Religous debates and questions

Has my audience fallen asleep? I can give you a kick up the sporran if it helps.

Anyway before I put up the next bit later was just on the BBC newspage and there is a vet complaining about the manner in which animals used in sacrifice are killed.
As a non-Jew, non-Muslim animal sacrifice is something, when I thnk of it at all, I think of belonging to a long lost, primitive time. I find it completely bizarre in the modern world that in my own country people are still killing other living things as sacrifices to a God.
Should religous freedom extend to the right to take a life in a manner which the laws (in the UK anyway) would otherwise disallow on cruelty grounds (animals must be stunned at least prior to slaughter)?
And should sacrifice be allowed at all in the modern world- on a planet where something (many, many things in fact) die every second of every minute of every day of every year, what does a God need us to go about killing more for in His name? Its a bit twisted is it not?

plus its always something innocent that bites it, they dont sacrifice themselves do they?

What I find curious about animal (and human) sacrifice is that it seems to have been a normal part of human life for tens of thousands of years in many religions on most continents. It makes me suspect that there is something fundamentally human about it. (Around here it's echos can be heard in hunter's rituals.)

Then the question becomes not "why does it continue", but "why has it suddenly started falling out of favor in the last few centuries?"

I suspect it has to do with our devaluation of meat, which used to be the stuff of life in hunting and small farming cultures, but which now is sold by the pound in any butcher shop.

Not asleep Petty, just intruded upon by real life.

the emphasis on the gospels being chosen and even edited based in part on political expediency 300 years after the fact is an important point. by comparison the American Revolution is less than 250 years old and we have seen the mythologizing of the founding fathers within the first 100 years, though in the last 40 years or so there has been a move to strip away the myths. and that's not even a religious event. Getting inside the heads of the council of Nicea is drool-worthy stuff, I wonder if there's enough documentation for a book on it.

Good solid stuff. Thanks. (My quantum thread will be delayed or day or so but is coming).

Not asleep Petty, just intruded upon by real life.- Halfwise

You are just saying that to avoid a kick up the sporran aren't you?

If there is enough interest when I have finished this bit on the gospels I may do a follow up piece on the period of history the Council took place in, it is as you say very important to understanding the gospels as we have them.

Looking forward to the next bit in your Quantum Theory for Dunder-heids (of which I am definetly one).


David- that's a good point. For me the Bible records in story form what must have been one of the greatest power upheavals in human history- the story of Cain and Abel which for me is a memory of a time when the old hunting religions were being replaced by the new farming ones. (And its intresting to note the OT God prefers the old hunting religion).
When we think of the agricultural revelolution we tend not to think of what it meant to those who ran things in tribes; the Chiefs, Elders and Shamans- all those beliefs and rituals built up over thousands of years would have been largely based around ideas of the hunt, the kinship between hunted and hunter etc. And their power and control would have dependend on them.
All this was thrown out the window with the coming of farming and I doubt it happened entirely peacfully. With humans it rarely does (and the Bible story implies it was violent too).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
David- that's a good point. For me the Bible records in story form what must have been one of the greatest power upheavals in human history- the story of Cain and Abel which for me is a memory of a time when the old hunting religions were being replaced by the new farming ones. (And its intresting to note the OT God prefers the old hunting religion).
When we think of the agricultural revelolution we tend not to think of what it meant to those who ran things in tribes; the Chiefs, Elders and Shamans- all those beliefs and rituals built up over thousands of years would have been largely based around ideas of the hunt, the kinship between hunted and hunter etc. And their power and control would have dependend on them.
All this was thrown out the window with the coming of farming and I doubt it happened entirely peacfully. With humans it rarely does (and the Bible story implies it was violent too).

That seems plausible, though difficult to prove. As long as you're speculating, I wonder if you can square your theory of religious upheaval with the theory of proto-buckie as the engine of change to agrarian civilization?
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/did-a-thirst-for-beer-spark-civilization-1869187.html
It seems to have possibilities, doesn't it?

Interesting. Squaring it with my own theory is easy enough- alcohol always leads to violence! And the bible story records the dispute, not what drove people to farm in the first place, a need for a buckie seems perfectly plausable to me!

Of course Gobekli Tepe needs explained though as it seems to precede farmikng and settled communitities and everything in fact!

http://gobeklitepe.info/

Actually Gobekli tepe may prove the point. The birthplace of:
a) agriculture,
b) organized religion,
c) beer, or
d) all of the above

Here's an article in Fjordlandian: http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2012/januar/310617

and English: http://sciencenordic.com/track-world%E2%80%99s-first-farmer

Good read David, thanks.
Of course the really intriguing bit will probably never be known- why? Why come together after all that time to build something huge and difficult like that? Some of those stones are massive. And why then bury it and never come back? Modern humans had been about on the planet for at least 100 thousand years, why then? And why didn't humans think to try anything like it before in all that time?
I love those sort of historical mysteries.

I like these kinds of mysteries too. Especially when reaching back into pre written history we'll never really be able to do more than guess at the thoughts that gave rise to the actions that left the evidence.

I have no guesses as to why Gobekli tepe was eventually buried, though hopefully archeology in the surrounding area will eventually give some clues as to causes of social upheavals and such.

As for your other questions though,
"Why come together after all that time to build something huge and difficult like that? Modern humans had been about on the planet for at least 100 thousand years, why then? And why didn't humans think to try anything like it before in all that time?"

if I had to guess, I'd say that either that God/gods revealed him/her/themself to mankind on the mountaintop here, either directly or through prophets,
or that this was the first time that humans had enough beer in one place to throw this big a party.
The two aren't necessarily unrelated. Many grand ideas have been found in the bottom of a cup.

You missed out the aliens teaching us!

"Many grand ideas have been found in the bottom of a cup."

I bloody hope so my whole life strategy is on that basis.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:You missed out the aliens teaching us!

A good point. Have you noticed how often the aliens come down and commune with drunks? They must be drawn to the alcohol.

OK time to crack on.

So what can we glean from the gospels.

Well the first thing I would like to point out is something for which I don't know the answer to, is often overlooked, but I think informs quite a bit on what Jesus was doing and thinking none the less.
And its the simple question of where he conducted his Ministry.
With the exception of his final week of life in Jerusalem Jesus preaches in villages and small towns, or out in the open. He draws his first disciples from the Sea of Galilee and takes them from among the fishermen who were pretty low on the social ladder, considerably below having land to farm for example.
Fishing on the Sea of Galilee was done in one of two ways. At the top of the scale were the fisherman who could afford boats and drag netted the Sea, they therefore got the most fish and money. At least one of Jesus disciples is of this type. The other means was casting your net from the shore, this was the poor fisherman's choice as the yield was much, much lower. At least two of Jesus disciples was a fisherman of this social level.
However we must ask the question why did Jesus not take his message to any of the cities? He would have had more people hearing him in a smaller space. And if his message was, as is often portrayed, to speak out against inequality, to speak up for the poor and disenfranchised, to challenge authority, why did he not go to Sephorris, less than 3 miles from his homevillage and where there was plenty of both those in poverty and those who kept them there? Sephorris had a large aristocratic section to its population, if Jesus was the sort of radical reformer he is often portrayed as surely he would have gone to the city? And as a Healer and miracle worker he could also have helped many more sick people. (and incidentally made a good living).
Yet he appears not to have. The Gospels all agree he took his message to the villages, to the small towns and to the ordinary rural folk of Galilee but not to its urban centres. Perhaps he feared the Authorities there, if so they would have been Jewish Authorities- the Temple Guard, the Magistrates and Elders.
Its a bit of a mystery. But it appears Jesus, depsite occasionally speaking out against city states never actually went to any of them save Jeruslaem for Passover (which as a good Jew he would be obliged to do at least once a year to visit the Temple-although he only seems to have spoken out that one, last time whilst there).
In terms of his ministry it is very likely Jesus was based in Capernaum which was a small town on the Sea of Galilee. It was near there he called Peter, Andrew, James and John. Peter had a house in Capernaum and it was there Jesus healed Peter's mother-in -law. In the synague there he healed a parlaytic and it was also in Capernaum he shared a meal with the tax-collector Levi (this may have even been in Jesus house as the text is ambigous-'in his house'. Mark also refers to Jesus being 'at home in Capernaum'). According to Mark the discussion on true greatness took place here and according to Mathew so too did the debate about the payment of the half-shekel Temple Tax.
Although we cannot be certain Jesus was in Capernaum when the gospels say he was it does seem clear there was an exisiting tradition associating Jesus with this small town.
Having put Jesus in Capernaum lets move him about! A lot of his time was spent on the road. Capernaum might have been his home base but he went village to village. There is no indication in the gospels that either Jesus or his followers worked during his ministry. By implication therefore they must have had sponsors and donors. They had to eat, they had to sleep somewhere.
We know that after the death of Jesus the early Christian movement survived on donations from wealthy patrons such as Barnabas. Luke also tells us that Jesus had a significant following of women, including those of rank like Joanna wife of Herod's steward. It is likely Luke over emphasises the women in his account to make the new religion appeal to the Higher Classes in Gentile society and to women. However it is generally considered that Jesus probably did attract some wealthy female followers. They would not have been able to accompany him on the road as his male disciples could but they could provide lodging and food to Jesus and his followers in the various towns and villages they visited.
I will come back later to the role of women in his ministry in the section dealing with his family.
So what about his male followers? The Disciples? Well there were 12 of them- except the Gospels don't agree on their names and the full list of names exceeds 12. Also after Jesus death they are still referred to as 12 even though Judas is out the picture and it should be 11.
What this probably tells us is that the number was more symbolic than actual. His actual followers at any given time probably varied. Some would join him in a village and travel with him to the next then others would join or leave. Some would take up with him perhaps after hearing him speak in their village for the first time. And he would have had an inner core no doubt much fewer in number who were always,or nearly always with him.

The question does arise however of whether Jesus himself referred to the 12 as a symbol for all Israel and the 12 tribes? And the answer I think is most likely yes. This sort of symbolism was common enough and everyone would have got it. Also when the NT was set down they did all they could to de-Jew Jesus and so it is unlikely they would add this particular bit of Jewish symbolism.

So how did Jesus start out? Well it seems he began as a follower of John the Baptist. We know a bit about John historically, Josephus the Jewish historian gives him a mention as well as the Gospels.
John was a very popular preacher- in his lifetime he was many times as popualr as Jesus ever became in his lifetime.

When Antipas Herod, years after executing John, was defeated by Aretas the Jews saw it as punsihment for the death of John (not Jesus who they did not rate much in his lifetime- this in itself indicates the esteem in which John was held by the people).
So what was John preaching and why did Antipas execute him? Well John was preaching redemption. He held that the Kingdom was at hand as prophesied in Isiah. He preached 'God was about to redeem Israel' and 'judgement was near at hand'. And probably most worryingly for the authorities, 'the axe is already laid at the root of the tree' which could be taken as a direct threat from someone with a large following.

It is easy to see why this would worry Antipas. The Gospels give us a few more details however. Antipas had got married to Herodias against Jewish Law, and John seems to have publicly spoken out to say so and this, taken with Antipas fear his followers might turn pro-active, got him arrested and eventually executed.
However at some point before his arrest he baptised Jesus, who was one of his followers. Two of the Gospels go very out of their way to show that John immediately accepted Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah and that there were signs, booming voices, omens in the sky etc to show that Jesus was the top dog. It is clear this is an injection into the story from a later date to try to put beyond doubt that Jesus was obviously the one.
In fact John was the top dog and Jesus, by being baptised, was demonstrably one of his followers.

Mathew tells us that whilst John was in prison he sent a message to Jesus asking if he really was the one. It seems John in reality had his doubts about Jesus right up until the end and everyone knew it. (Generally speaking the more uncomfortable something is for the early Christian Church the more likely it is considered to be true, and well enough known it could not just be expunged without comment).

It is worth giving all this some thought. A young Jesus, full of self-belief and charisma joins a movement, the Baptists movement, as much a political idea as a religious one. No doubt its a popular one among young Jewish men of his day. They meet in synagogues to thrash out new ideas, its a movement, a movement based on the idea the Kingdom is coming. God will send his Messiah and change the order of the world and restore Israel.

But Jesus is gaining his own folowers, maybe he was a great orator and just had 'it', but for whatever reason people are listening to him, turning to him. He is making waves. Maybe his first disciples were fishermen, but maybe they were also, like Jesus, followers of John too.
Jesus would get noticed within the movement, a rising star or a rival for the top job, either way he would be noticed. Certainly he is noticed by John. But there is something which makes John uncertain. Even in his cell there is no sense of him passing on the baton, crowning his sucessor. He is questioning if Jesus really is the successor. It smacks of doubt not certainy.

I will come back to the issue of those close to Jesus questioning his actions in the section on his family.
It is also worth noting that following John's death John followers did not turn to Jesus, they seem to have disappated rather than rallied around him.


Right thats your lot for now, I need a buckie.

ps why when I copy and paste to here now why does it put it all in a coloumn down one side? (and yes Ive got the page thing set right). Have to fix it manually which is very tedious on a long piece, or write it all here which risks the usual potential internet problems of losing it before I finish writing it!

very good - I especially enjoyed the socioeconomic discussion as well as the relationship between Jesus and John. This thing is growing longer and deeper than expected...which is a good development, I can see there are many more to come.

Thanks Halfwise.

I honestly have no idea how much more there is. I'm just writing it as it comes with no real plan and I have no idea how long a bit will be till I write it. But so long as folks are interested and reading I'll keep going till I run out of stuff to write about!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:ps why when I copy and paste to here now why does it put it all in a coloumn down one side? (and yes Ive got the page thing set right). Have to fix it manually which is very tedious on a long piece, or write it all here which risks the usual potential internet problems of losing it before I finish writing it!

Maybe Eru doesn't like all your talk of False Man Gods?

I have said nothig at all about the existence of God or Jesus releationship with a God beyond noting what Jesus himself said and what other Jews of his time, and the time the NT was written, said about God. I am treating it as a religion followed by a particular people at a particular time in history yes, but not passing any judgements on its worthiness. Or at least I am trying not to.
The divine bit will however be adressed when I eventually get as far along as Jesus' death and what followed.

Clever language or not, Mr Tyrant, Eru knows what you're up to!

I'm already dodging lightning bolts in the trossachs!

Indeed, Odo! And I as a Moderator here, feel it was only right for me to put the Fear of Eru in Petty's heart. Maybe, indeed, he needs the washing of a changed heart?

Pettytyrant101 wrote: I'm already dodging lightning bolts in the trossachs!

You're total lack of respect for religion will end up going bad for you, Mr Tyrant.. You just wait and see.

Hah! I believe I have been fair and balanced. I respect belief if not religion.

Eru sees, Mr Tyrant. He sees!

Can Eru see this?