3 ms·

"Is that perhaps because you don't have a good understanding of the history, or is it perhaps because recent changes affect you more strongly than old ones?" O

"Is that perhaps because you don't have a good understanding of the history, or is it perhaps because recent changes affect you more strongly than old ones?" Of the 2 choices you present me with: neither. "This was part of a deliberate plan by the Catholic Church to co-opt local religions. It wasn't really "organic."" Indeed, to co-opt it. It continued what came before. "You may want to read..." Actually bookmarked this. "Would you rather have the sculpture of Apollo shown as artwork in a hipster lounge, that anyone can see, or destroyed to make way for a Catholic church?" Of the 2 choices you present me with: as an artwork in a hipster lounge. "The French revolution is hardly "current"." If you use numbers in the same way as me, it's literally more current than the stuff you injected (lutheranism, Henry VIII, bishops smacking pagan shrines, Killing Time, Gusta Vasa, ...). Many revolutionaries in France, like many more recent socialist regimes, aimed to root out christianity and religion in general, not change/extend/temper/reduce/garden wall/coopt/transform/echo/reorganize it. "The modern France - a mostly secular country - has a lot of archeologists and archivists trying to identify and preserve history, including non-Christian history."" France has museums and archeologists? Really? Before you joined, it was about the decline of christianity in Europe, which is not bricks and books, but actual people identifying with and practicing a living cultural heritage. We're going nowhere here. "Wow. Really? "Hipster" is a derogatory term meaning...." Lmfao here. You lost me.

eesmith 9y ago
Do you really want me to list all of the possibilities? I'm not trying to force you to choose one of the ones I present. I do not get from your writings that your statements about history are made with a certainty which is not justified. You wrote "Indeed, to co-opt it. It continued what came before." You cannot make that simple connection. The Marvel comics co-opted Thor as a superhero. That does not make Marvel comics a continuation of Norse mythology, nor does it mean that watching "Thor: Ragnarok" is a form of religious service. The system of physical exercise called "yoga" in the Western world co-opted the physical motions of the branch of Hinduism called "Yoga", but the people doing yoga at the gym down the street are not meaningfully connected to the 2,000+ year old tradition. Christians destroyed the sacred trees and groves which were a core part of Germanic paganism. They co-opted the (symbolic) power of Donar's Oak into wood for a church they built on the site. That isn't a continuation. Charlemagne destroyed the Irminsul and ordered the massacre of 4,500 Saxon pagans as part of his campaign to Christianize the Saxons, and justified it as acting "like a true King of Israel" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden . This is not a continuation. This is an usurpation. The cultural symbols were co-opted to demonstrate that a new power is in charge. You wrote "Of the 2 choices you present me with: as an artwork in a hipster lounge." We are making the assumption that the congregation can no longer support the physical building. What other option you would prefer? You wrote "If you use numbers in the same way as me ..." I understand the comment now is meant as sarcasm. But I am trying really hard to not cherry-pick the bad parts of religion, but rather trying to demonstrate that your statements about history appear do not appear to come from a strong understanding of that history. While it seems that you see me pointing to those counter-examples to your assertions, interpret it as cherry-picking, and so decide to cherry-pick in a tit-for-tat sort of dialog. I don't think it's really correct to say "like many more recent socialist regimes, aimed to root out christianity and religion in general". Certainly early Marxist-Leninists in China and the USSR and its satellites were against all religions (as compared to all-but-one religion, as was the case in European countries for hundreds of years. Similarly, early republican countries, like the US and France, were also against religion. But looking at the list of officially socialist countries now, I see quite a few secular countries with strong support for at least one religion, and often support for the free practice of religion. As you point out, we are talking about "actual people identifying with and practicing a living cultural heritage." My question again is, so what? Cultures change. There are always people who bemoan change. It's hard for me to have sympathy given the excellent records we have, the voluntary nature of the change, and given the long history of Christians stomping out older religions. Yes, "hipster" is a derogatory term. Why else did you qualify it as "hipster lounge" instead of simply "lounge"?
- unknown_apostle 9y ago
  “This is not a continuation. This is an usurpation.” Fine, call it usurpation already. Older pagan habits survived in later pagan habits. Pagan habits survived in catholicism. And catholic habits survived in Lutheranism. And now this whole package, this sponge of history, is just being abandoned. “You wrote "Of the 2 choices you present me with: as an artwork in a hipster lounge." We are making the assumption that the congregation can no longer support the physical building. What other option you would prefer?” As an artwork in another church or in a museum or something like that? Where are you going with this? “You wrote "If you use numbers in the same way as me ..." I understand the comment now is meant as sarcasm.” No, this was actually not sarcasm. You pick numerous events from all over Christianity’s history. When I pick something, you complain it’s not “current”. Wtf? And now you complain that it’s “tit-for-tat” picking. 2 weights I call it. “I do not get from your writings that your statements about history are made with a certainty which is not justified.” “your statements about history appear do not appear to come from a strong understanding of that history.” One thing that oozes from all your writing is that you seem to think you’re lecturing me on stuff I don’t know or that I deny or something. Aside from a potentially interesting tip on literacy in antiquity, you gave me nothing new. “My question again is, so what? Cultures change.” Ok, back on topic. Yes, culture change. I care because unlike you, I think the christian habits of our grandparents were interesting, positive and linked us to history. Loosing that is not good, even if you don’t believe in God. “ (…) Christians stomping out older religions” No, not stomping out. Usurping them, to use your latest choice of words. “Yes, "hipster" is a derogatory term. Why else did you qualify it as "hipster lounge" instead of simply "lounge”?” Sorry, I just wanted to be cool and hang out with you modern kids (<- sarcasm, to be clear) Heads up: I probably won’t read your reply, as we’re going round and round and round.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    You wrote "I think the christian habits of our grandparents were interesting, positive and linked us to history. Loosing that is not good, even if you don’t believe in God." Given your positive views on how Christianity has incorporated non-Christian practices, you should have no worries. Christian traditions will continue to be followed in a non-Christian future in ways similar to how Christian traditions currently include older religious practices.

eesmith 9y ago

Do you really want me to list all of the possibilities? I'm not trying to force you to choose one of the ones I present. I do not get from your writings that your statements about history are made with a certainty which is not justified. You wrote "Indeed, to co-opt it. It continued what came before." You cannot make that simple connection. The Marvel comics co-opted Thor as a superhero. That does not make Marvel comics a continuation of Norse mythology, nor does it mean that watching "Thor: Ragnarok" is a form of religious service. The system of physical exercise called "yoga" in the Western world co-opted the physical motions of the branch of Hinduism called "Yoga", but the people doing yoga at the gym down the street are not meaningfully connected to the 2,000+ year old tradition. Christians destroyed the sacred trees and groves which were a core part of Germanic paganism. They co-opted the (symbolic) power of Donar's Oak into wood for a church they built on the site. That isn't a continuation. Charlemagne destroyed the Irminsul and ordered the massacre of 4,500 Saxon pagans as part of his campaign to Christianize the Saxons, and justified it as acting "like a true King of Israel" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden . This is not a continuation. This is an usurpation. The cultural symbols were co-opted to demonstrate that a new power is in charge. You wrote "Of the 2 choices you present me with: as an artwork in a hipster lounge." We are making the assumption that the congregation can no longer support the physical building. What other option you would prefer? You wrote "If you use numbers in the same way as me ..." I understand the comment now is meant as sarcasm. But I am trying really hard to not cherry-pick the bad parts of religion, but rather trying to demonstrate that your statements about history appear do not appear to come from a strong understanding of that history. While it seems that you see me pointing to those counter-examples to your assertions, interpret it as cherry-picking, and so decide to cherry-pick in a tit-for-tat sort of dialog. I don't think it's really correct to say "like many more recent socialist regimes, aimed to root out christianity and religion in general". Certainly early Marxist-Leninists in China and the USSR and its satellites were against all religions (as compared to all-but-one religion, as was the case in European countries for hundreds of years. Similarly, early republican countries, like the US and France, were also against religion. But looking at the list of officially socialist countries now, I see quite a few secular countries with strong support for at least one religion, and often support for the free practice of religion. As you point out, we are talking about "actual people identifying with and practicing a living cultural heritage." My question again is, so what? Cultures change. There are always people who bemoan change. It's hard for me to have sympathy given the excellent records we have, the voluntary nature of the change, and given the long history of Christians stomping out older religions. Yes, "hipster" is a derogatory term. Why else did you qualify it as "hipster lounge" instead of simply "lounge"?

unknown_apostle 9y ago
“This is not a continuation. This is an usurpation.” Fine, call it usurpation already. Older pagan habits survived in later pagan habits. Pagan habits survived in catholicism. And catholic habits survived in Lutheranism. And now this whole package, this sponge of history, is just being abandoned. “You wrote "Of the 2 choices you present me with: as an artwork in a hipster lounge." We are making the assumption that the congregation can no longer support the physical building. What other option you would prefer?” As an artwork in another church or in a museum or something like that? Where are you going with this? “You wrote "If you use numbers in the same way as me ..." I understand the comment now is meant as sarcasm.” No, this was actually not sarcasm. You pick numerous events from all over Christianity’s history. When I pick something, you complain it’s not “current”. Wtf? And now you complain that it’s “tit-for-tat” picking. 2 weights I call it. “I do not get from your writings that your statements about history are made with a certainty which is not justified.” “your statements about history appear do not appear to come from a strong understanding of that history.” One thing that oozes from all your writing is that you seem to think you’re lecturing me on stuff I don’t know or that I deny or something. Aside from a potentially interesting tip on literacy in antiquity, you gave me nothing new. “My question again is, so what? Cultures change.” Ok, back on topic. Yes, culture change. I care because unlike you, I think the christian habits of our grandparents were interesting, positive and linked us to history. Loosing that is not good, even if you don’t believe in God. “ (…) Christians stomping out older religions” No, not stomping out. Usurping them, to use your latest choice of words. “Yes, "hipster" is a derogatory term. Why else did you qualify it as "hipster lounge" instead of simply "lounge”?” Sorry, I just wanted to be cool and hang out with you modern kids (<- sarcasm, to be clear) Heads up: I probably won’t read your reply, as we’re going round and round and round.
- eesmith 9y ago
  You wrote "I think the christian habits of our grandparents were interesting, positive and linked us to history. Loosing that is not good, even if you don’t believe in God." Given your positive views on how Christianity has incorporated non-Christian practices, you should have no worries. Christian traditions will continue to be followed in a non-Christian future in ways similar to how Christian traditions currently include older religious practices.