Yeah, it's like UGG boots. All the rage.

Its certainly no less shit that "stop making shit posts"
(and befor any one i say's im well aware of the irony of me making a comment on shit posts)

Perhaps Baz was making a point (in a very vague way) regarding the far too in depth nature with which some look upon religion and that we would all grow spiritually and personally far more if we stepped back and viewed it as a brief outline of ideas without assessing it in such depth.

or perhaps hes just waiting for some one to go off their head for some personal reason

There is no such law, as far as I'm aware. The Police were probably just being cocks.

The U.N. is trying to pass an anti-blasphemy law, however, that would prohibit anyone from criticising any religion in any way. So basically, were this law to pass, you could be imprisoned for criticising religious extremists (like the 9/11 terrorists) or questioning the existence of Odin.

Boo! The way you said "a guy at the police station" and not "a cop" made me think it could be a cellmate and a fun story..



It's just the UN though, so it's not a real law that anyone will follow.

The UN has no legislative powers.

As i'm not exactly what you would call a religious fanatic, i'm hoping you can help me out here Kenny.

The whole Saints carry-on has confused me for years. Did these people actually exist? Or are they simply tales that were made up?

The vast majority of saints are actual, historically verifiable people. There are one or two that are a wee bit questionable, a couple whose actual identities are somewhat uncertain or confused, and a handful who may well have been real people but whose biographies are shrouded in mystery and myth (the most obvious being St. George about whom little is known except that there's a story about him killing a dragon).

The process for beatification (making someone into a saint) has actually become more difficult in recent years, making the number of new saints in the last 20 years or so all the more remarkable.

You mean canonisation?

lol what?

I had just read about 5 posts of his which were all one line stupid comments.

Stupid in your opinion yeah.

Presumably if posters were judged on whether they were saying 'stupid' things or not, half of the board wouldn't be here.

Canonisation is indeed the term for turning someone into a saint. Beatification is the first step towards canonisation I believe.

I agree, it's no less shit then my exploding head gif.

Anyway back on topic religion is a waste of time to me and I reckon that the "Vrigin" Mary was a right swinger in reality.

I had read that Saint days were deliberately created to coincide with Pagan festivities in an attempt to divert peoples attention during the forced Christianisation of Britain back in the day.

There are many examples of Saints life histories being created to appeal to the Pagan people of the time by way of assuming similarities with the particular Pagan festival the Saints day was to replace.

A few examples would be St Bartholomews day, which strangely took over from the Pagan festival of the burning of Bartle (note the similar name there), which was done as a harvest sacrifice.

How about the old St Catherine, who's day was recognised on 25th November. She was unfortunate enough to have been tortured on a wheel apparently.

Funnily enough, on this day before the Christians came to town, Pagans used to roll a burning wheel down a hill to represent the declination of the sun at that time of year.

Poor old Catherine suffered an even worse indignation however, when the Catholic church decided in 1969 to remove some Saints from the official calendar, including her, because their was no actual historical evidence of their existence, including George.

Beat-ification should be a beastie boys album, if its not already

I have read that most (if not all) Christian holidays including Christmas were basically copied from Pagan traditions for the very reasons you posted.

Isn't there a story in the Bible where a father had to sacrifice his son in the name of God but sacrificed a goat (or something similer) instead?

Now I'm no expert in religion but I'm pretty sure that human/animal sacrifice played a big part in some Pagan religions, religions that pre-date Christinaity it should be noted.

God or no God it is my opinion that religion (especially Christinaity) has been "edited" to suit the times or people in power, I'm also pretty sure that the anti-homosexuality aspect of the Bible was also not present originally and the Bible of today has very little in common with the original writings.

I really can't understand how people can take a book that has been edited over thousands of years so seriously.

Weeeeeell, yes and no.

Easter takes its timing from the Passover, a Jewish feast dating back hundreds of years B.C.

Christmas was a pretty arbitrary choice. It's never really been thought that Jesus was born on the 25th of December. It's more likely he was actually born around October. But yes, the pagan festival of Yule (celebrating the shortest night of the year, and hence the "birth" of the sun) was co-opted into becoming the Christian feast of the birth of the Son (of God). Adapting Christian belief to local tradition has been a continuing theme throughout history, which is why there are several rites of the Catholic Church that, to uneducated eyes, look somewhat "non-Christian." The modes of worship used by native cultures were simply adapted by missionaries to reflect Christian beliefs. It's simple practicality.

The story about St. Catherine seems unlikely, to be honest. Why would anyone be doing anything about the declination of the sun in late November? Yes, bits of her hagiography are historically dubious and that's part of the reason the 1969 revisions removed her day as a compulsory celebration, but the rest of that analysis is sketchy as hell.

The same goes for St. Bartholomew. He was one of the 12 Apostles. His feast day is August 24th, which is a tad early for a harvest festival. I'm not saying that there may not have been some kind of Christmas-like manoeuvring there, but so what? It doesn't really say much about the saints themselves.

And yes, I meant canonisation. D'oh!

Fuck, multi-tab browsing and me do NOT get along.

Then why do all of the followers of your religion celebrate his birthday on December 25th?



Interesting.

Those "uneducated eyes" would maybe see the instances I spoke of more as a way to dupe the people into switching over to a foreign and man-made religion.

I guess trying to convince people who had always held non-spiritual beliefs, and had worshipped the various seasons and the planet on which we live that there was a guy in the sky who had created everything in 7 days, and who would turn you away from "heaven" if you didn't do as his "messengers" told you would have been a pretty tall order.



The festival which you claim as "unlikely" took place, make no mistake about it.

The 1st of November through the 31st of January represented the Pagan winter period, with various festivals and events taking place in different parts of the country throughout that period.

This was a simple example of the church taking an established Pagan ritual and creating a Christian "saint" to fit the bill.

I have to admit, finding someone who follows your religion actually talking in religious terms about something seeming unlikely makes me chuckle just a little.



A tad early for a harvest festival if we go by your calendar, of course.

The Pagan autumn ran from August 1st to October 31st.

The burning of Bartle did take place at that time of year, and it was replaced by St Bartholomews day.



So what? It says a lot if you ask me.

There are so many holes in your religion that the term "blind faith" is perfect for the more hardcore of your followers.

The very fact that they were prepared to juggle the birthdate of the so-called son of God to conquer and convert various peoples tells me quite a lot about the type of character these religious men had.

No wonder so many find it so hard to believe anything that they wrote.

Shut up! It's not like anyone had a fucking birth certificate stating the exact date of Christ's birth. There was also a hell of a lot of calendar juggling going on generally - the Roman calendar was not the same as the Greek which was not the same as the Jewish. When the Catholic Church began to standardise the calendar across the world, it had to fit certain things in. It makes perfect sense to slot on important feasts around times when existing cultures had festivals already.

And for what it's worth, the Bartle-burning business only exists in one village and only has a documented history back to the 19th century. From what I've read so far, it appears that "Bartle" takes his name from the saint, rather than the other way around. I look forward to hearing your evidence-led, atheistic, scientific counterpoint.

I've had a hunt for info on the history of St. Catherine's Day and can't really find anything. Any links you'd care to post?

Harry, when producing the counter argument that you've been asked for you might want to start with something better than "shut up!" Otherwise you might come across as a bit of a delusional tit.

Did anyone else see the programme on Channel 4 about the Alpha course on Sunday at 7pm?
It was quite interesting but the bloke John(?) Ronson talks a bit weird and makes it seem freaky on purpose.

During the programme it came up about god speaking to you, the thing I was intrigued by. The thing is no one can prove there is a god and no one can prove there is a heaven but does that mean neither exist?
Personally I think reincarnation is more likely than we either go to heaven or hell, surely it would be pretty crowded by now

Next week is about Islamic schooling.

Does anyone know much about the book of Enoch? This was left out of the bible as it was declared heresy apparently. It relates to the fallen angels/watchers.

The way I look at it is if the powers that be removed it the likely reason is that there was something they did not want us to know. I find this sort of thing fascinating. As they say if you don't understand history then you don't understand the future.

No.



Maybe because he never actually existed?



From what you've read so far? Care to tell me where you've been reading this information?



I don't deal in links, I deal in actual books.

Of course, you will only claim that the books I use as a reference are "anti-religious" and "atheistic & scientific", won't you?

It's the standard defence for true-believers, isn't it?

What I will say about my sources though, is that at least they aren't based on fairy-tales & stories written thousands of years ago as a means of controlling the masses.

Masses......get it?

I was early for my bus today in Nottingham so I sat at the bench and waited for a while. A man approached me and for 20 MINUTES preached to me about why I should go to church. He tried to give me a bible which I refused aswell. I told him I make my own choices in life and don't want to choose Christianity and he literally said "You must go to Church on Sundays, it's essential". I asked why and he said "To give back to God, he loves you, did you know that?" A crowd had started to form as he was inches from my face and he wasn't giving up. He went on to say "I'm going to pray with you now, confess your sins to God, confess them with your mouth" to which I said "I don't want to pray, and if I did, I'd do it at home". I think the fact that I clearly wasn't interested and that there were a crowd watching gave him the message to fuck off. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against people who are religious but DON'T try and force it down my throat like it's the only way of living. If any of you happen to be early for a bus in the Broadmarsh Centre, watch out!

I could think of another way to get that message across.

Absolutely. I've got no problem with anyone believing in what they believe in, even if I disgree with all of it, but leave me the fuck alone about it. If I want to know about it I'll ask.

Oh, come on. You know there's plenty of evidence that the guy existed. Whether you believe he's the incarnated Son of God is a different question, but denying that such a person even existed?



I did a wee hunt around the old interweb. Nothing particularly strenuous, but of the very few sites I found that even mentioned this Bartle thing, none mentioned any long-term history to it, one specifically stated that there was no evidence for it before the 19th century, and all speculated that the name "Bartle" came from the name of the parish church in the small village where "Bartle-burning" is a tradition rather than vice versa. If you can point me in the direction of evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it.



Yeah, but the internet is a useful tool, isn't it? I figured if what you were saying was true, there might be something about it online somewhere. If not, fine. Point me to a book.



Well, it might be. In fact, if it's a book that seeks to debunk religion, then "anti-religious" and "atheistic" are probably descriptions its author would appreciate. It's not really relevant though, is it? I looked for evidence that you were right - not to the extent of scouring libraries or anything, but I did look - and didn't find any. In fact, on the first issue, I found evidence that you were wrong. Thus far, you've presented no evidence in favour of your argument other than "well I'm right and you're wrong and you'll argue that evidence is just anti-religious." That, quite frankly, is not how I roll, and I'm a little insulted that you make such assumptions about me.



I have no problem with "scientific." I disagree with "atheistic." I don't particularly like "anti-religious." But except where "science" (and I use the inverted commas advisedly) is used to distort religious debate or where atheism and anti-religiosity are just as biased and one-sided as the worst bits of religion, I am perfectly willing to listen to the viewpoints and debate them.



Right, OK. So what are they?



Gosh, you're funny.

So I was reading about the Codex Sinaiticus today, seeing as it has been digitised and made available online. Like several versions of the bible it makes no reference to Jesus saying anything along the lines of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I've seen people reduced to tears by that story and cite it as their primary reason for following Christianity. I wonder if the fact that, in all probability, it's a complete fabrication has any impact on their faith?

I mean in the sense that he's the son of the so-called God.

Obviously I don't disagree that there probably was a bearded joiner kicking about that was born during that time.



Perhaps the reason that there is no "long term" history for it may be that such practices were outlawed during the Chrisianisation of the British Isles back in the day.

To be found speaking about Pagan practices was bad enough, never mind actually documenting them.

Legislation that was passed during the Roman era that saw the death penalty issued for Pagan acts, coupled with the orders passed that Christiantity had to be observed by all and that all other faiths except Christianity were to be banned certainly made sure that Pagan history, especially in documented form, became rather thin on the ground.

You have to remember that most of the writings and documentation that was left from that period that even mentioned Paganism came from two main sources.

The Romans and the Christians.

Roman writers were writing about a people that they were at war with at the time, and Christian writers were writing about a people that stood in the way of their plans to "civilise" the country.

Having followed your lead though, i've done a little "interweb" browsing of my own with regards to the Bartle festivals, and found such quotes as "Nobody knows for sure how this custom started", "Many British folklore customs are of Celtic origin", "a further possibility is that the ceremony stems from pagan times when the last cut sheaf of corn was thought to contain the corn spirit. It was burnt to destroy the evil of that spirit" and "The origins of this custom are obscure but are thought to be ancient because of the stuffing with straw which links it to corn Gods".

I'd advise someone such as yourself take a look at a book such as "The Pagan book of days" or maybe "what do Pagans believe?". Both can be picked up for somewhere around the £5 mark usually.

Both are quite light reading and a good introduction to how things were before a foreign religion was forced onto the people of the UK, although the former has information suggesting that the religious site at Lourdes was of Pagan origin before the more reasonable story of the blessed mother was thought up, so you may want to be careful where you read that one!



Any of the books i've listed will give you the general idea of what i'm getting at. As with most books, when you get hold of one, you'll find quotes and links to others.



From personal experience it seems that most of the written work that can be considered "anti-religious" seems to have one common target, doesn't it?

The problem seems to be with the essentially man-made religions that really shouldn't be playing any major part in the running of civilised countries in this day & age.

We have managed to work out that the earth isn't flat and that the sky isn't going to fall on us any time soon, so maybe it's time we got rid of the rusty old shackles that religion represent?



Come on Kenny, if your religious beliefs are anything to go by, evidence isn't really big with you, is it?

It's very easy to wheel out sources to prove your theory when history has essentially been re-written by Christian writers over the years, isn't it?



For that I will apologise. I'm guilty of lumping you in with 99% of the followers of your religion.



I thought it was not too bad an attempt

Did anyone see the programme last night on Channel 4 about the Islamic school?
I find it interesting that Islam and Christianity are actually so similar in many ways, as is Judaism, it's because they all are from the same thing.

A little girl of about 7 or 8 on the programme talked of the hell fire for Muslims who do not wear the Hijab (head scarf covering all hair), her mum questioned her about it as the mum no longer wears one and explained it is more important what is inside rather than what is worn by the person. In other words how good a person you are and how you treat others.

I thought the little girl was utterly charming (not in a Loki kind of way), I did like the way that the school noticed that the girl who converted with her mum felt excluded so they did a tolerance and exclusion bit in the lesson so that others could see what it must have felt like. Excellent series thus far.

Don't be silly, everyone knows that what God really cares about is what kind of hat you wear.

Seriously, what is it with religion and hats?

Who was the comedian who was on about that? It wasn't Billy Connolly, was it?

Dennis Leary

"God must have a huge sombrero up there..."

I think thats what i'm thinking about! Good man!

So what your saying is you can prove Jesus Christ existed, and by proxy all the funky shit he did (because lets face it, I'm sure Jesus was a fairly popular name in 0AD Judea and it would be those acts which show we have the right Jesus) but not that he was the son of god? I may have missed something here I'm afraid

Whilst i'm fairly sure Jesus was as popular there back then as it is now in Mexican gangster movies, the real easy way of knowing which Jesus was which would be to trace his mother and father.

I doubt there were many Mary & Joes kicking around that part of the world in those days.

The bible, especially the old testament is full to the brim with story's that have been half inched from other myths from the likes of the Assyrians and the Babylonians.

A book of fables isn't really something I'd expect any logically minded person to just base their life on.

I guess this is where Kenny would help with context. I am not a huge fan of Deuteronomy, however Deuteronomy 22:13-30 sets out marriage violations, saying that if a woman is raped in the country then only the man shall die, and only if she is betrothed. I've heard the executing rape victims in Deuteronomy before but I am yet to find the bit that mentions it.



They don't celebrate his birthday, they commemorate it.



I think the story you talk about is the Story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis. Allthough not Pagan Genesis plays a big part in Judaism which most certainly predates Chistianity as some might say the 'protagonist' of the NT was actually Jewish, interestingly Jesus didn't seem very happy with the way animal sacrifice played out within the temple in Jerusalem. Also it's worth noting that Abraham is considered a Prophet of Islam to Muslims.

It's pretty clear on executing the male only in Deut 22:25, which makes reference to rape occurring outside the city.


However, verses like Deut 22:22-23 suggest that rape cannot occur within the city, since for it to have been a success the woman must've not cried out and so consented really:

In my NIV bible it says to sleep with a woman who is betrothed to another man, not if he raped her. I suppose the complexities of reading a translated text come into it, could it be that the difference between city and country are not translated literally as out in the country and in the city but more a decription of whether people are in close proximity or not. In those days people seemed to live very close together. Plus the complexities of translating the difference between rape and consentual intercourse. Personally I could never condone the killing of rape victims, and from the way it is presented to me in the bible I don't think that is what it is asking me to do. On the flip side my son is an insubbordinate little shit some times (in fact they all can be) but I wouldn't as in Deuteronomy take him to the village enders to be stoned to death.

With sentences like this, any audiobook version of the bible ever to be recorded from this dayeth forth shall be readeth by John Cleese from Monty Python.

This is the kind of argument about religion that makes my head want to explode.

Who cares what the nuance suggests or how you interpret it? What does it even matter? Do you or do you not personally think rape is wrong? Do you believe it should be punishable by death? What reasons do you have? Why would this book in any way influencing your answers to that question?

It's not like it has any kind of rationalisation of the merits of capital punishment, nor any kind of hypotheses on retributive justice and its effectiveness, or perhaps the merits of rehabilitation.

And even if it did, it would be almost entirely irrelevant to the culture in which we live today as compared to this one from hundreds of years ago.

It's fucking bollocks.

Sorry. But it really is.

The Bible is 100% brilliant.

Apart from the bits the Pope says aren't relevant any more.

And the bits that make us look like tossers.

And the bits that lose arguments.

And the bits about magic.

And the bits that make us look like bigots.

And the bits that don't fit in with the findings of modern archaeology, or evolutionary theory.

Or the bits about killing people who disagree.

But all the rest is so good that if you don't live your life by its every word, I pity you.

Yeesh. I read those passages and my first thought was "where does the rape victim die?" The first section says that rapists should be killed - I don't agree, though I imagine some people would, and it's certainly justice of a sort - while the second says that if a man has sex with a betrothed virgin, they should both be killed. A little extreme, perhaps, but if you've ever been cheated on, you can understand the sentiment. It doesn't speak of rape. It just says "if he lie with her." Compare to the first section: "if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her."

I don't know anything about the "in the city" business. I want to kill everyone associated with Sex In The City, to be honest.

Also, what you have to remember about most of the Old Testament is that it's prophecy and poetry. Much of it was never intended to be read literally. Even the Pentateuch is written as, essentially, the pre-history of Judaism. Aspects of it may not literally be "true" - the Creation narrative, for example - but they should be read as spiritual truth, and as a history of the salvific grace of God. It's interesting to note that of all the creation myths of the world, an overwhelming majority saw the world created as a by-product of a battle or even a war between rival gods. The Judaeo-Christian story is the only one that saw the world created deliberately by a loving and merciful deity.

Oh, and it's worth noting that the Catholic Church has NEVER denied evolution. Darwin's Origin Of Species wasn't even on the banned books list. And with the arguable exception of the Galileo case (which is far, far more complicated than a simple case of the Church not believing that the Earth went round the Sun), the Church was responsible for supporting and funding most high-level science of all sorts until the last couple of centuries, when secular authorities began to think that maybe education was their responsibility too.

Mainly because he was the father of Ishmail, supposedly the founder of the Arab tribes.

But you'll find that Muslims consider pretty much all the prophets of Judaism and Christianity to be theirs as well - the only real difference is that they consider Jesus (Issa) to be a prophet of God, not his son. Effectively, you could say that Muslims consider themselves to be Judaism: The Final Edition, following the huge success of the sequel, Judaism II: Christianity. They also ignore Judaism IV: Mormon With A Vengeance, because it's probably where the series started to get a bit pony.

They got a new scriptwriter in and Americanised the whole franchise. "Utah is so much more accessible than ancient Palestine..."

Those Mormons really killed the franchise, huh?

Scientology is like the reboot; they've updated that tired old formula for the new age with all them CGI aliens and sci fi shit. Good work.

I hate reboots.