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'?