Light sensors cause religious row

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

onagar: Leviticus was probably comprised of various texts and re-writings - exactly how many and when depends on your point of view, but it's all around 1400-500 BC. No later than 500 BC. That period was I think the late Bronze age in England (according to Wikipedia!).

Weird really innit?

Poppity, that old argument of religion causing wars eh? Hated and segregation have been around since time began. People don't need religion, it just provides a convenient excuse. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else.

Mumsnet is a classic example of how religion works. You have the Spiritual threads were religious people discuss the Bible and none-believers are very welcome, but we don't stray into other threads, it's all kept out of the way. And you have the prayer threads, again you can choose to have a look them if you want, but no-one is forcing you to.

These threads are invariably started by non-believers, a good debate ensues, but I have never witnessed any religious folk trying to convert non-believers. On the contrary though, I have witnessed some non-believers being very rude and patronising to religious folk.

Non-believers like UQD are the epitome of politeness, let's face it, most are. But you do get the odd bunch who like to throw their weight around.

To me, evidence of God is just as present as evidence of a Big Bang. I know I have a very inaccurate view of this particular theory, so apologies if it's too simplistic:

Some matter and anti-matter, that came from somewhere no-one knows, exploded and created gases, chemicals, solids and so on, again no-one quite knows how this happened. This started a chain reaction that led to the Universe and ultimately, to Earth being created. Now the earth, by a series of extraordinary coincidences, manages to have the basics for life. Considering the vastness of the Universe and probability this may be likely. Then life begins to form on the earth, in very basic stages. Not only did life appear, but it evolved, how this happened, no-one knows. Evolution - mutations that were advantageous survived, how did these mutations occur? Yes, we have millions of years to play about with, but evolution is still happening, it's wonderful to observe, but how does it work? How did it get to this stage of complications? All these coincidences, these rare occurences, odd changes, all these things continuously coming together. It's pretty amazing!

So yes, you can argue that it's all scientific, but there is still an air of mystery about science. It doesn't provide all the answers. Nor does religion. It's just another theory. Our evidence is in the Bible, but not just in the Bible, but in faith too. Personal experiences. This is where we are accused of mental instability, or delusions.

There was a huge uprising in Jerusalem not long after Christ died and many writings about him were lost. Some survived. Peter almost certainly wrote about Christ, in his letters and so on. The NT are taken from personal accounts, from these letters and from other transcripts that are now lost. JC wasn't only mentioned in the NT, he was mentioned by Romans and writers at the time.

He did amend the OT. When talking about marriage, JC seems to undermine Moses by saying that Moses wrote what he did for the people at that time, but that was no longer relevant then. Also he had a go at all the rituals the OT said the Jews had to do, like not working on the Sabbath:

"Jesus was walking through some wheat fields on the Sabbath. ( Saturday, The Jewish Day Of Rest ) His disciples felt hungry, so they began to pick the heads of wheat, rub them in their hands, and eat the grain. There were some Pharisees who were watching this and they said to Jesus, "Why are your disciples doing what our Law says you cannot do on the Sabbath?"

Jesus answered them, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his men were hungry? He went into the house of God, took the bread offered to God, ate it, and gave it to his men to eat. Yet it is against our Law for anyone except the priest to eat that bread."

Jesus continued, "Or have you not read in the Law of Moses that every Sabbath the priest in the Temple actually break the Sabbath law, yet they are not guilty?" AUTHOR'S NOTE: Jesus refers to the Old Testament Law found in the Book of Numbers, Chapter 28, Verses 9-10. The priests were not preparing the lambs for sacrifice the way it was prescribed in the Law.

Jesus continued, "I tell you that there is something here greater than the Temple. The scripture says,

'It is mercy that I want, not animal sacrifices.'
( Book of Hosea, Chapter 6, Verse 6 and 1st Samuel, Chapter 15, Verse 22 )

He continually chastises his disciples and others for taking the OT too literally.

When JC turned up, the Jews were bitterly disappointed. They were expecting a great warrior who would free them from the Romans, much like Moses freed the Israelites from the Egyptians. But JC was the complete opposite. This 'eye for an eye' ruling of the OT he rubbished, telling people that they must love their enemies and turn the other cheek. He wasn't a popular man and many turned against him. Yet his learning and wisdom were undisputed - where did he get that from? JC was a revoluntionary, just not the one the Jews wanted.

If you really knew what this means, you would not condemn people who are not guilty;

Whoa! That could be the longest post I've ever written on Mumsnet!

Could have done with proof-reading however.

It is very clear that Olympede has a thorough grounding in theology that's far and away better than mine and I've learnt a lot here. Buuut, an intensely and carefully considered theological view of the strengths and weaknesses of the Bible as an ancient text (fascinating as it is) is an awfully long way from what I've seen of many Christian's view of it.

Earlier Olympede opined that hardly anyone views the Bible as the literal word of God (contrasted with many muslims and the Qu'ran) but that really isn't my experience.

Sure, a lot of Christians do see the Bible as maybe inspired by God but not a word-for-word extended quotation. But, equally, a lot do and I've met very few of those who have any sound idea of the historical context, the socio-political events that surrounded and shaped it, or the culture of the peoples who were around while it was still an oral history. They believe that the King James Bible (or whichever is their preferred version) is a printed copy of God's Own Words and that He wouldn't have allowed it to be printed if it contained falsehoods or anything that erred from His desires.

So, sure, I find the historical context of the Bible absolutely fascinating, particularly how its constituent parts were selected, translated and edited over the centuries to suit particular views and ambitions. I'm more than willing to accept that what's in the Bible these days is subtly (and sometimes grossly) different from many of the original source texts. But a lot of people see the Bible as infallible, and view any hint that it's not God's True Word as a heretical suggestion.

Snorbs, unfortunately there are stupid people everywhere. JC does try his best in the NT to put the OT into context. But there are people, like my mother, who are devoid of intelligence and will believe that Jonah was literally swallowed by a whale, that the Tower of Babel actually happened and that Noah built an ark and took 2by2 of every animal.

But none of those people are on this thread, thankfully!

My Born Again sister believes in the literal truth of the Bible. I try not to discuss it too much with her, because she thinks I'm a Seeker.

Blimey, I've put the children to bed and feel quite shaken by some of the posts here. Poppity, I have put others down nastily? Please tell me where. I have implied you are a less rounded person? Gobsmacked again.

Lucia, I didn't say 'In Bible Days' it was part of a rather tongue in cheek quote from a rather gay rights website about the bible i quoted from. I think they could see the irony of the comment.

Will leave this thread now.

Rhubarb, I do agree with the first part of your post. I think Beastie said earlier in the discussion that we would just find something else to argue about, and I agreed with her then. I did not say religion caused wars, but that it was named in many World problems. I think we could end up with one of those, 'it is not the gun that kills but the person who fires it' arguments there. You are right, something else would no doubt take the place of religion, but at present religion fills that role.

Human nature is of course the cause. Is it not conceivable then, that human nature creates a desire for something divine to exist? I'm not putting that very well. What I mean to say is, do you not think it is possible that the need for spirituality creates the possibility of faith in a divine being? Hmmm, I'll try again with that later, I'm not really saying what I mean there.

The big bang is a theory, and as far as I in my limited understanding, am aware, a regularly scientifically challenged one. With minds open and welcoming of new possibilities.

You said 'but I have never witnessed any religious folk trying to convert non-believers. On the contrary though, I have witnessed some non-believers being very rude and patronising to religious folk'

You may not have witnessed it, I however have experienced it, and it has been implied in this thread that non believers miss out. I find it ironic that is not valid enough for you!

One last thing, Lucia is a historian so obviusly has better historical knowledge than me. I fail to see how that contradicts my explanation of the said quote, but Lucia feel free to explain further.

Thanks for the leviticus date. Back again later on (barring acts of god )

and thanks for you kind post growingup but I'm very rusty on my theology partcularly surrounded by screaming darling children!

Rhubarb: "There was a huge uprising in Jerusalem not long after Christ died and many writings about him were lost. Some survived. Peter almost certainly wrote about Christ, in his letters and so on. The NT are taken from personal accounts, from these letters and from other transcripts that are now lost. JC wasn't only mentioned in the NT, he was mentioned by Romans and writers at the time."

Yes, that uprising was known as the First Jewish-Roman War of 66-71 CE [that's about 30 years after he was executed for sedition against Rome]. Note, the epistles of Peter are pseudonymous and reflect a much later picture of the early Christian Church. There is no way that a Galilean peasant fisherman could have written such highly developed Christological texts, particularly as these were written in Greek - a language that was most certainly unknown to a Galilean peasant [insofar as its written form is concerned]. His language would have been Aramaic and Galilee was the least Hellenized area of what is now termed Palestine.

Jesus of Nazareth is not mentioned by Roman writers at the time!

In point of fact, there is no extant 1st century historical source that provides any confirmation of the New Testament narratives regarding the life and activities of Jesus of Nazareth. This lack of corroborative evidence is indeed quite puzzling when the canonical Gospels amply provide so many allegedly amazing and highly detailed accounts.

The so-called "Testimonium Flavianum" of Josephus, is generally considered to be spurious and in all probability represents a later Christian redaction or interpolation of this historian's original narrative. The passage found in book XVIII 63-64 of the "Jewish Antiquities" and apparently referring to Jesus, cannot as it stands have been written by Josephus himself. He was a pious, practising Jew with no partiality for prophets wonder-workers, popular preachers, or self proclaimed messianic agitators.

"About this time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

It may be conjectured what, if anything, stood originally in place of this passage, who altered it when and from what motives. There have been many learned and ingenious guesses.

The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (c.55-120 CE) actually makes no reference to "Jesus" but to "Christus," which is the Latin form of the Greek translation of the Jewish politico-religious title messiah. Furthermore, Christianity is described as "exitiabilis superstitio" (deadly superstition) not as "religio" (religion). The inherent difference between these two Latin terms had important contemporary legal and social significance.

Tacitus is here providing confirmation of the execution of Christ during the reign of Tiberius, by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus. The text does not mention any "founder of Christianity" but merely makes reference to the originator (author) of the (Christian) name, "auctor nominis eius Christus." The more precise Latin word "conditor" (founder) is not employed. Foundational and eponymous are not by any means one and the same thing.

morningpaper: "Leviticus was probably comprised of various texts and re-writings - exactly how many and when depends on your point of view, but it's all around 1400-500 BC. No later than 500 BC. That period was I think the late Bronze age in England (according to Wikipedia!)"

It doesn't depend "on your point of view" it depends on the literary/textual assessment and supporting historical and archaeological evidence.

By the way 500 BCE in Britain was most definitely the Iron Age. Celtic tribes had arrived in Britain from the Continent and brought an iron using culture. Like so many periods of history there was not strict "cut off" point so while bronze was still being used, iron was becoming the more prevalent metal in the contemporary material culture.

Rhubarb, you seem to be saying that it's ok for you to be rude and patronising about the beliefs of people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, but it's not ok for atheists to be rude and patronising about the beliefs of other people.

Is that not somewhat hypocritical, or is it more akin to black-on-black use of the n-word?

Wow, Lucia, you rock! I never knew there was such a lack of supporting evidence regarding JC. I'm both astonished and enthralled.

Do you have any book recommendations that covers this topic in more detail?

growingup: There is no known reference to Jesus by Philo. Philo was a Roman citizen and came from one the leading Jewish families in Alexandria. If you were a Roman citizen you were a Roman by law. It should be remembered that Paul was also a Greek speaking Jew and a Roman citizen.

Read Josephus Jewish Antiquities 20:200

"And so he [Ananus the Jewish High Priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned".

Snorbs: Anything by Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby and J.D. Crossan to name but three among many.

Don't the Catholics delete that reference to James the brother of Jesus in order to sustain the idea of Mary as an eternal virgin?

they replace the word with "cousin"

It is greek so open (perhaps) to some interpretation

IIRC it is vaguely open to interpretation except not really

hmm, am not convinced the Catholic church is being entirely straight with that one... but what really gets me is the way they say the short form of the Lord's Prayer. Has caught me out every single time at every Catholic wedding and funeral I have EVER attended. And there have been a few, given my father's whole family are Catholics.

Worst time was when I was a bridesmaid for a friend who had moved to Ireland... it became clear I was the ONLY protestant in the whole congregation!

I was the opposite Edam, when I was in the Girl's Brigade. I was so confused when I finished the prayer before everyone else.

Can I worship you Lucia?

morningpaper: I think you are confusing two different texts. In Luke 1:36 the text reads as "hE Suggenis" [describes the kindred relationship between Mary, the mother of Jesus and Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptiser]. This is not specifically a cousin, the Greek word is far less specific! In Mark 6:3 the Greek word "adelphos" is used to describe Jesus' brother and "adelphi" for his sisters. These are the standard Greek terms for these different relations. So according to the Greek NT he had real flesh and blood siblings.