Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on November 06, 2016, 11:33:52 AM
-
Evidence of self confessed God evasion in Acts, Writings of St Paul, Writings of Augustine of Hippo, John Bunyan.
Intellectual,moral evasion reported by St Augustine.
Spiritual persecution of the divine by St paul.
Moral and spiritual evasion John Bunyan.
All 3 reports contradict emotional crutch theory.
-
Thank you for your time.
Can I have it back, please?
-
Can I have it back, please?
Nobody forced you on here friend....what brings you to religious discussion?
-
Evidence of self confessed God evasion in Acts, Writings of St Paul, Writings of Augustine of Hippo, John Bunyan.
Intellectual,moral evasion reported by St Augustine.
Spiritual persecution of the divine by St paul.
Moral and spiritual evasion John Bunyan.
All 3 reports contradict emotional crutch theory.
..unless of course all three were written as emotional crutches?
Can you prove they were not?
:-\
IYCBTJT
-
There are quite a lot of variations of this, a very famous one is the Francis Thompson poem, 'The Hound of Heaven':
I FLED Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Another famous one is the poem 'The Collar' by George Herbert, '('I struck the board, and cried, no more, I will abroad ...').
Some of them are very well expressed, but they don't really add much to any arguments. Unless you are going to say that everyone is running away from God, well, you can't prove that they aren't! Is that a phallusy?
-
..unless of course all three were written as emotional crutches?
Can you prove they were not?
:-\
IYCBTJT
What do you mean?
I think it takes a big person to own up to being an evader and to write about it.
Perhaps your post is an example of God evasion Sebastian.
-
There are quite a lot of variations of this, a very famous one is the Francis Thompson poem, 'The Hound of Heaven':
I FLED Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Another famous one is the poem 'The Collar' by George Herbert, '('I struck the board, and cried, no more, I will abroad ...').
Some of them are very well expressed, but they don't really add much to any arguments. Unless you are going to say that everyone is running away from God, well, you can't prove that they aren't! Is that a phallusy?
Not everyone at any one time is running away. Unless by everyone you mean loud and proud pagans atheists and slick Zennists.
I merely suggest a ''might be''......which is frequently met with an ''I'm definitely not.'' Have you ever in your role as one deputised by Marshal Bluehillside ever go on a posse for them?
-
What do you mean?
I think it takes a big person to own up to being an evader and to write about it.
..or someone using their writing as an emotional crutch.
-
Perhaps your post is an example of God evasion Sebastian.
You wish!
-
Every time I walk across my living room I have to avoid walking into this solid brick and concrete column that isn't there.
ippy
-
Evidence of self confessed God evasion in Acts, Writings of St Paul, Writings of Augustine of Hippo, John Bunyan.
Intellectual,moral evasion reported by St Augustine.
Spiritual persecution of the divine by St paul.
Moral and spiritual evasion John Bunyan.
All 3 reports contradict emotional crutch theory.
find a source that proves your point. If you cant see where you are going wrong GOD HELP US :o
-
There are quite a lot of variations of this, a very famous one is the Francis Thompson poem, 'The Hound of Heaven':
I FLED Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Another famous one is the poem 'The Collar' by George Herbert, '('I struck the board, and cried, no more, I will abroad ...').
Some of them are very well expressed, but they don't really add much to any arguments. Unless you are going to say that everyone is running away from God, well, you can't prove that they aren't! Is that a phallusy?
Never could understand Thompson's position (let alone Vlad's), since I was for much of my life not fleeing, but pursuing.
However, we know that Vlad likes his "one size fits all" templates.
Not sure whether Francis Thompson would have been so inflexible.
-
Evidence of self confessed God evasion in Acts, Writings of St Paul, Writings of Augustine of Hippo, John Bunyan.
Intellectual,moral evasion reported by St Augustine.
Spiritual persecution of the divine by St paul.
Moral and spiritual evasion John Bunyan.
All 3 reports contradict emotional crutch theory.
Since St Paul was the most fervent believer in the Jewish God, I don't see that this gets you anywhere. St Augustine was a Manichee - also a fervent believer.
-
I merely suggest a ''might be''......which is frequently met with an ''I'm definitely not.'' Have you ever in your role as one deputised by Marshal Bluehillside ever go on a posse for them?
First time I've ever see you qualify your statements of this kind with a subjunctive. Jolly good, this is an improvement.
-
There are quite a lot of variations of this, a very famous one is the Francis Thompson poem, 'The Hound of Heaven':
I FLED Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Another famous one is the poem 'The Collar' by George Herbert, '('I struck the board, and cried, no more, I will abroad ...').
Some of them are very well expressed, but they don't really add much to any arguments. Unless you are going to say that everyone is running away from God, well, you can't prove that they aren't! Is that a phallusy?
Herbert's "Love bade me welcome" is another blind spot, in which he identifies part of his reluctance as his sense of sin and inadequacy. I can only overcome the deep repugnance of such sentiments when I hear them in Vaughan Williams' rather fine musical setting.
-
Herbert's "Love bade me welcome" is another blind spot, in which he identifies part of his reluctance as his sense of sin and inadequacy. I can only overcome the deep repugnance of such sentiments when I hear them in Vaughan Williams' rather fine musical setting.
Moral arrogance on your part?......I bet you can think of loads of people to whom you can say ''I'm alright....you're not alright''.
Sense of sin? That's a Godward thing isn't it?......Inadequacy? That's a human induced thing isn't it?
-
What do you mean?
I think it takes a big person to own up to being an evader and to write about it.
Perhaps your post is an example of God evasion Sebastian.
They evaded something but you or they can't or couldn't say what.
-
Moral arrogance on your part?......I bet you can think of loads of people to whom you can say ''I'm alright....you're not alright''.
Sense of sin? That's a Godward thing isn't it?......Inadequacy? That's a human induced thing isn't it?
I can think of many things I've done or not done in my life of which I've been ashamed - particularly in my early life. However, I've never felt any sense that I could shift the responsibility for my actions on to some 'divine redeemer', let alone the sense that such an entity was there to to relieve such guilty sentiments. My quest was not a 'drawing back' - but a concerted attempt to determine whether there was anything 'spiritual' there at all. Sometimes I had experiences which seemed to confirm that there was 'something', but in my darkest days - zilch.
-
I can think of many things I've done or not done in my life of which I've been ashamed - particularly in my early life. However, I've never felt any sense that I could shift the responsibility for my actions on to some 'divine redeemer', let alone the sense that such an entity was there to to relieve such guilty sentiments. My quest was not a 'drawing back' - but a concerted attempt to determine whether there was anything 'spiritual' there at all. Sometimes I had experiences which seemed to confirm that there was 'something', but in my darkest days - zilch.
But I bet your darkest days were when you learnt your greatest lessons and insights.
-
Herbert's "Love bade me welcome" is another blind spot, in which he identifies part of his reluctance as his sense of sin and inadequacy. I can only overcome the deep repugnance of such sentiments when I hear them in Vaughan Williams' rather fine musical setting.
Yes, I agree with that. Do you know 'Redemption'? It has that very famous dramatic ending, which I like:
I straight returned, and knowing his great birth,
Sought him accordingly in great resorts;
In cities, theaters, gardens, parks, and courts;
At length I heard a ragged noise and mirth
Of thieves and murderers; there I him espied,
Who straight, Your suit is granted, said, and died.
-
But I bet your darkest days were when you learnt your greatest lessons and insights.
not at the time , mate not at the time. SURVIVAL took over.
-
not at the time , mate not at the time. SURVIVAL took over.
That was in answer to a post from Dicky, why are you answering it?
-
That was in answer to a post from Dicky, why are you answering it?
erm! because I can?
please let me know what prize I've won. ;D
-
Not everyone at any one time is running away. Unless by everyone you mean loud and proud pagans atheists and slick Zennists.
I merely suggest a ''might be''......which is frequently met with an ''I'm definitely not.'' Have you ever in your role as one deputised by Marshal Bluehillside ever go on a posse for them?
In what way do you consider that this pagan is running away from God? Or do you only mean from YOUR God!
If the latter, I did not run, I walked, head high, and throwing a double digit gesture at a God that makes demands that are impossible to obey (Exodus 22:18 and the Fifth/Sixth Commandment) and demands our praise for (supposedly) creating things like cancer, poisonous animals, insects etc, allows the Devil to operate to test the faith of his followers, etc etc ad infinitum.
-
In what way do you consider that this pagan is running away from God? Or do you only mean from YOUR God!
If the latter, I did not run, I walked, head high, and throwing a double digit gesture at a God that makes demands that are impossible to obey (Exodus 22:18 and the Fifth/Sixth Commandment) and demands our praise
When and how did you receive your demand?
-
When and how did you receive your demand?
Demand - Command - not much difference in my book.
Thou shalt not . . .
Delivered in the bible from which I was taught the laws of your God for the first years of my life.
-
erm! because I can?
please let me know what prize I've won. ;D
But it was specific to Dicky, only Dicky could legitimately answer it.
-
Demand - Command - not much difference in my book.
Thou shalt not . . .
Delivered in the bible from which I was taught the laws of your God for the first years of my life.
I think that was probably the school curriculum which everybody got..... I never treated it as a personal thing....and neither did millions.
How has God bothered you since?
-
I think that was probably the school curriculum which everybody got..... I never treated it as a personal thing....and neither did millions.
How has God bothered you since?
So when you were taught the 10 commandments, you thought none of this has any meaning for me?
-
So when you were taught the 10 commandments, you thought none of this has any meaning for me?
Only if I got caught.
-
I think that was probably the school curriculum which everybody got..... I never treated it as a personal thing....and neither did millions.
How has God bothered you since?
Please see Stephen Fry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5RtDpva7nE
he says it far better than I ever could.
-
There are quite a lot of variations of this, a very famous one is the Francis Thompson poem, 'The Hound of Heaven':
I FLED Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Another famous one is the poem 'The Collar' by George Herbert, '('I struck the board, and cried, no more, I will abroad ...').
Some of them are very well expressed, but they don't really add much to any arguments. Unless you are going to say that everyone is running away from God, well, you can't prove that they aren't! Is that a phallusy?
How I see running away from God, is when your conscience is nagging at you and tells you something needs to be set right and you want to avoid doing so.
It's all the little avenues and avoidances that you tell yourself to justify not doing it.
This comes from the idea that God is actually that little voice that tells you to face up to whatever it is that needs doing.
In the bible, Jonah " ran away from God".
That's how I've always seen it.
It's a sort of "round tuit " things that nag you!
Like that.
We probably all have those, I know I do.
Like I should be doing housework instead of chattering on the Internet :o
So maybe everyone is running away from things they feel they should be doing.
-
Like I should be doing housework instead of chattering on the Internet :o
Yes, God's a stickler for housework alright. He's been at me for weeks to zap that mould on the bathroom grouting ;D
-
Yeah, but God is the mould on the grouting. Om mani padme hum!
-
Dark night of the soul, more like.
-
But in the mould, there is God in his dazzling darkness.
There is in God, some say,
A deep but dazzling darkness, as men here
Say it is late and dusky, because they
See not all clear.
(Henry Vaughan).
-
But is it God or god? Should I follow Meister Eckhart and 'pray God rid me of god'?
-
But is it God or god? Should I follow Meister Eckhart and 'pray God rid me of god'?
Nice one. It reminds me of kill the Buddha, i.e. (well, at least, my interpretation), that we have to get rid of all the images and concepts of Buddha, God, gods, and so on. What's left? How would I know?
-
'Kill the Buddha' would make a fine name for a household fungicide, I think. I may go into business.
-
Dark night of the soul, more like.
Arh, there's your problem. You need to put the light on first before you can scrub that mould away.
-
There is a mould in everything, it's how the light gets in.
-
This is insporational stuff.
-
This is insporational stuff.
There's a germ of a joke in there somewhere.
-
There's a germ of a joke in there somewhere.
Yeah! Very punny at times.
-
Sporadically humourous, I'll grant you.
-
Sporadically humourous, I'll grant you.
Grant me what, precisely? Absolution for my blsphemy? NO. thanks! A lifetime's (what is left of it) supply of Moniak and Lindisgfarne Mead? YES YES YES PLEEEAAASSSEEE!!!!
-
Grant me what, precisely? Absolution for my blsphemy? NO. thanks! A lifetime's (what is left of it) supply of Moniak and Lindisgfarne Mead? YES YES YES PLEEEAAASSSEEE!!!!
P S - If you do see fit to grant me this, I will, should we ever meet, kiss you feet! Both of them!
-
P S - If you do see fit to grant me this, I will, should we ever meet, kiss you feet! Both of them!
P P S - I know! I know! When it comes to Mead I am an unreprentatnt crawler!
-
In what way do you consider that this pagan is running away from God? Or do you only mean from YOUR God!
Vlad cited St Paul in his list of 'dodgers'. There are quite a few scholars who would argue that Paul's god after conversion was very much a pagan god, exactly in the mold of those ancient dying and resurrecting deities like Dionysus and Attis etc. After all, he broke off all links with the Old Testament in his new-found religion except one - Abraham being justified by faith. Centuries of Jewish belief lopped off at a stroke in favour of a very familiar form of mediterranean deity. He just happened to call the deity in question "Jesus the Christ". Bugger all to do with the Jesus revealed in some of the gospels who said "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away".
-
Vlad cited St Paul in his list of 'dodgers'. There are quite a few scholars who would argue that Paul's god after conversion was very much a pagan god, exactly in the mold of those ancient dying and resurrecting deities like Dionysus and Attis etc. After all, he broke off all links with the Old Testament in his new-found religion except one - Abraham being justified by faith. Centuries of Jewish belief lopped off at a stroke in favour of a very familiar form of mediterranean deity. He just happened to call the deity in question "Jesus the Christ". Bugger all to do with the Jesus revealed in some of the gospels who said "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away".
So you consider that Paul was pagan before his conversion or after it? And my quoted comment only referred to me.
-
So you consider that Paul was pagan before his conversion or after it? And my quoted comment only referred to me.
I believe that St Paul invented a religion which was a variant of the Mediterranean pagan religions. Before that he claims that he was by religion a "Pharisee", but judging by his cavalier attitude to Jewish writings and teachings, not quite the highly educated one that that Acts makes him out to be. I know that your quoted comment referred to you - I just thought it was ironic that Vlad a) would probably have implied that you were a God-dodger, and b) that he had cited a man, whom he thinks of as one of the cornerstones of Christianity, but whom I happen to think invented his own religion which was another version of pagan myth. Of course, St Paul's religion has become fused with writings about the historical Jewish Jesus - and this happened fairly early on - and nowadays it is very difficult for anybody to extricate the various contradictory strands. Least of all the Christians themselves.
-
I believe that St Paul invented a religion which was a variant of the Mediterranean pagan religions. Before that he claims that he was by religion a "Pharisee", but judging by his cavalier attitude to Jewish writings and teachings, not quite the highly educated one that that Acts makes him out to be. I know that your quoted comment referred to you - I just thought it was ironic that Vlad was a) accusing you of being a God-dodger, and b) that he had cited a man, whom he thinks of as one of the cornerstones of Christianity, but whom I happen to think invented his own religion which was another version of pagan myth. Of course, St Paul's religion has become fused with writings about the historical Jewish Jesus - and this happened fairly early on - and nowadays it is very difficult for anybody to extricate the various contradictory strands. Least of all the Christians themselves.
This isn't so strange as some people have a flip attitude to what they were before and attack it as a position of compensation. Francis of Assisi had this about wealth and pleasure, and perhaps St. Augustine. I'm not so sure these days but there were Westerners who dropped their culture to take on an Eastern style of living and would vehemently decry their old lifestyle.
And I forgot to say that the manner of his conversion implies a fit of some sort and we know how a persons personality can change from such events.
-
This isn't so strange as some people have a flip attitude to what they were before and attack it as a position of compensation. Francis of Assisi had this about wealth and pleasure, and perhaps St. Augustine. I'm not so sure these days but there were Westerners who dropped their culture to take on an Eastern style of living and would vehemently decry their old lifestyle.
Absolutely - the psychological attitudes involved in religious conversion do seem to follow a familiar pattern. And, psychologically speaking, there is another factor involved in the subsequent development of Christianity which might interest Owlswing. I've stated that I believe St Paul invented another form of the familiar pagan religions which centred around dying and resurrecting gods, such as Osiris, Attis and Orpheus, and this was eventually incorporated into the other strand of early "Christianity" which was much closer to Jewish teachings. As the emergent proto-orthodox Christianity began to be consolidated, it soon started to attack pagan belief systems as part of its campaign to assert that it alone possessed the truth. This continued throughout history in its notorious 'witch-hunts'. The reason for this, I suggest, was in part because it recognised that so much of its own belief system was so similar to these pagan beliefs - so much so in fact that it had to suggest that these similarites were the deceptions of the Devil, prepared well in advance of the advent of Jesus. This kind of psychologically deranged thinking was carried over into the New World, where the Spaniards noticed the remarkable similarities in belief to their own that the Aztecs held.
And, of course, the Jews also became pariahs because they also adhered to some of the other teachings which went to make up emerging Christianity - but were accused of not having lived up to these teachings, or misinterpreted them.
And I forgot to say that the manner of his conversion implies a fit of some sort and we know how a persons personality can change from such events.
Again, I agree. And we also know from scientific studies of certain conditions such as temporal lobe epilepsy and severe migraines, how a person's perception of reality can markedly change under the influence of such conditions. Dostoevsky and Hildegard of Bingen come to mind. To be fair, I have to ask whether their perceptions might have been a glimpse of some kind of 'higher reality', but these days I'm very inclined to doubt it.
-
Interesting stuff, Dicky, esp. the point about similarities with pagan symbols being attributed to the devil. They didn't have the benefit of a Joseph Campbell then!
Also, another example of the narcissism of small differences? © S. Freud.
-
Interesting stuff, Dicky, esp. the point about similarities with pagan symbols being attributed to the devil. They didn't have the benefit of a Joseph Campbell then!
Also, another example of the narcissism of small differences? © S. Freud.
Good old Joe Campbell! Have to admit I gave up on his magnum opus three quarters through, when I was reading it a few years back. Something on a similar theme, written back in the 1920s, really held my attention though. This was "The Origins of Pagan and Christian Beliefs" by Edward Carpenter. It was re-issued a decade or so back. I picked it up in a charity shop. I thought it a far more learned and convincing presentation of the mythic elements in Christianity than that notorious bestseller which came out a few years ago "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy. When I first read that, I thought that this 'mythic Jesus' idea was something they'd just worked out, whereas the ideas have obviously been around a long while.
Of course, F & G were completely over-egging the pudding, and making categorical statements about matters of which there is little evidence, and sometimes deliberately perpetrating falsehoods to make their argument more compelling.
You know that I do think there was a historical Jewish Jesus, but the mythic elements deriving mostly from St Paul (and to a fair extent St John) got stirred into the mixture fairly early on.
-
I wonder if Alan Watts touched on this, as he wrote a book called 'The Supreme Identity', but I don't know if he argued that all religions have a common theme(s). I can't read this stuff now, I fall asleep. What is the point of it?
-
I can't read this stuff now, I fall asleep. What is the point of it?
I'm going the same way and often wonder, is this the beginning of wisdom or just the beginning of dementia?
-
I'm going the same way and often wonder, is this the beginning of wisdom or just the beginning of dementia?
Yes. Well, when I was in my 20s, I used to devour this kind of stuff, although I can't really remember what I got out of it. But now it's just like cardboard for the mind. Maybe that's a bit harsh.
For one thing, it's just more aboutism. It's like reading manuals on sex.
-
Yes. Well, when I was in my 20s, I used to devour this kind of stuff, although I can't really remember what I got out of it. But now it's just like cardboard for the mind. Maybe that's a bit harsh.
For one thing, it's just more aboutism. It's like reading manuals on sex.
Hey, have you got any to swap, must have pictures though.
-
...What is the point of it?
Why ask?
-
Why ask?
How would I know?
-
Absolutely - the psychological attitudes involved in religious conversion do seem to follow a familiar pattern. And, psychologically speaking, there is another factor involved in the subsequent development of Christianity which might interest Owlswing. I've stated that I believe St Paul invented another form of the familiar pagan religions which centred around dying and resurrecting gods, such as Osiris, Attis and Orpheus, and this was eventually incorporated into the other strand of early "Christianity" which was much closer to Jewish teachings. As the emergent proto-orthodox Christianity began to be consolidated, it soon started to attack pagan belief systems as part of its campaign to assert that it alone possessed the truth. This continued throughout history in its notorious 'witch-hunts'. The reason for this, I suggest, was in part because it recognised that so much of its own belief system was so similar to these pagan beliefs - so much so in fact that it had to suggest that these similarites were the deceptions of the Devil, prepared well in advance of the advent of Jesus. This kind of psychologically deranged thinking was carried over into the New World, where the Spaniards noticed the remarkable similarities in belief to their own that the Aztecs held.
And, of course, the Jews also became pariahs because they also adhered to some of the other teachings which went to make up emerging Christianity - but were accused of not having lived up to these teachings, or misinterpreted them.
Again, I agree. And we also know from scientific studies of certain conditions such as temporal lobe epilepsy and severe migraines, how a person's perception of reality can markedly change under the influence of such conditions. Dostoevsky and Hildegard of Bingen come to mind. To be fair, I have to ask whether their perceptions might have been a glimpse of some kind of 'higher reality', but these days I'm very inclined to doubt it.
General comment : Was the split between the western and eastern Roman Christendoms something to do (probably indirectly?) with this idea of Christianity of being rooted in both pagan and Jewish religions?
Also; and you don't have to answer this, but I keep wondering what is specifically meant by the word pagan. As someone coming from a Jungian perspective it all seems to be paganism of some sorts to me.
"This kind of psychologically deranged thinking was carried over into the New World, where the Spaniards noticed the remarkable similarities in belief to their own that the Aztecs held."
The fact that a civilization and region, who had never had any contact with the western world before, had similar religious ideas as that western world goes to show that religion is solely psychological and man made.
-
I'm going the same way and often wonder, is this the beginning of wisdom or just the beginning of dementia?
It's probably the beginning of the realization that your interests and focus is shifting to other things. Trying to flog the same old dead horse over and over again just doesn't do it anymore.
-
General comment : Was the split between the western and eastern Roman Christendoms something to do (probably indirectly?) with this idea of Christianity of being rooted in both pagan and Jewish religions?
Also; and you don't have to answer this, but I keep wondering what is specifically meant by the word pagan. As someone coming from a Jungian perspective it all seems to be paganism of some sorts to me.
"This kind of psychologically deranged thinking was carried over into the New World, where the Spaniards noticed the remarkable similarities in belief to their own that the Aztecs held."
The fact that a civilization and region, who had never had any contact with the western world before, had similar religious ideas as that western world goes to show that religion is solely psychological and man made.
Surely if religion also had some form of external truth, or was implanted in some way by something like a deity, that would be the case as well?
-
Surely if religion also had some form of external truth, or was implanted in some way by something like a deity, that would be the case as well?
That indeed could be argued. But as has been pointed out before, in the past certain groups of Christians have explained the similarities as being the work of the devil.
-
I wonder if Alan Watts touched on this, as he wrote a book called 'The Supreme Identity', but I don't know if he argued that all religions have a common theme(s). I can't read this stuff now, I fall asleep. What is the point of it?
I certainly found myself falling asleep when I read "The Hero with a Thousand Faces". I read it out of some sort of sense of duty, long past the age when I would have believed there was some sort of 'spiritual' reality behind all religions. I felt Campbell was just waffling as he drew more and more tenuous links between the far-eastern religions. In fact, a well-known book on a similar theme, Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" I considered pretty waffly even when I read it in my twenties.
However, I've been intrigued by Geza Vermes' and E.P. Sanders attempts to uncover the Jewish Jesus of the Bible, and more recently by prof. Barrie Wilson's well-argued theses concerning the disparate Pauline and evangelists' writings in the NT, and how both belief systems came to be combined.
I think such writings do have a relevant point beyond mere academic research, if only to oppose the anti-Semitism that is still entrenched in certain Christian groups. And also to give one in the eye to those Christians who like to denigrate paganism (like a certain B.A., late of this parish).
Meanwhile, of course, mainstream Christianity - especially Catholicism - is what it is, and is unlikely to change significantly for a long while yet.
-
General comment : Was the split between the western and eastern Roman Christendoms something to do (probably indirectly?) with this idea of Christianity of being rooted in both pagan and Jewish religions?
I can't really see it that way (and the Catholics and the Orthodox certainly won't). The split was ostensibly over the wording and meaning of the Creed, along with the disputed authority of the Pope. As for the Creed, Ad-O informs me that if we take the reading that the Catholics opted for, it ends up implying that there are two deities. But what ideas did you have in mind that might have contributed to the split?
Also; and you don't have to answer this, but I keep wondering what is specifically meant by the word pagan. As someone coming from a Jungian perspective it all seems to be paganism of some sorts to me.
Those are just convenient labels, unfortunately drawn from the supremacist language that the Christian Church Triumphant chose to use. Of course, from my unbelieving perspective, they are all just varieties of religion.
-
Surely if religion also had some form of external truth, or was implanted in some way by something like a deity, that would be the case as well?
If it was a deity then it would impart the same religion and as they are not exactly the same that excludes a deity.
From Jung's perspective there is a source for this but it is not external but internal. Which is why I posed the idea or comment to get people thinking.
-
If it was a deity then it would impart the same religion and as they are not exactly the same that excludes a deity.
From Jung's perspective there is a source for this but it is not external but internal. Which is why I posed the idea or comment to get people thinking.
that's simply an assertion. What do you know about a "deity' that allows making a statement of fact in it?
-
I can't really see it that way (and the Catholics and the Orthodox certainly won't). The split was ostensibly over the wording and meaning of the Creed, along with the disputed authority of the Pope. As for the Creed, Ad-O informs me that if we take the reading that the Catholics opted for, it ends up implying that there are two deities. But what ideas did you have in mind that might have contributed to the split?
I had none because this isn't a subject that I'm well versed in, which is why I asked. It is just that when something arises in an unconscious fashion, as these types of things do, and because of this, many discordant ideas are brought together without the participants realising what they have done. It is only later on when consciousness and reason has the insight to see the disparity and incompatibility of the elements that have been gathered together that in the process of trying to make sense of it all it is then that splits and schisms occur. The reformation is another event that 'opened' the eyes of reason to the incongruous nature of Christianity.
Those are just convenient labels, unfortunately drawn from the supremacist language that the Christian Church Triumphant chose to use. Of course, from my unbelieving perspective, they are all just varieties of religion.
You seem to be implying that it was Christianity that came up with the term or idea of paganism to denote those religions that seemed to be similar to theirs but were, by their reckoning, of the 'devil'.(?)
-
that's simply an assertion. What do you know about a "deity' that allows making a statement of fact in it?
Would you not expect that if something had one source, and intelligent at that, it would emanate one outcome?
-
Would you not expect that if something had one source, and intelligent at that, it would emanate one outcome?
Not if the receivers are not the same. And that would apply whether something is a deity or not. On your approach Chinese Whispers is impossible.
-
Not if the receivers are not the same. And that would apply whether something is a deity or not. On your approach Chinese Whispers is impossible.
Then I would say your deity isn't a deity if it is that weak that it couldn't convey its message clearly. And if the recipients are not that good and of poor quality then why would it bother with them?
-
Then I would say your deity isn't a deity if it is that weak that it couldn't convey its message clearly. And if the recipients are not that good and of poor quality then why would it bother with them?
and again we are back to you stating facts about a deity. Can you justify them?
-
I had none because this isn't a subject that I'm well versed in, which is why I asked. It is just that when something arises in an unconscious fashion, as these types of things do, and because of this, many discordant ideas are brought together without the participants realising what they have done. It is only later on when consciousness and reason has the insight to see the disparity and incompatibility of the elements that have been gathered together that in the process of trying to make sense of it all it is then that splits and schisms occur. The reformation is another event that 'opened' the eyes of reason to the incongruous nature of Christianity.
Yes, the role of human psychology in the development of religion shouldn't be underestimated. Indeed, it is crucial to the input of St Paul to Christianity itself - and not only because of his original "revelation". One might ask - why was he so hung up about the Jewish law, and referred to it as a 'curse'? Largely because he couldn't keep it, no matter how hard he tried. And I suspect this might have something to do with his sexuality. And so you get "Justification by faith", the keynote of Protestantism, in contrast with the faith + works attitude of Catholicism (there is a paradox here which NearlySane may be able to throw some light on -whence the "Protestant work-ethic", since Protestants firmly believe that no amount of good works can get you into heaven automatically. NS comes from a country where this dour work ethic is particularly strong, I think :) )
As for the the psychological impulses behind the Great Schism - well, the whole thing seems like intruding on private grief most times. Karen Armstrong, the well-known scholar of religion, has I think commented that part of the problem lay in the western Church's overemphasis on getting belief expressed in intellectual formulae (ironically enough, this woud be called 'orthodoxy'), whereas the Orthodox had a more intuitive approach. This however seems to be contradicted by our resident Orthodox believer, ad-orientem, who expressed his opposition to the Catholic position in a succinct intellectual formula, which he thought had profound consequences for Christian theology.
-
and again we are back to you stating facts about a deity. Can you justify them?
NS, we are talking about something that in all probability doesn't exist so it is all based on a hypothetical definition of a deity which is idealistic i.e. they are fully competent, besides other traits and characteristics. Anything less than being perfect would discount them as being deities.
-
Yes, the role of human psychology in the development of religion shouldn't be underestimated. Indeed, it is crucial to the input of St Paul to Christianity itself - and not only because of his original "revelation". One might ask - why was he so hung up about the Jewish law, and referred to it as a 'curse'? Largely because he couldn't keep it, no matter how hard he tried. And I suspect this might have something to do with his sexuality. And so you get "Justification by faith", the keynote of Protestantism, in contrast with the faith + works attitude of Catholicism (there is a paradox here which NearlySane may be able to throw some light on -whence the "Protestant work-ethic", since Protestants firmly believe that no amount of good works can get you into heaven automatically. NS comes from a country where this dour work ethic is particularly strong, I think :) )
As for the the psychological impulses behind the Great Schism - well, the whole thing seems like intruding on private grief most times. Karen Armstrong, the well-known scholar of religion, has I think commented that part of the problem lay in the western Church's overemphasis on getting belief expressed in intellectual formulae (ironically enough, this woud be called 'orthodoxy'), whereas the Orthodox had a more intuitive approach. This however seems to be contradicted by our resident Orthodox believer, ad-orientem, who expressed his opposition to the Catholic position in a succinct intellectual formula, which he thought had profound consequences for Christian theology.
With regards to your last paragraph I would have thought 'succinct' was very western and 'scientific' which in my books would refer to the psychological ethos of this sector of the world. But I believe the creed was just as much as a political tool as it was a religious one - something to not only to define the faith but to exclude those pesky 'pagan', mystic lot masquerading as Christians.
-
NS, we are talking about something that in all probability doesn't exist so it is all based on a hypothetical definition of a deity which is idealistic i.e. they are fully competent, besides other traits and characteristics. Anything less than being perfect would discount them as being deities.
But whose hypothetical definition? Why is your idealistic one, what should be taken as definitive? What does 'perfect' mean?
-
But whose hypothetical definition? Why is your idealistic one, what should be taken as definitive? What does 'perfect' mean?
Perfect means perfect.
Idealistic means idealistic.
Definitive means definitive.
So a prospective deity that is a bumbling fool and understands nothing would be deity? I think we could agree on some superlative characteristics of a hypothetical deity, can we not?
-
Perfect means perfect.
Idealistic means idealistic.
Definitive means definitive.
So a prospective deity that is a bumbling fool and understands nothing would be deity? I think we could agree on some superlative characteristics of a hypothetical deity, can we not?
anthrax means auiop
-
Perfect means perfect.
Idealistic means idealistic.
Definitive means definitive.
So a prospective deity that is a bumbling fool and understands nothing would be deity? I think we could agree on some superlative characteristics of a hypothetical deity, can we not?
Even if we agreed on the definition of terms like 'perfect' there seems no way to be even reasonably sure our definition was in any sense objective.
Then there is the problem of testing this definition against the characteristics of a deity, which requires a method to determine these characteristics in whichever deity we decide to study (assuming it agrees to be studied) and compare them to our 'perfection' standard: so we need a divine volunteer. Even then there is a problem, since if the compliant volunteer doesn't measure up then we'd have an imperfect deity, which sounds like a problem unless another is conveniently to hand - if not I suppose we could do some spin and redefine 'perfect' so that it fits what we think we have, but I can't imagine we'd get away with that since we'd be accused of being biased.
Doesn't sound like a very promising venture: nothing worse than risking getting the result you don't want (it would the theological equivalent of Brexit and Trump combined). Best not bother, which means of course that we're back to guessing and asserting!
-
NS,
anthrax means auiop
Ah, but Brexit means Brexit.
-
With regards to your last paragraph I would have thought 'succinct' was very western and 'scientific' which in my books would refer to the psychological ethos of this sector of the world. But I believe the creed was just as much as a political tool as it was a religious one - something to not only to define the faith but to exclude those pesky 'pagan', mystic lot masquerading as Christians.
The creed and the other main topic of the Great Schism certainly had immense political consequences. But sometimes it appeals to my sense of humour - as when the heads of either faction excommunicated each other.
-
Perfect means perfect.
Idealistic means idealistic.
Definitive means definitive.
So a prospective deity that is a bumbling fool and understands nothing would be deity? I think we could agree on some superlative characteristics of a hypothetical deity, can we not?
'Deity' is a very indefinite word - and the Christians themselves have always found it difficult to come up with a satisfactory definition of their own (hence the tradition of apophatic mysticism). Likewise, Buddhists talk of Nirvana etc in negatives.
However, you seem to want a definition which derives directly from the Christian God of the 'omnis'. And yet most literate people are happy to refer the Greek gods of Homer in less than superlative terms - indeed that is the way that Homer depicts them, not least Zeus, the most powerful of all. Likewise the many gods of Hinduism*. Not bumbling fools, but certainly not omniscient.
*This would seem to apply to the Godhead Brahman himself:
"Only that God in highest heaven knows these things. Or perhaps he knows not."
from the Rig Veda, I think.
-
There are also contemporary attempts to describe a God who is less than all-powerful. For example, 'weak theology' speaks for itself, and I think process theology also portrays a God, who is less able than omnipotent. Also, I wonder how many Christians really expect God to cure all cancers or stop earthquakes? They tend to accept a world without miracles.
Another point is that weak theology is quite ancient, in the sense that Christians have often said that God is found in vulnerability and humiliation, not in strength and power. For example, there is the view that the career of Jesus is totally shambolic. Your mileage may vary.
-
wigginhall: ...I wonder how many Christians really expect God to cure all cancers or stop earthquakes? They tend to accept a world without miracles.
Yes we do; we don't look for, and are not impressed by, signs and wonders.
We tend to pray that we can cope with, and get some help to either bear or somewhat relieve a difficult situation.
-
wigginhall: ...I wonder how many Christians really expect God to cure all cancers or stop earthquakes? They tend to accept a world without miracles.
Yes we do; we don't look for, and are not impressed by, signs and wonders.
We tend to pray that we can cope with, and get some help to either bear or somewhat relieve a difficult situation.
Alan Burns thinks finding his contact lens is a miracle. Sassy cursed a fruit farmer. Hope is always on about miracles.
-
Wiggs,
There are also contemporary attempts to describe a God who is less than all-powerful. For example, 'weak theology' speaks for itself, and I think process theology also portrays a God, who is less able than omnipotent. Also, I wonder how many Christians really expect God to cure all cancers or stop earthquakes? They tend to accept a world without miracles.
Another point is that weak theology is quite ancient, in the sense that Christians have often said that God is found in vulnerability and humiliation, not in strength and power. For example, there is the view that the career of Jesus is totally shambolic. Your mileage may vary.
That’s interesting – it seems to me that, as soon as you posit a god of the omnis, all sorts of logical contradictions ensue. Possibly the problem is that Christians overreach – maybe they’d be on safer ground positing a God powerful enough to start a universe but no more, knowledgeable enough to know a lot of things but unencumbered by the problem of unknown unknowns, good enough to bring his own son back from the dead but not so fussed about other people’s children swept away by tsunamis etc.
There’d still be no cogent logic for his existence in the first place, but at least the more obvious arguments that falsify the “all the omnis” version would be swept away.
Any takers here?
-
Even if we agreed on the definition of terms like 'perfect' there seems no way to be even reasonably sure our definition was in any sense objective.
Then there is the problem of testing this definition against the characteristics of a deity, which requires a method to determine these characteristics in whichever deity we decide to study (assuming it agrees to be studied) and compare them to our 'perfection' standard: so we need a divine volunteer. Even then there is a problem, since if the compliant volunteer doesn't measure up then we'd have an imperfect deity, which sounds like a problem unless another is conveniently to hand - if not I suppose we could do some spin and redefine 'perfect' so that it fits what we think we have, but I can't imagine we'd get away with that since we'd be accused of being biased.
Doesn't sound like a very promising venture: nothing worse than risking getting the result you don't want (it would the theological equivalent of Brexit and Trump combined). Best not bother, which means of course that we're back to guessing and asserting!
All this trouble just because NS has nothing better to do than throw spanners; or golden sickles, into the works. >:(
-
Alan Burns thinks finding his contact lens is a miracle. Sassy cursed a fruit farmer. Hope is always on about miracles.
;D ;D
Dunno about Alan, didn't Sassy curse the fruit and not the fruiterer?
Regarding miracles, one can look back and think there have been miracles in life but they wouldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny; they are still miraculous to the person concerned.
-
;D ;D
Dunno about Alan, didn't Sassy curse the fruit and not the fruiterer?
Whatever was cursed, the crops fsiled and the farmer went out of business i believe.
A good result all around?
-
Wiggs,
That’s interesting – it seems to me that, as soon as you posit a god of the omnis, all sorts of logical contradictions ensue. Possibly the problem is that Christians overreach – maybe they’d be on safer ground positing a God powerful enough to start a universe but no more, knowledgeable enough to know a lot of things but unencumbered by the problem of unknown unknowns, good enough to bring his own son back from the dead but not so fussed about other people’s children swept away by tsunamis etc.
There’d still be no cogent logic for his existence in the first place, but at least the more obvious arguments that falsify the “all the omnis” version would be swept away.
Any takers here?
They couldn't do that else their God would become just another pagan god. It's all about one upmanship.
-
Whatever was cursed, the crops fsiled and the farmer went out of business i believe.
A good result all around?
Depends how well he was insured. Is it a true story or an anecdote? I don't believe any of us have that power, the crops would have failed anyway.
(I won't ask why the strawberries were cursed, I vaguely remember the post but not the details.)
-
JK,
They couldn't do that else their God would become just another pagan god. It's all about one upmanship.
I know it is, but why overreach? Why not settle for "my god is bigger than your god" and dispense with the superlatives and absolutes that so undermine your assertions?
-
rownie,
Depends how well he was insured. Is it a true story or an anecdote? I don't believe any of us have that power, the crops would have failed anyway.
(I won't ask why the strawberries were cursed, I vaguely remember the post but not the details.)
Your memory is letting you down - they weren't "cursed", they were crushed...
...with a sweetened basil vinaigrette sauce, pink pepper shortbread and a bitter chocolate bavois I believe.
-
I think the 'weak' God is tacitly accepted by some Christians, since they don't really think that God will suddenly cure everybody in the local hospital. I suppose you get a nominal kind of belief in the all-powerful, but pragmatically, well, no.
As to the implications of this for Christian belief, I have no idea. It might become a kind of kindly ethics, with carols. It might wither away. And of course, you will get the swing to the opposite, I mean, the nutty stuff that God does cause earthquakes because of the gays, or something.
Process theology has been fairly influential, started by Alfred North Whitehead, and latterly Charles Hartshorne. God, this stuff is boring.
-
I think the 'weak' God is tacitly accepted by some Christians, since they don't really think that God will suddenly cure everybody in the local hospital. I suppose you get a nominal kind of belief in the all-powerful, but pragmatically, well, no.
As to the implications of this for Christian belief, I have no idea. It might become a kind of kindly ethics, with carols. It might wither away. And of course, you will get the swing to the opposite, I mean, the nutty stuff that God does cause earthquakes because of the gays, or something.
Process theology has been fairly influential, started by Alfred North Whitehead, and latterly Charles Hartshorne. God, this stuff is boring.
You have to love the nutty stuff though. The idea that god gets upset and causes some mpnatutal disaster that kills innocent third parties as some massive temper tantrum is stonkingly laughable. Imagine worshipping a giant toddler.
-
NS,
You have to love the nutty stuff though. The idea that god gets upset and causes some mpnatutal disaster that kills innocent third parties as some massive temper tantrum is stonkingly laughable. Imagine worshipping a giant toddler.
"Toddlerism" - I like that. The god of the literalist Christians does seem to be an awful petulant one doesn't he.
-
You have to love the nutty stuff though. The idea that god gets upset and causes some mpnatutal disaster that kills innocent third parties as some massive temper tantrum is stonkingly laughable. Imagine worshipping a giant toddler.
Except that in the US, these people probably feel emboldened by Trump, and may start to try to reverse pro-gay legislation and also pro-trans. I think the VP is a 'cure the gays' man, isn't he?
-
Except that in the US, these people probably feel emboldened by Trump, and may start to try to reverse pro-gay legislation and also pro-trans. I think the VP is a 'cure the gays' man, isn't he?
Yes, that part of it is scary. Also a creationist, thinks evolution is 'just a theory'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikax0Y0NJsY
-
NS,
"Toddlerism" - I like that. The god of the literalist Christians does seem to be an awful petulant one doesn't he.
Petulant and inaccurate with natural disasters. Honestly, one place allows gay marriage, and the toys just get thrown out of the pram.
-
Yes, that part of it is scary. Also a creationist, thinks evolution is 'just a theory'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikax0Y0NJsY
Aaaaaargh!!
-
As the emergent proto-orthodox Christianity began to be consolidated, it soon started to attack pagan belief systems as part of its campaign to assert that it alone possessed the truth. This continued throughout history in its notorious 'witch-hunts'. The reason for this, I suggest, was in part because it recognised that so much of its own belief system was so similar to these pagan beliefs - so much so in fact that it had to suggest that these similarites were the deceptions of the Devil, prepared well in advance of the advent of Jesus..
Hmmm!
Attack - I'm not sure that attack is quite the right word to cover all eventualities.
The veneration of the Virgin is seen by some as ploy to cover the pagan beliefs that held that it was necessary for there to both male and female deities just as it was necessary to have male and female humans and animals, one without the other was sterile non-reproducing system.
As to the deceptions of the Devil, prepared well in advance of the advent of Jesus..
part of my early lessons in pagan belief did contain comments on the subject of other, pagan, deities whose lives bore a similarity to Christ's, were instances of reverse plagiariism by the Devil. More than a few pagans believe that the reverse is true, that it was the Christins who committed the plagiarism.
I am not going to comment on the matter of the connection with the 'witch-hunts' as there are more theories and explanations for those incidents than you can poke a stick at and discussions on the period and its causes have seen more academic research and non-academic bollocks than enough - but it would appear that religion was only part of the cause, economics, weather, politics and social structure were all involved.
-
Hmmm!
Attack - I'm not sure that attack is quite the right word to cover all eventualities.
The veneration of the Virgin is seen by some as ploy to cover the pagan beliefs that held that it was necessary for there to both male and female deities just as it was necessary to have male and female humans and animals, one without the other was sterile non-reproducing system.
As to the part of my early lessons in pagan belief did contain comments on the subject of other, pagan, deities whose lives bore a similarity to Christ's, were instances of reverse plagiariism by the Devil. More than a few pagans believe that the reverse is true, that it was the Christins who committed the plagiarism.
I am not going to comment on the matter of the connection with the 'witch-hunts' as there are more theories and explanations for those incidents than you can poke a stick at and discussions on the period and its causes have seen more academic research and non-academic bollocks than enough - but it would appear that religion was only part of the cause, economics, weather, politics and social structure were all involved.
Hmmm?
Not too sure that you actually refute what Dicky says in all that. What I gather that he is saying is that essentially, except for some veneer, Christianity is pagan at its root and so any pagan groups would hit a nerve with them, even if it was only intuitively felt, causing them to react against it.
As for the Virgin Mary, if Christianity is pagan in nature then, yes, eventually the feminine side of Christianity would stain through and show its face.
-
Hmmm?
Not too sure that you actually refute what Dicky says in all that. What I gather that he is saying is that essentially, except for some veneer, Christianity is pagan at its root and so any pagan groups would hit a nerve with them, even if it was only intuitively felt, causing them to react against it.
As for the Virgin Mary, if Christianity is pagan in nature then, yes, eventually the feminine side of Christianity would stain through and show its face.
I was not trying to refute anything.
Just a comment.
I have spent fr too much time trying to defend my beliefs on this forum nd being slagged off as stupid, ignorant, ill-read, anti-Christian (I am not anti-Christian the religion - I AM antiChristian people who . . . ) - - - Oh f**k it, I reall cannot be bothered to keep defending my beliefs against those who insist that there is no defence . . .
A BLESSED YULE TO ALL who are prepared to acknowledge that Yule pre-dates Chriistmas the fake birthdate of Jesus!
-
I doubt many Christians actually believe Jesus was born on December 25th.
-
A BLESSED YULE TO ALL who are prepared to acknowledge that Yule pre-dates Chriistmas the fake birthdate of Jesus!
.........And long may your axe grind.
-
.........And long may your axe grind.
......and lum reek.
-
I was not trying to refute anything.
Just a comment.
I have spent fr too much time trying to defend my beliefs on this forum nd being slagged off as stupid, ignorant, ill-read, anti-Christian (I am not anti-Christian the religion - I AM antiChristian people who . . . ) - - - Oh f**k it, I reall cannot be bothered to keep defending my beliefs against those who insist that there is no defence . . .
A BLESSED YULE TO ALL who are prepared to acknowledge that Yule pre-dates Chriistmas the fake birthdate of Jesus!
A blessed Yule to you, Owlswing.
-
I was not trying to refute anything.
Just a comment.
I have spent fr too much time trying to defend my beliefs on this forum nd being slagged off as stupid, ignorant, ill-read, anti-Christian (I am not anti-Christian the religion - I AM antiChristian people who . . . ) - - - Oh f**k it, I reall cannot be bothered to keep defending my beliefs against those who insist that there is no defence . . .
Hasn't the worst offender been banned? You know, the one who was a fan of the Archbish of Canterbury, but liked to denigrate pagans for wearing robes and pointy hats? The irony of it.
-
As to the part of my early lessons in pagan belief did contain comments on the subject of other, pagan, deities whose lives bore a similarity to Christ's, were instances of reverse plagiariism by the Devil. More than a few pagans believe that the reverse is true, that it was the Christins who committed the plagiarism.
Which was largely what I was saying - or more specifically, that one strong theme (the Pauline one) in Christianity had common roots with 'paganism'.
I am not going to comment on the matter of the connection with the 'witch-hunts' as there are more theories and explanations for those incidents than you can poke a stick at
The presence of horrific witch-hunts is well attested in certain instances. The more controversial matter is the question of the number of 'witches' who were actually burned (rather few, I'd say). Other punishments were available....
Opposite me in Portishead library at this moment is a worthy-looking tome entitled "The British Witch - the biography". I feel paranormal vibrations drawing me to it.
-
The presence of horrific witch-hunts is well attested in certain instances. The more controversial matter is the question of the number of 'witches' who were actually burned (rather few, I'd say). Other punishments were available....
Opposite me in Portishead library at this moment is a worthy-looking tome entitled "The British Witch - the biography". I feel paranormal vibrations drawing me to it.
Take care Friend D U!
The generally accepted figure, by legitimate historians, and not pagan axe-grinders (like Gerald Gardner), for the number of executed witches between 1430 and 1630 peaks at around 90,000 worldwide, but this is a movable feast as more and more records of the trials and their upshot come into the public domain from such places as the Vatican and the more remote parts of Catholic (during the relevant period) Europe and legal archives are opened for the scrutiny of historians and those already available are re-examined.
The vast majority of these were burned. Kramer and Spengler, inquisitors in Germany, convinced the Pope to allow witches to be charged with heresy where they were proved to, or admitted to, having made a pact with the Devil to receive their powers and thus attracting the sentence of burning at the stake.
As far as I have been able to ascertain only one witch was burned in England, and she post-mortem, because, as above, burning was the Catholic punishment and England at the time was Protestant and had no crime of heresy.