twice Abram falls a prey to fear and plays with the truth in order to preserve his life. Though merely an episode with him, natural enough in an ordinary man, it is quite unworthy of his majestic soul. It is the glory of the Bible that it shows no partiality towards its heroes; they are not superhuman sinless beings. And when they err – for ‘there is no man who doeth good always and sinneth never’ – Scripture does not gloss over their faults. The great Jewish commentator Nachmanides refers to Abram’s action as ‘a great sin’.

The above commentary that really does not explain Abram’s actions points out a difference between Judaism and Christianity. There are no saints in Judaism.

I am reading Karen Armstrong’s “The Bible” which tells how the book has been interpreted by different people in various societies. I am too far removed from the stories to look at them as essentially different from the Iliad, Odyssey or Rainbow Serpent.

Dear davidf,

I would agree with the good Rabbi. While intrigued with Abraham’s treatment of Sarah his actions certainly elevate him into the more interesting of the biblical characters.

The pharaoh appears as a far more moral character than Abraham who lacks so much trust not only about the treatment he imagines he will receive in the hands of the Egyptians but also about the strength of the commitment to him from God, who is certainly displeased with his actions.

Is there a possibility we are being taught a lesson about condemning the world’s oldest profession?

I believe in both the Islamic and Jewish midrashic traditions Sarah was never touched by the Pharaoh, the first because his hand froze when he reached for her and in the latter because the plague that was sent by God was impotence.

But of course this devalues the power of the story and is an easy out.

We might put the position that Abraham was looking after his life so the promise of God could be fulfilled but the words “so it might go well for me” smack of self interest.

A further case might be made that Sarah gains power or due through her sacrifices for Abraham and when she orders the banishment of his firstborn he complies.

Or might we be judging too harshly a frightened herdsman forced well out of his comfort and into a foreign civilization under the direction of an almighty God?

Theologian Lewis Smedes reflects that “The point of the story is to have this conversation” which I thank you for.

I have read about one of the great Talmudists a Professor Lieberman asking a student, "Who was the most tragic character in the bible?" After several unsatisfactory answers the Lieberman says “No, the most tragic character in the Bible is God.”.

Karen Armstrong states “instead of seeing God as just an adult, you can also see God as a child”

I’m wondering do you have any sympathy for his or her position?

Dear csteele,

I condemn neither prostitutes nor those who use their services. My cousin had a severely emotionally disturbed son. Although of normal intelligence he could not get his emotions under control and was in and out of mental institutions. He had never had sexual relations, and my cousin found a prostitute who was willing to accommodate him. She was very compassionate, and the young man had a good experience. For a while he was at peace.

You have hit upon a truth. You wrote: "The pharaoh appears as a far more moral character than Abraham"

Pharaoh appeared to be a far more moral character than Abraham, but was he? The more powerful you are the easier it is to be moral. It takes more courage for the weak and powerless to be moral.

Perhaps that is why God is a tragic figure. In his power he is powerless to make humanity behave virtuously.

I despise Bush 43 for lying my country into war. The president of the United States is powerful enough to be moral without great fear of consequences.

I think Franz Jägerstätter a heroic figure.

In 1940 the German army conscripted him. Returning home in 1941 on an exemption as a farmer, he began examining closely the religious reasons for refusing military service. He wrote a series of questions about the morality of the war that he discussed with his bishop. He was saddened that the bishop seemed afraid to confront the issues.

Jägerstätter refused to accept the Nazis' aims. "It is very sad to hear from Catholics that this war is perhaps not so unjust because it will wipe out Bolshevism," he wrote. "But what are they fighting? Bolshevism or the Russian people? When our Catholic missionaries went to a pagan country to make them Christians, did they advance with machine-guns and bombs in order to convert and improve them?" He added: "What Catholic can dare to say these raids which Germany has carried out in several countries constitute a just and holy war?"

continued

continued

In 1943, after being called to active duty, Jägerstätter reported to his army base and refused to serve. A military court rejected his assertion that he could not be both a Nazi and a Catholic and sentenced him to death for undermining morale. A priest from his village visited him in jail and tried to talk him into serving, but to no avail. Jägerstätter was guillotined on 9 August 1943. "I am convinced it is best that I speak the truth, even if it costs me my life," he wrote before his execution. In a final letter to his wife, he asked forgiveness and said he hoped his life would be accepted by God as "atonement not just for my sins but also for the sins of others".

He had the power to say, “No” and the courage to say it. He was the only Austrian layperson who belonged to no political group to do so.

You referred to Abraham as a frightened herdsman. Jägerstätter was a frightened farmer, but he had the courage to say, “No”. “In Solitary Witness” by Arnold Zahn tells his story.

I think men can go off to war because they are more afraid of being called a coward or being despised than they are of the war. I think it takes great courage for someone to refuse to do wrong when all those around them find it acceptable.

I can see God as neither a child nor an adult. I am not sure there is a God, but I think that if God exists God is not in the image of man with a human life cycle.

Dear davidf,

My apologies for the tardy reply.

I too am hard pressed to condemn either prostitutes or indeed their clients but I would not extend that reservation to those who exploit and profit from their trade. There is a question of where the power lays and I would imagine in the patriarchal society of the time it would have lain with Abraham.

Thank you for your piece on Franz Jägerstätter, he certainly is one of those Christian saints to whom you refer. Franz is inspirational while from Abraham we get an understanding of what it is to be human. I am appreciative of the fact that Franz asked his wife for forgiveness.

When you say he was the only Austrian layperson to say no are you referring just to the Catholics? Didn’t the Jehovah Witnesses also refuse to serve or to acknowledge Hitler as the supreme leader and were sent to the concentration camps where many perished when a their own signature would have freed them?

I wonder what Abraham’s response might have been if we had told him of Franz’s actions? Might he have retorted that he had a wife and destiny to look after?

I have been giving Abraham’s behaviour further thought and have come to the conclusion we are likely missing context that history might have obscured from us. My thoughts are that there was probably a high level of shame if you were caught sleeping with another mans wife. This prohibition may not have extended to widows and for this reason the beauty of Abraham’s wife put him at risk. Ordering his death would have paved the way for the Pharaoh to sleep with Sarah without condemnation. Was not a similar crime perpetrated by King David?

Possibly, once it is revealed that Sarah was in fact Abraham’s wife, the rights and privileges of a wronged husband meant he then wielded some sort of power over the Pharaoh. Pure conjecture though.

Cont…

Cont..

Your point that “The more powerful you are the easier it is to be moral. It takes more courage for the weak and powerless to be moral.” is a strong one. Is this what disappoints you about an all powerful Genesis God?

It is reflected in a Christian ethic as expoused by the story in Mark chapter 12.

41And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
44For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

However my favorite Rabbi, Rabbi Krusner, in his book To Life from which I can’t quote directly as I have loaned it to someone else talks about a Jewish perspective which moves the emphasis from the giver to the victim being succoured. That the rich man’s donation was able to help far more people in need why shouldn’t we regard it as a more moral act?

How would you compare Franz Jägerstätter to Schindler?

Machiavelli (again this is from memory) also had an interesting take when he reflected on an moral act done in secret by a ruler considered immoral and despised compared to a loved ruler who performs the same act in public receiving further adulation as a result.

As to God enjoying a life cycle similar to that of humans would you agree that the rise of the American Jesus has served to ‘retire’ the old man to the back room, at least in that country? Certainly a far cry from the childish behaviour of kicking down his sand castle in Genesis and his procreation activity in the Gospels.

Sorry to but in on what appears to have become a private conversation, but I think on the question of 'God a child' there does appear to be a progression. In the early bible, God seems to me to be portrayed very much as a petulant child, always taking his bat and storming off when he doesn't get His own way (and kicking more than a few garbage bins on the way out). The New Testament God seems a little more mature, although the sacrifice of his Son seems to have made him retreat for good...
That's a question that I haven't seen addressed by the theist/atheist debate. The bible records innumerable events over millennia.
Why did it stop?
On the question of the widow, look to Bill Gates. He is currently being praised for giving away 23 billion dollars; a princely sum indeed. On the other hand, he could give away another 20 billion, and still be a billionaire.
So what did it cost him?
And why did he have so much money to start with?

Dear Grim,

We can discuss Hamlet, a fictional character. Why not God, another fictional character? We have restricted the discussion of God to the entity portrayed in Jewish tribal myths in the Bible. There doesn't seem to be people on this list who know about the other accounts of God.

If Gates' money was spent well it did a lot of good. Gates has a rare combination - skill in technology and the business acumen to exploit the technological development. His giving seems genuine benevolence.

The account of miracles stopped because people are more critical of what is happening but not critical enough to challenge ancient myths that many assert as truth.

Dear csteele,

Please don't apologise for a tardy reply. It was a thoughtful reply, and you have no obligation to reply at all.

I agree with what you said on the question of prostitution. I favour legalistion of that activity as well as legalisation of drugs.

You wrote: "When you say he was the only Austrian layperson to say no are you referring just to the Catholics?"

I wrote: "He was the only Austrian layperson who belonged to no political group to do so." I should have written: "He was the only Austrian layperson who belonged to no group which opposed the Nazis to do so." The Catholic Church had signed a Concordat with Hitler and recognised the right of the state to demand military service. Jehovah's Witnesses did not. His church backed a JW who refused. A Catholic who refused was backed only by his conscience, and the members of his church would prevail upon him to accede to the demands of the state. Currently Jägerstätter is being considered for sainthood. However, until recently he has not been because he opposed both his church and the state. Zahn called the book about him "In Solitary Witness" because nobody supported him. A JW was not on his own in resisting Nazi demands but was backed by his church. As a matter of fact Jägerstätter had a JW cousin who did not refuse service and survived the war.

continued

continued

In a patriarchal society the power lies with men who have power. Men in a patriarchal society have power over their family but not necessarily outside of it. A woman in a patriarchal society with a powerful husband in effect can have more power than a man without much status.

I don't think King David can be compared to the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham. King David committed a heinous crime and was condemned by the prophet, Nathan, for it. I don't think the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham was bound by the limitations of David. I think he had the right as absolute ruler to take any woman he had a fancy to regardless of the bonds she had. It was a matter of convenience whether he would dispose of a husband and not a matter of morality. A husband might be more likely to seek revenge than a brother.

By the time of David monarchy was in question. Samuel I 10:10 - 19 tells of the evils of monarchy, but the Israelites wanted a king anyway.

Oskar Schindler saved a number of people, and Jägerstätter saved nobody. Schindler was a longtime Nazi Party member, and Jägerstätter would have nothing to do with the Nazis. If we condemn people merely because of the groups they belong to then it is reasonable to condemn Schindler. However, Schindler and Jägerstätter were both men of conscience who probably would not have liked each other. I respect them both and would probably have been uncomfortable with both. I would have been uncomfortable with Jägerstätter because I would not have related to his deep religious faith and uncomfortable with Schindler because I would have found his salesman bonhomie unsettling.

They were alike in both being compassionate human beings. Too bad there were not more people like both of them

quote grim<<Sorry to but in on what appears to have become a private conversation,..but I think on the question of..'God a child'..there does appear to be a progression.

In the early bible,..God seems to me to be portrayed very much as a petulant child,..always taking his bat and storming off when he doesn't get His own way..(and kicking more than a few garbage bins on the way out).

The New Testament God seems a little more mature,although the sacrifice of his Son seems to have made him retreat for good...>>
so many things im wanting to refute...but there is so much truth...im holding my toungue

<<That's a question that I haven't seen addressed by the theist/atheist debate>>please make it a new topic

im sort of enjoying the other topic
but your point holds so much revealation

<<The bible records innumerable events over millennia...Why did it stop?>>>thing is it hasnt...see that our belief rules us...our belief is tainted with fear of failure...[witness simon lack of faith..[re walking on the waters]

<<On the question of the widow,>>>i must read the debait

<<look to Bill Gates>>...and still be a billionaire.
So what did it cost him?>>his soul..his family belief is eugenmics...<<And why did he have so much money to start with?>>..his family has excellent contacts...you heard of him inventing web patenting..[5 bucks a shot]..want to patyent your post?...5 buck please...for what?..

or him getting big time..into vacinating/africans into sterility...now we getting manditory vacinations..[when we all-ready got immunity from their new latest designer/flue...designed to bring in the needles..[of the hourse of sickness]..via gmo...grown vacine....lllol

Dear davidf,

If I am unable to apologise for the tardy reply then allow me to transfer it to my sloppy grammar. Not good at the best of times but anything shot out after midnight shows the result of spending ones formative years in other countries.

My man, the good Rabbi, talks about the relationship between Abraham (along with the Jewish race) and God in these terms. He says you can’t really choose who you fall in love with, it just happens and the old adage holds true - love is blind. Don’t look for the reasons why he fell in love with Abraham who was far from a saint he says, because the answers don‘t lie in reason.

I wonder if perhaps God saw something of himself in Abraham.

Anyway who has decided that God is perfect and good? I’m not sure he ever says that of himself. Perhaps Genesis is attempting to say that humans, with all our imperfections, are truly made in God’s image. A God capable of petulance, jealousy and on occasion great evil.

Don’t we try to rise to a higher standard around our children and expect of them standards we probably never attained in our youth? Why do we do it? Sure pride is part of it but love is the real crux of it. Perhaps the maturing and reciprocal love meant both God and the Jewish people became greater than what they were capable of being apart.

Thank you for your considered reply regarding Franz Jägerstätter, I do not wish to take anything from his sacrifice, which was monumental, but I am keen to tease the notion of moral acts out a little further. How much do you think his actions were the result of his religious convictions as a catholic (sorry for not having researching him myself put hopefully the weekend will afford me the time)? If Schindler was not graced by such a fundamental belief system how are his efforts to be measured?

Sarah still worries me, perhaps a female perspective would be helpful.

Dear Grim,

Welcome to the conversation. As davidf has indicated the important thing is a civilised dialogue, no battlelines drawn just throwing some questions around.

I feel I have erred saying I thought God acted like a child in Genesis, it is not really indicative of my true thoughts but perhaps I was swayed a little by my quote from Karen Armstrong.

I am more inclined to think of his as an artist, initially caring more about the creation than the created if you gather my drift. Any perceived taints or imperfections meant throwing it away and starting again with scant thought about beings that had come to life under his brush.

Only one (Noah) comes to his attention and a dialogue is commenced preventing total annihilation.

A modern day example might be the Howard government’s locking up of asylum seekers behind razor wire in desert camps where they remained ‘the other’, ‘off the radar’, ‘faceless’.

It is only now that they are living in our communities and we are hearing their stories that the proper repugnance for what was done to them is being felt.

There are many reasons why the bible has not been added to. The Roman destruction of the second temple and the ensuing Diaspora possibly meant there was not a critical mass of Jewry with the authority to add to the Torah while the power of tradition would have been another limiting factor. Davidf is the one to ask though.

For a layman like me the thought of an addition detailing the Holocaust seems appropriate but one senses that it might take centuries before it is distilled sufficiently.

Dear csteele,

The God of the Bible is an imperfect being subject to irrational behaviour, unreasoning anger and arbitrary loves. The protagonist of the New Testament presumably never even masturbated. I am an imperfect being with a useless appendix as a relict of ancestors with a different diet and subject also to lusts, anger and love. I can relate to the God of the Bible whether or not he exists. I can't relate to the protagonist of the New Testament.

There is no need for Jews to add to the Bible. Unlike Christianity which continues to go back to the Bible Judaism has produced and is producing commentaries, midrashim, responsa and other literature. Rabbis are discussing whether battery hens or other animals raised in miserable conditions should be considered kosher. Some advocate vegetarianism as suitable for living on a crowded planet. The record of discussions including both majority and minority views are kept. There is no human authority like a pope to say which is right. Midrashim are stories which comment on the Bible and other topics.

The Talmud includes midrashim (plural of midrash). These stories are not regarded as true but are told to make a point.

There is a story that God surrounded by his angels saw the waters of the Red Sea close over the Egyptians. The angels cheered. The Lord told them not to cheer but wept, "They are also my children."

One of the names of God in the original Hebrew is Elohim. That is a plural indicating possibly that he contains many Gods or like my appendix is a relict.

There are many versions of the haggadah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haggadah_of_Pesach). It is a the service read at Passover which celebrates the Exodus. In general the Orthodox object to changes in it. However, some non-Orthodox versions incorporate references to the Holocaust.

Dear davidf,

After a hard day on the tools yesterday it is good to write without rushing.

During the Passover celebrations it is my understanding that a little wine is intentionally spilt in remembrance of the blood of the Egyptian firstborns who perished that night. This is a human driven act not God ordained and one I find poignant.

Regarding the Midrashim, I tend to look at the process as a healthy remodelling of God to suit the times, kicking the hard edges off when required. Is it an honest process, not strictly, but it is certainly a human one. Christianity and Islam can be viewed as radical remodelling necessary for the non-Jewish world to drink from the same ‘god-well’. The racial nature of the original narrative meant the process for them had to be one of revolution rather than evolution.

Might the story of God through the Hebrew then Christian bible be viewed with a Buddhist eye? His withdrawing and leaving the load to his son (at least in the Christian version) signals a movement away. Perhaps he has sat alone under a tree in the garden in Eden (hopefully not playing with himself thanks davidf, whew, have to work to keep that vision out of my brain) and decided he needed to liberate himself of the pain of human existence, a pain he obviously feels differently but strongly. Knowing now the answer doesn’t lie in destruction he instead has left his prophets to attempt to enlighten us about the causes of suffering and show a way forward alone. Should we be allowed to hope for Nirvana for the God of the Hebrew bible?

I probably would.

On a more personal note I am glad to hear that lust still is a part of your life as an octogenarian. I had felt by then I might have been looking for other ways of keeping amused and had seriously thought about commencing experimentation with various illicit substances in my eighties. They tell me LSD can produce visions and enlightenment without three decades in a monastery. Quite looking forward to it.

quote csteele,<<The racial nature..of the original narrative..meant the process...had to be one of revolution..rather than evolution.>>good point..born in conflict...

israel means wars with god
drop the rightiousness...delusions...ie the belief is..they ALONE can go to heaven...just like many delusional beliefs that..exclude others

drop the judgment day delusion...jesus rebutted that..on the third day

<<Might the story of God..through the Hebrew..then Christian bible..be viewed with a Buddhist eye?>>>yes...read of the king in the bible...that'thought'..he was a beast of the field..
he really was...just as in the bagdaveta..the..'gods'..turned into tree's

its a good way of preserving life..yet restricting that injurous...like..one well claiming..to be..all the water...god is revealed in his creation...sustaining ALL living to life

<<..His withdrawing and leaving the load to his son..(at least in the Christian version)..signals a movement away.>>>if you listen to the sons words..he taught..we can know our inner life...one to one..you shall call him..[emmanuel]..gOd-with-in...us all

<<Perhaps....and decided..he needed to liberate himself of the pain of human existence,a pain he obviously feels differently but strongly.>>>..think of the paRRABLE OF THE FO0T PRINTS...

IS IT SO HARD TO BELIEVE..GOD LIVES WITHIN..YOUR LIVING BEATING HEART...YOUR AUTOMATIC NATURE...LOGIC=logos...serving even the LEAST to live

<<instead..has left his prophets..?..to attempt to enlighten us about the causes of suffering..>>greed<<..and show a way forward alone.>>>...all-onr...at-one-meant..

to each nation..he has sent his collective messengers

<<Should we be allowed..to hope for Nirvana..for the God of the Hebrew bible?>>>..each will recieve according as we earn/gave[more will be given]....our fathers house..has many rooms/realms...each can realise into their own sun..[their own ...in the beginning...sharing your gift of life]...be bounty full

<<I probably would.>>that we love loves us..even if slowly killing us
there is no death...eternal means just that...

we simply have forgotten..we are eternal spirits having a bodilly expereience...lol..a life senntance..into this living form...according to as we earned last time arround....lol..Oo0ooo...

Dear csteele,

A little wine is spilled at each mention of a plague.

Judaism also has the concept of God withdrawing. From page 170 of "The Bible" by Karen Armstrong:

In Luria's new myth, God began the creative process by going voluntarily into exile. How could the world exist if God was everywhere? Luria's answer was the myth of zimzum ('withdrawal'): the infinite En Sof (‘without end’) had, as it were, to evacuate a region within itself to make room for the cosmos. This cosmology was punctuated by accidents, primal explosions and false starts, quite different from the orderly, peaceful creation described in the Pentateuch. But to the Sephardim, Luria's myth seemed a more accurate appraisal of their unpredictable, fragmented world. At an early stage in the creative process En Sof had tried to fill the vacuum it had created by zimzum with divine light, but the 'vessels' or 'pipes' designed to channel it had broken. So sparks of the primal light fell into the abyss that was not-God. Some of these returned to the divine world, but others remained trapped in the Godless realm dominated by the evil potential of Din, (Din represented the evil potential in the divine) which En Sof had - as it were - attempted to purge from itself. After this accident, everything was in the wrong place. Adam could have rectified the situation on the first Sabbath, but he sinned and henceforth the divine sparks remained trapped in matter. The Shekhinah, (the divine presence on earth, a female personality) now in permanent exile, wandered through the world, yearning to be reunited with the rest of the sefiroth (the ten emanations of God). Yet there was hope. Jews were not outcasts, but essential to the redemption of the world. Their careful observance of the commandments and the special rituals evolved in Safed could effect the 'restoration' (tikkun) of the Shekhinah to the Godhead, the Jews to the Promised Land, and the world to its rightful state.

"The Bible" is about the history of the interpretation of the Bible from different viewpoints of different religions.

oug wrote: israel means wars with god
drop the rightiousness...delusions...ie the belief is..they ALONE can go to heaven...just like many delusional beliefs that..exclude others

oug has confused Judaism with Christianity. Jesus said that only through him can one enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That kind of Christian bigotry is absent in Judaism. The Jewish belief is that a person is considered righteous if that person behaves righteously regardless of what religious belief he or she has. It is Christianity that excludes those who don’t accept their belief.

Israel means wars with god, but there’s nothing bad about that. The name was bestowed on the Patriarch Jacob after his nocturnal struggle near the brook of Jabbok with an angel sent by God.

Genesis 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. 25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him. 26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me. 27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. 28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

Dear oug,

I think you spend too much time looking at Jew-hating websites.

Dear davidf,

I can see I’m going to have to get Karen’s book.

My latest reading has included Gilgamesh, I have been intrigued by what parts of the flood story were adapted for Genesis.

One of the major differences naturally is the plurality of gods in Gilgamesh though we can see the echoes in the title Elohim and some of the language used in the early chapters of Genesis.

It was Enlil, warrior counsellor of the gods who called for the deluge because “the world teemed, the people multiplied, the world bellowed like a wild bull” so he said to the council “The uproar of mankind is intolerable and sleep is no longer possible by reason of the babel.”

However Ea, another of the gods, warned the narrator Utnapishtim in a dream to “tear down you house and build a boat, abandon possessions and look for life, despise worldly goods and save your soul alive” then to “take up into the boat the seed of all living creatures.”

This is where it gets interesting. Utnapishtim asks what he was to tell the people and Ea replies “Tell them this: I have learnt that Enlil is wrathful against me, I dare no longer walk in his land nor live in his city … But on you he will rain down abundance, rare fish and sly wild-fowl, a rich harvest tide. In the evening the rider of the storm will bring you wheat in torrents.”.

Now this falsehood seemed pretty harsh, especially since I was sure Noah had informed his fellow humans about the coming calamity but they had laughed at him, ignoring his warnings. However it appears this was an impression picked up from other sources and in fact there is no record that Noah warned anyone.

Utnapishtim was worked quickly although he had the help of craftsmen whom, along with his kin, were saved on the ark. It was finished in seven days, had seven stories and was roughly twice the volume of the Genesis craft.

“One whole day the tempest raged gathering fury as it went,”

Cont..

Cont..

“it poured over the people like the tides of battle; a man could not see his brother nor the people be seen from heaven. Even the Gods were terrified at the flood, they fled to the highest heaven, the firmament of Anu; they crouched against the walls, cowering like curs.

Omitted from Genesis was the “sweet voiced Queen of Heaven” Ishtar who cried “Alas the days of old have turned to dust because I commanded evil; why did I command this evil in the council of all the gods? I commanded wars to destroy the people, but are they not my people, for I brought them forth? Now like the spawn of fish they float in the ocean.”

Dawn of the seventh day Utnapishtim opens the hatch to calm and the light falls on his face “Then I bowed low, I sat down and I wept, the tears streamed down my face, for on every side was the waste of water.”

He releases a dove, then a sparrow, and finally a raven before land is found. Then pours a “libation” on the ground an offers a sacrifice with seven by seven cauldrons the smell of which attracts the gods “like flies” but Enlil was not welcomed for “without reflection he brought the flood”. But he turns up anyway and when he spies the ark says “Has any of these mortals escaped? Not one was to have survive the destruction”.

Ea answers “how could you so senselessly bring down the flood?”

“Lay upon the sinner his sin,
Lay upon the transgressor his transgression,
Punish him a little when he breaks loose,
Do not drive him too hard or he perishes”.

I am a little in awe of the Genesis writer with his/her ability to fashion an account in keeping with the culture and times, patriarchal and monotheistic as they may have been, from Gilgamesh. Most of the elements are retained but given a subtler treatment. I feel the vividness of the deluge in Gilgamesh is stronger but the covenant made in the aftermath in Genesis is a beautiful touch.

Dear csteele,

Samuel Noah Kramer of the University of Pennsylvania translated a number of Sumerian cuneiform tablets. I have two of his books, “History Begins at Sumer” and “The Sumerians”. The contents of “History Begins at Sumer”:

Education: The First Schools
Schooldays: The First Case of "Apple-Polishing"
Father and Son: The First Case of Juvenile Delinquency
International Affairs: The First "War of Nerves"
Government: The First Bicameral Congress
Civil War in Sumer: The First Historian
Social Reform: The First Case of Tax Reduction
Law Codes: The First "Moses"
Justice: The First Legal Precedent
Medicine: The First Pharmacopoeia
Agriculture: The First "Farmer's Almanac"
Horticulture: The First Experiment in Shade-Tree Gardening
Philosophy: Man's First Cosmogony and Cosmology
Ethics: The First Moral Ideals
Suffering and Submission: The First "Job"
Wisdom: The First Proverbs and Sayings
"Aesopica": The First Animal Fables
Logomachy: The First Literary Debates
Paradise: The First Biblical Parallels
A Flood: The First "Noah"
Hades: The First Tale of Resurrection
Slaying of the Dragon: The First "St. George"
Tales of Gilgamesh: The First Case of Literary Borrowing
Epic Literature: Man's First Heroic Age
To the Royal Bridegroom: The First Love Song
Book Lists: The First Library Catalogue
World Peace and Harmony: Man's First Golden Age

If some older writing is found the firsts will no longer be firsts.

Religions are syncretic. There’s nothing wrong with that, but then they claim to have a truth denied to others and often denigrate and even persecute the source of their traditions.

I agree Genesis is a magnificent narrative. In your account of Gilgamesh’s flood you mention Ishtar. Ishtar was omitted from Genesis but appears in the Book of Esther. The Book of Esther is unusual in that no word for God appears, and the story has no historical verification outside of the Bible. It may celebrate the displacement of old Babylonian Gods by new ones. Vashti, the king’s deposed queen and Haman, the wicked adviser, who ends up on the gallows are the names of older Babylonian gods. Esther (Ishtar) and her uncle Mordecai (Marduk) triumphed.

Ishtar and Marduk displaced Vashti and Haman.

Dear davidf,

Thank you for your Sumerian summary. It is a pity more hasn’t survived from that age.

I do find the story of Upnapishtim telling Gilgamesh of ”a secret thing, it is mystery of the gods” powerful.

“There is a plant that grows under the water, it has a prickle like a thorn, like a rose; it will wound your hands but if you succeed in taking it, then your hands will hold that which restores his lost youth to a man.”

Gilgamesh intended to take it back to Uruk and “there I will give it to the old men to eat. Its name shall be “The Old Men Are Young Again”; and at last I shall eat it myself and have back all my lost youth”. However on his way a “serpent sensed the sweetness of the flower. It rose out of the water and snatched it away, and immediately it sloughed off its skin and returned to the well”.

Gilgamesh sits and weeps “is it for this I have wrung out my heart’s blood?” “I have found a sign and now I have lost it.”. In a way he is being punished for his selflessness, something he hadn’t exhibited much of up till then.

I’m not sure I can see much of Ishtar in Esther. Ishtar ‘The Queen of Heaven’ seemed on relatively equal footing in the ‘congress of gods’ while Esther smacks of Sarah in that she was given over to the king for his harem. Ishtar was beautiful but her lovers where certainly the worse for wear after she was done with them many paying a very high price. As Gilgamesh says;

“Your lovers have found you like a brazier which smoulders in the cold, … an engine of assault set up in the enemies land”.

“You have loved the shepherd of the flock; he made meal cake for you day after day, he killed kids for your sake. You struck and turned him into a wolf; now his own herd boys chase him away, his own hounds worry his flanks.”

Cont…

Cont…

Ishtar had real power. The period the Jews were in exile saw the city of Babylon at the height of its might, the largest in the world. Its main entrance was the Ishtar Gate including massive stone carvings of dragons, some of which can still be see today in the ruins.

I tend to see Ishtar being more represented in Eve. The downfall of her lovers, the serpent - dragon pairing, and Eve being cursed with “thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee”. One can really sense the powerful, promiscuous, female Ishtar being brought under control, or, along with the serpent, to heel so to speak.

I find it fascinating that “thy desire shall be to thy husband” should be considered a curse unless it was accepted that the men folk would take concubines etc.

At the risk of stirring the untoward in UOG may I relate where my thoughts went upon my first completion of Esther in a sitting. I had been reading about Madaleine Albright from a book or article by Chomsky and thinking about her ancestry, known to the Israeli government (hidden even from herself it is reported), coupled with her statements as US ambassador to the UN "We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory.", to later quotes as Secretary of State that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were ‘worth it’ all served to have the whole saga drip for me at the time with Estheresque connotations. Madeleine was of course Esther, Israel was Mordecai, the USA was Ahasuerus, while finally Haman could be seen as Iraq, once a friend of the US in its efforts against Iran.

I did not feel there was any conspiracy or reality in this, but the similarities presented by my reading cycle were arresting at the time.

On a further note it seems the Book of Esther was the only one of the Tanakh not present in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Dear csteele: I posted the following by mistake to "How do we define human being?"

I was horrified by Albright's remark about the deaths of the children being 'worth it'. In addition to being callous Albright was all stupid.

According to Harry Gersh's 'Sacred Books of the Jews' the book of Esther took its final form around 200 BCE although it could have been around in some form much earlier. That would explain it not being in the Dead Sea Scrolls since their date is uncertain and may have been before 200 BCE.

At one time the middle east was well watered with forests. Increasing population resulted in deforestation and more arid conditions. As a result settled hunter gatherers or farmers became nomadic. In a nomadic society the roles of men and women become more sharply differentiated and women have less status. Thus the change from the independent Vashti to the subservient Esther. In addition to not being herd animals pigs need more water and shade than sheep, cattle or goats. The land became unsuitable for independent women and pigs except for the male chauvinist kind.

There can be the same explanation of both the change in the role of the goddess and the prohibition of eating pork.

By the waters of Brisbane I sat and wept. I miss the USA.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 8 September 2009 1:53:17 AM

I am very sorry to read of you feeling so depressed, David f.
How can I help?

Dear Grim,

The United States is Bush, Obama, a great military power, an oppressive presence casting a shadow over the globe, a tower of freedom and a lot of other things. To me it's just home, and I am in Australia. Did you have to learn "The Lay of the Last Minstrel" in school?

“Breathes there the man with soul so dead…”

I feel better now. My older son is in Brazil doing field work as he is an anthropologist so I wouldn't be able to see him even if I were home. Just got an email from him. Generally there is a line or two in every email that makes me laugh. "Even a bad cold didn´t slow me down too much. The cold is history now and that´s relief, especially because it is so extremely hot that mucus seems to run at about twice the usual speed." The foregoing was in the email I just got.

He thought it's mucus, but it's not. Say it quickly.

Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and your beer is diluted.

You have helped by reading the above.

Dear davidf,

I was saddened to see the ‘black dog’ had been for a nibble (he has taken the odd piece out of me recently) but I am very relieved to read you are on the up.

The life of an ex-pat can be very different from the commonly held view of ‘beer and skittles’. Let me know if I can be of assistance.

I have thoroughly enjoyed dissecting Genesis a little with you and I thank you for your patience in replying to my questions.

Dear David; I remember my sunburnt country, of course, and Bellbirds, and a no. of other poems. I also remember learning a no. of 'negro songs', such as 'my old Kentucky Home' (tis summer, the darkies are gay).
Times change.
Thank...
Stay well. I enjoy your posts.