Perhaps you misunderstood me. Church meetings of various kinds are usually designed to engage the emotions for certain types of people. That’s fine, but there can be a problem if people think they have become aware of God, when in fact all they felt was the emotions stimulated by the ‘show’. Their ‘spiritual experience’ was nothing more than what they might feel at a gig or watching a play.
Having an emotional response isn’t a problem. Being fooled into thinking it’s more than that when it is not is a problem.
I get you - thanks. It is a real problem, I agree.
A general question then occurs to me - not necessarily for you to answer, but one I’m interested in. Is there any way of distinguishing (a) a “real encounter with God” from (b) a reaction to a particular atmosphere (church, music, stage, football, etc.)?
In trying to get converts to a new religion it always helped to allow absorption of some of local old spiritual practices.
The Jesuits in 16th century China recognised the importance of very popular Quan Yin and accepted an identity link with Virgin Mary. (Did however, fall out with the Pope over Chinese ancestor worship, which the wise and embedded Jesuits said was essential for Chinese converts.)
Pragmatic proselytizing has a long history. The Romans absorbed deities from ancient Greece, changing their names but not the tales. The first images of Buddha in the 4th century AD appeared in the furthest of Alexander the Great’s reach to Gandhara and resembled a toga draped and halo crowned Hellenistic sun deity Apollo. In South America, Christianity was absorbed into local practices, resulting in some colourful offshoots, such as Santaria.
The alternative is saying religion cannot be mutually exclusive, and we all know how that ends.
I’ve posted before that during its early formative Christianity incorporated many attributes of Isis into the Virgin Mary (who remained surprisingly vague and unimportant during the first Christian millenium). Some obvious ones are the seated pose with Jesus on her knee which is taken from Isis with the infant Horus both protectresses of sailors (Stella Maris) and of course there are the black Madonnas of SW Europe. At Rocamadour all three of these examples are combined.
Although I’m not religious, I find the historical intertextuality of religions fascinating
For example, it’s notable that the Jewish and Hindu wedding ceremonies have various points of similarity - both take place under a canopy, both involve the breaking of a vessel under the groom’s foot, both involve circling around seven times, both involve food and drink rituals, both have seven blessings.
Both also involve uncles with cameras bigger than mine taking photos and getting in the way!!
If. you’re honest, gentlemen, is it because it allows you to lump them all together and file them under “interesting claptrap”?
It’s all just iconography and art. It may be true that
(I hope my additions are what you meant), and if it is then perhaps that’s why you find it interesting.
By the way, Protestants don’t venerate the Virgin Mary, and increasingly Roman Catholics are moving away from it as being a later addition to the faith. You don’t see any of that veneration in the early Church as portrayed in Acts: we followed a very different path then!
What I’ve read about the “similarities” between Isis and Mary are unconvincing and tendentious. However, I suppose that if you approach the topic from the point of view that none of it is true, then you’re more likely to fail to look beneath the surface and come up with such gems as “Isis’s son was called ‘Horus’, Mary’s son was called ‘Jesus’”!
Well, perhaps yes - but Comparative Religion is a subject you can get a degree in.
Christianity picked up influences from all over the shop - including having Sunday as the “holy day” instead of the Jewish Sabbath Saturday (handier for former worshippers of Solar gods), making Jesus’ birthday coincide with the climax of the festival of Saturnalia and the dies natalis solis invicti - day of the birth of Sol Invictus (there’s that Sun God again).
There are other crossovers and similarities - some perhaps coincidences, many not.
However a lot of the stories and celebrations were noted in sumarian texts 1000’s of years earlier. These modern religions are rip off rewrites of much older stories.
Just ordered a copy, hopfully easier to read than the Sumarian history book which was hard going. However it covered a lot of the stories copied into the bible.
Yes true but having plagerised and repubished others work they should not try and claim it was their work but state the actual source.
In the begining there was the Babylonians and we have to thank those and other Mesopotamian’s for their texts which allowed us to put this bible, torah etc together.
Should be the preface on the inside cover
Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. Reporting an event that happened is history (or journalism if it’s contemporary, I suppose). The fact that someone else also reports it doesn’t make either report plagiarism.
Something that has always intrigued me is that almost the same stories/fables/parables are repeated with minor localised tweaks throughout the ages in multiple religions.
My nature is to question coincidences, so that leaves me to assume many stories are at their root, indeed true. Events over time usually become embellished and even exaggerated, mainly adding wonderment for the listeners. But sorting through these accounts to find the origin is a fun sort of mental (and philosophical) archeology.
Many stories are recounted to make a point. The points seem worth repeating and may even be considered universal truths. What humans during Sumerian or ancient Greek times noted in human behaviour hasn’t fundamentally changed much over the ages. Hence, the lessons and warnings need repeating.
Religious books were written as guides for their followers. Seems quite logical for the writers to compile stories and lessons many previous sources. Claiming these as unique and original may be artistic license?
The only books that transcribed the exact words of philosophy as they were spoken were the Analects collected by pupils studying under the 6th century BC philosopher we call Confucius. Still, he was a man of turbulent times and his ideals reflect that. However, a good many pieces of advice, several of which were adapted into the later Christian Bible writings, may also be considered universal truths. Who can argue with “Do not do anything to another that you would not be done to you”?
Sadly, many sources are not so favorable towards women’s lot. Funny that. I wonder if it is because all were written by men……
Or, as the various religions sought to control the common folks through fear and ignorance, it’s highly likely that they found the same methods effective and thus there are many similarities between various versions of “Do What The Invisible Sky Pixie Says Or You’ll Be Punished For Eternity”.
