To think it isn't 'choccy egg day'

[lisaIambe]

Overheard in supermarket this morning. Mum happily telling moaning DC that if they didn't stop the choccy egg bunny won't bring them anything for choccy egg day.

I know not everyone is religious. But given the name 'Easter' isn't exactly loaded with religious connotations, AIBU to think renaming Easter 'choccy egg day' is just ridiculous?

I am sure someone will tell me to get over it and it's some pagan ritual whereby we all stuffed ourselves silly with chocolate etc.

Actually no. Pagans painted the eggs. It's where the egg decorating thing came from.

As you all were.

It is, however, preferable to hearing a woman refer to a certain fictional character as 'Winnie the Shit.'

"BetrandRussell 'more probable than not' in terms of expressing certainty of an historical event is actually pretty good!"

Doesn't really go with "lots of historical evidence" and "astonishing amounts of written records" and "most historians agree" .....

But, as I say, it doesn't matter. Just don't like seeing puddings over egged, to coin a phrase.

I'm not sure exactly what age explaining about crucifixion, rising from the dead and being killed because your friend dobbed you in and it was part of your Dad's plan is appropriate.

'Choccy' sounds terrible. Chocolate Egg Sunday. Fine.

Bertrand That phrase 'more probable than not' summarises countless hours of research into the subject and the consensus opinion. The position you are taking is a bit like the people who won't accept that climate change exists.

NewUserNameHere
Some people believe that Jesus was special and that thousands of years ago prophets said he would die and rise from the dead. Christians believe that after teaching lots about God, Pontius Piloy ordered for him to be killed. Christians believe jesus died on a cross and then came back to life. They remember these events on Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

Even within our church we dont go into tne crucitifiction until children are older. Same with the dying for sin etc. Theres so many different theologial perspectives that we explore different views with our youth group.

Its about explaining the faith based history kf the festival in age appropriate ways. Im a Christian and would be furious if somebody went into graphic detail of the crucifixion with my young children (when they turn up!).

No, because virtually all scientists agree on climate change. Virtually all historians do not agree on the historicity of Jesus. I agree that the chances are he did. But it is very wrong to suggest there is more to support the case than there is.

MaisyPops

Yes. I understand.

I'm often a little confused when people say that genesis isn't a literal story ie. they believe in dinosaurs and that the world is older than 6,000 years) but that Jesus died because of the metaphor in the old testament. Remember, that's where evil came from because until that pesky Eve at the fruit, there was no evil.

What is faith based history? Considering that faith is the denial of evidence to keep your ideas afloat, faith-based history seems a little oxymoronic.

At what age do you go into detail about the really horrific parts of the bible (marrying your rapist (I've always wondered if Mary was actually a rape victim), infanticide, chosen people, misogyny, bigotry, racism, crucifixion etc)? I'm all for age-appropriateness but, without going after those needing a crutch or the young and easily influenced, the whole religious thing would have died out years ago as opposed to being on its last legs now. It seems a bit of a con to keep the disgusting or controversial bits back before springing them on people when they're old enough to take it having lulled them in with pictures of shepherds and feeding of the 5,000.

I hope this doesn't sound too combative, but I'd like to know your perspective.

I find the idea of "Chocolate Egg Sunday" crass and ignorant. Children need to know about their cultural traditions. Our Easter is much more Easter bunny than Christus Resurrexit, but I would be ashamed to raise children who did not know why the day exists.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of Jesus. None. And for the central figure of what has been a major religion for over a millenia and a half that makes it exceedingly unlikely that he actually existed as a human man.

The overwhelming majority of historians do agree he existed Bertrand. I find your position on this absolutely baffling

Fair enough. Seems clear enough to me. But the historical existence of Jesus is just of academic interest to me. I have no "skin in the game", as they say.

"There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of Jesus. None. "

That's not actually true.

but I would be ashamed to raise children who did not know why the day exists.

But the day doesn't exist because of Jesus. It exists because humans living in the seasonal northern hemisphere have been celebrating the changing seasons since they evolved beyond basic sentience. Eggs have been an important part of that celebration in European, Persian, other middle eastern and Chinese spring celebrations for as far back as we know.

Now personally I'll be ashamed if my son doesn't grow up with that knowledge because I know it and it's important, interesting information that helps us understand both the human condition, the importance of celebrations and how the world has worked on a pseudo-scientific and political level. Plus there is absolutely an interesting insight into cognitive dissonance when it comes to how many people accept religion. I very much plan to raise my son as an informed critical thinker and I know that a deep understanding of our history would help with that. Just teaching him the Christian story would be counter-productive to true education.

That's not actually true.

Yes it is. There are no primary sources of his existence. No contemporary reports of his acts. From a time and place which actually has comparatively good records still in existence. There are no verified secondary reports either. The nearest we have to 'proof' of his existence are tertiary accounts written at least 40 years after his death. That's not historical evidence by any definition of the word evidence. And that's quite unusual. We can't say he absolutely didn't exist but it's extremely unlikely.

We have "Easter" in branches of orthodoxy untouched by those regions, though. We call it pascha, which comes from Jewish Passover. We always celebrated it, the Romans just added in the pagan link.

springers I think you've been reading the atheist fake news.

NewUserNameHere
I meant the faith based history of easter as in Easter is historically a Christian (before that pagan) celebration so people removing/denying that rlement of the festival are wrong.

Certainly in more conservative theological churches they do take it very literally. I cant get on with that.

For me, the more I study it the more I find that things are a lot more complicated. E.g. genesis itself has contradictions. My vicar did a great talk about how it works better as an allegory when you sit it alongside other historical events and records of early faith.
The Old Testament to me is rooted in a particular age of history. Other rules in it are about where curtains have to be places in temples and that kids should be physically punnished for being rude to their parents.
I find a desire for certainty unhelpful (both people who are certain its wrong and people who are certain their religion is right). To me, it removes the faith element.

I think society has been awful over years (old testament being an example) and still has awful things happening. I think that people's desire to be certain and then inpose their religion on others has caused a great deal of evil. Claims of certainty lead to people making bold claims.
For me, it comes down to 'do i believe God's existence is more or less likely' and I think it is more likely. Then from that I view religions as pathways to God. I believe that Christianity makes sense but The more I study and read, the more I'm comfortable with doubt and tensions and theological questions.

but I would be ashamed to raise children who did not know why the day exists

Why on earth should they be ashamed?

My children go to a school where the Rev pays regular visits. They're also taught about other different religions and festivals throughout the year which means they're well informed on everything. They do all this with the Revs blessing.

The actual reasoning behind it IS a Pagan festival, bit like Christmas, ever wondered what yule logs have to do with Jesus being born for instance? Christians shouting it down won't make it any less true. Both seasons are important to christians. Both seasons are important to pagans. They were lumped in together.

Isn't it lovely that we live in a country where we have freedom ot worship or not, as the case may be. Certainly neither are nothing to be ashamed of.

"but I would be ashamed to raise children who did not know why the day exists

Why on earth should they be ashamed? confused "

Maybe read again?

But an allegory for what @MaisyPops ?
Where are the hidden messages in, to take 3 examples,

• If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

• Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything

• and i will make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters and all shall eat the flesh of their neighbours in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.

The first two seem pretty clear cut. The third is just pretty fucking terrifying. How do they work better as allegories when alongside other historical events? What historical events make these any nicer?*
The thing I really don't understand are those who say that parts of the bible are allegorical and others are the word of the lord. In fact, there's the bit you have to mumble in Catholic services about "this is the word of the lord...".

As a metaphor or allegory, the bible is a justification for being a truly evil person but at least you have the courage of your convictions. If you are to pick and choose as to what is a metaphor and what isn't then you do need to be the Pope (God's rep. and all that) to know which is which. Picking and choosing which to believe and which to cast aside strikes me as nonsensical and hypocritical.

As I asked earlier in this post, what are those truly terrible passages allegories for and how do you think following the bible but ignoring the bad bits is any kind of way to live your life?

When science directly contradicts the bible then how is it okay to say "yes, I'll give you that one but the rest is true / a metaphor.

Thanks for answering and taking my post in the way it was meant. ]smile]

*lets not forget that there's no shred of evidence that anything of historical significance that the bible said occurred actually did. From geological studies disproving the parting of the sea to paleontologists showing that dinosaurs aren't a satanic conspiracy.

Genesis creation story is allegorical. Vicar went into lots on religion at that time how jt fits in with that etc. Rest of the old testament is culturally bound in my opinion.
There was a point in time where it was acceptable for girls to be married young and slavery was accepted. We wouldnt say thats ok now, quite rightly.
My vicar did a lot of his studies on history at the time various parts of the bible were written and i found him very interesting to talk to on it. He reflective and nuanced in his approach. It was always interesting when more literal conservative christians would start slinging all kinds at him and he's very calmly talk about "well if you look at the aramaic its this word which has been translated djfferently in 3 versions". He taught me a lot about the value of word for word translations and message translations of the bible.

I have issues with people using isolated moments if scripture to justify homophobias as much as i have issues with peoplr taking examples that suit to prove how awful religion is. Its like convicted athiests and conservative religious folk both seem to love slinging scripture about like its a point scoring exercise.
Both are far too simplistic in my view and both are more about hitting out at others than they are about study and reflection.

As I've said, the more I study and the more I read, the more I feel comfortbale with doubt and having questions to mull over and the more I reserve judgement on anyone who claims they have the full claim on truth.
What annoys me is that taking this more reflective approach often means liberal Christians get attacked by militant athiests for lacking conviction and attacked by radical christians for being too 'of the world'. Both sides are more focused on themselves being'right'

There was a point in time where it was acceptable for girls to be married young and slavery was accepted.

Don't forget the rape and infanticide and sexism and homophobia incest. Are those allegorical? It's a shame your omnipotent god wasn't a little more forward thinking. I'm also still waiting to hear what allegories are supposedly there in the abhorrent parts of the bible.

What annoys me is that taking this more reflective approach often means liberal Christians get attacked by militant athiests for lacking conviction and attacked by radical christians for being too 'of the world'. Both sides are more focused on themselves being 'right'

Yes and no. I would rather you lack conviction than go on another crusade or inquisition but both groups are wrong in their own way.

The thing is, I have no doubt or questions because with every mystery, how many answers have pointed to there being some form of deity? Zero. Every mystery that was ever solved has been due to science.

You still haven't attempted to answert how the truly terrible passages (and there are many) of the bible are allegorical or metaphorical and how we decide which are which.Is it when something can no longer be argued against due to overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you say that it was not supposed to be taken literally, but the rest was?

It's a shame your omnipotent god wasn't a little more forward thinking. I'm also still waiting to hear what allegories are supposedly there in the abhorrent parts of the bible.
I outlined Genesis creation as an allegory.
I have stated that parts of the old testament outline awful things and that i feel they are of a certain time.
You keep asking me to say that those things are allegory. I dont think they are. I think they are the beliefs and actions of people and they were wrong.

You have now strayed into classic militant athiesm of 'ive given you individual moments and when you wont get into an argument I'll just start making sarcastic comments'

At that point, I do the same with athiests who like to ridicule as i do with fundamentalist Christians who think their narrow view of the bible is the whole truth: stop engaging because both groups are too concerned with them being right and everyone else being wrong.

I think issues of faith and theology are much more nuanced than that.You tend not to get quiet atheists, agnostics and liberal religious people acting in such confrontational ways.

There was a point in time where it was acceptable for girls to be married young and slavery was accepted. We wouldnt say thats ok now, quite rightly.

Exactly MaisyPops. Wasn't Sarah quite young when Jacob had his way with her?